This study aims to understand whether the relationships adolescent bystanders of cyberbullying have with the victim and other bystanders and their self-efficacy beliefs may affect their use of aggressive language online. Students (676, Mage = 14.10, SD = 2.74, 55.5% male) answered questions about social media use, self-efficacy to solve cyberbullying situations, interpersonal relationships, and their use of verbal aggression to communicate online. Through structural equation modeling, results demonstrated that having a relationship with the victim or other bystanders mediated the relationship between observing cyberbullying behavior and bystanders’ use of aggressive language online. The effect of observing cyberbullying behavior through having a relationship with the victim or other bystanders was lower than its direct effect on adolescent bystanders’ use of aggressive language. Self-efficacy beliefs mediated the relationship between having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders and adolescents’ use of aggressive language online. Implications for intervention in interpersonal communication online are proposed.
AllisonKRBusseyK (2017) Individual and collective moral influences on intervention in cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior74: 7–15.
2.
AnkerAEFeeleyTH (2011) Are nonparticipants in prosocial behavior merely innocent bystanders?Health Communication26(1): 13–24.
3.
BanduraA (1988) Perceived self-efficacy: exercise of control through self-belief. In: DauwalderJPPerrezMHobiV (eds) Annual Series of European Research in Behavior Therapy, Vol. 2. Amsterdam; Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 27–59.
4.
BanduraA (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology52(1): 1–26.
5.
BanduraA (2002) Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education31(2): 101–119.
6.
BanduraA (2006) Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In: PajaresFUrdanT (eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 1–43.
7.
BanduraA (2008) An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In: LopezSJ (ed.) Positive Psychology: Exploring the Best in People, Discovering Human Strengths. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 167–196.
8.
BarchiaKBusseyK (2011) Predictors of student defenders of peer aggression victims: empathy and social cognitive factors. International Journal of Behavioral Development35(4): 289–297.
9.
BaronRARichardsonDR (1994) Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press.
10.
BastiaensensSPabianSVandeboschH, et al. (2016) From normative influence to social pressure: how relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development25(1): 193–211.
11.
BastiaensensSVandeboschHPoelsK, et al. (2014) Cyberbullying on social network sites: an experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior31: 259–271.
12.
BaumanS (2013) Cyberbullying: what does research tell us?Theory into Practice52(4): 249–256.
BerneSFrisénASchultze-KrumbholzA, et al. (2013) Cyberbullying assessment instruments: a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior18(2): 320–334.
15.
BlairCAFoster ThompsonLWuenschKL (2005) Electronic helping behavior: the virtual presence of others makes a difference. Basic and Applied Social Psychology27(2): 171–178.
16.
BrodyNVangelistiAL (2016) Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs83(1): 94–119.
17.
BrowneMWCudeckR (1989) Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research24(4): 445–455.
18.
BurnsSMaycockBCrossD, et al. (2008) The power of peers: why some students bully others to conform. Qualitative Health Research18(12): 1704–1716.
19.
CappadociaMCPeplerDCummingsJG, et al. (2012) Individual motivations and characteristics associated with bystander intervention during bullying episodes among children and youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology27(3): 201–216.
20.
CarloGHausmannAChristiansenS, et al. (2003) Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence23: 107–134.
21.
CrickNRDodgeKA (1996) Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development67(3): 993–1002.
22.
DeSmetABastiaensensSVan CleemputK, et al. (2016) Deciding whether to look after them, to like it, or leave it: a multidimensional analysis of predictors of positive and negative bystander behavior in cyberbullying among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior57: 398–415.
23.
DeSmetAVeldemanCPoelsK, et al. (2014) Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking17(4): 207–215.
24.
DooleyJJPyżalskiJCrossD (2009) Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology217(4): 182–188.
25.
ErreygersSPabianSVandeboschH, et al. (2016) Helping behavior among adolescent bystanders of cyberbullying: the role of impulsivity. Learning and Individual Differences48: 61–67.
26.
FerreiraPCVeiga SimãoAMPaivaA, et al. (2019) Responsive bystander behaviour in cyberbullying: a path through self-efficacy. Behaviour & Information Technology58: 12–23.
27.
FishbeinMAjzenI (2011) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
28.
FoodyMMcGuireLKuldasS, et al. (2019) Friendship quality and gender differences in association with cyberbullying involvement and psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology10: 1723.
29.
FranciscoSMVeiga SimãoAMFerreiraPC, et al. (2015) Cyberbullying: The hidden side of college students. Computers in Human Behavior43: 167–182.
30.
GilesH (2012) The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. New York: Routledge.
31.
GilesHMaassA (2016) Advances in Intergroup Communication. Bern: Peter Lang.
32.
GradingerPStrohmeierDSpielC (2010) Definition and measurement of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace4(2). Available at: https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4235/3280 (accessed 5 July 2019).
33.
HooperDCoughlanJMullenM (2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods6(1): 53–60. Available at: https://arrow.dit.ie/libart/4/ (accessed 27 October 2018).
34.
KeblusekLGilesHMaassA (2017) Communication and group life: how language and symbols shape intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations20(5): 632–643.
35.
KönigLJucksR (2019) Hot topics in science communication: aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science28(4): 401–416.
36.
KubiszewskiVFontaineRPotardC, et al. (2015) Does cyberbullying overlap with school bullying when taking modality of involvement into account?Computers in Human Behavior43: 49–57.
37.
LatanéBDarleyJM (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help?New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
38.
LawsheCH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology28: 563–575.
39.
LeeSHKimHW (2015) Why people post benevolent and malicious comments online. Communications of the ACM58(11): 74–79.
40.
LivingstoneSSmithPK (2014) Annual research review: harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry55(6): 635–654.
41.
LocherMA (2010) Introduction: politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture6(1): 1–5.
42.
MacháčkováHPfetschJ (2016) Bystanders’ responses to offline bullying and cyberbullying: the role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology57(2): 169–176.
43.
MacháčkováHDedkovaLSevcikovaA, et al. (2013) Bystanders’ support of cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology23(1): 25–36.
MehariKRFarrellADLeATH (2014) Cyberbullying among adolescents: measures in search of a construct. Psychology of Violence4(4): 399–415.
46.
ObermaierMFawziNKochT (2016) Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media & Society18(8): 491–1507.
47.
Olenik-ShemeshDHeimanTEdenS (2017) Bystanders’ behavior in cyberbullying episodes: active and passive patterns in the context of personal-socio-emotional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence32(1): 23–48.
48.
PabianSVandeboschH (2014) Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand cyberbullying: the importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology11(4): 463–477.
49.
PabianSVandeboschHPoelsK, et al. (2016) Exposure to cyberbullying as a bystander: an investigation of desensitization effects among early adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior62: 480–487.
50.
ParvareshVTayebiT (2018) Impoliteness, aggression and the moral order. Journal of Pragmatics132: 91–107.
51.
PastorelliCCapraraGVBarbaranelliC, et al. (2001) The structure of children’s perceived self-efficacy: a cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment17(2): 87–97.
52.
PatchinJWHindujaS (2015) Measuring cyberbullying: implications for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior23: 69–74.
53.
PattersonLJAllanACrossD (2017a) Adolescent perceptions of bystanders’ responses to cyberbullying. New Media & Society19(3): 366–383.
54.
PattersonLJAllanACrossD (2017b) Adolescent bystander behavior in the school and online environments and the implications for interventions targeting cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence16(4): 361–375.
55.
PothaNMaragoudakisMLyrasD (2016) A biology-inspired, data mining framework for extracting patterns in sexual cyberbullying data. Knowledge-Based Systems96: 134–155.
56.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
57.
RancerA (2009) Aggressive communication. In: ReisHTSprecherS (eds) Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 65–68.
58.
RancerASNicoteraAM (2007) Aggressive communication. In: WhaleyBBSamterW (eds) Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 129–147.
59.
RaykovTMarcoulidesGA (1999) On desirability of parsimony in structural equation model selection. Structural Equation Modeling6: 292–300.
60.
RogoffB (1995) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation and apprenticeship. In: WertschJVdel RioPAlvarezA (eds) Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–164.
61.
RösnerLWinterSKrämerNC (2016) Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior58: 461–470.
62.
SchacterHLGreenbergSJuvonenJ (2016) Who’s to blame? The effects of victim disclosure on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior57: 115–121.
63.
SillarsAVangelistiA (2009) Communication processes, verbal. In: ReisHTSprecherS (eds) Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 267–271.
64.
SouzaSBVeiga SimãoAMFerreiraAI, et al. (2018) University students’ perceptions of campus climate, cyberbullying and cultural issues: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education43(11): 2072–2087.
65.
StadlerCPoustkaFSterzerP (2010) The heterogeneity of disruptive behavior disorders: implications for neurobiological research and treatment. Frontiers in Psychiatry1: 21.
66.
ThornbergRJungertT (2013) Bystander behavior in bullying situations: basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence36: 475–483.
67.
Van Der HeideBWaltherJB (2009) Computer-mediated communication. In: ReisHTSprecherS (eds) Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 291–293.
68.
Veiga SimãoAVFerreiraPCFreireI, et al. (2017) Adolescent cybervictimization - Who they turn to and their perceived school climate. Journal of Adolescence58: 12–23.
69.
VygotskyL (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
70.
WhittakerEKowalskiRM (2015) Cyberbullying via social media. Journal of School Violence14(1): 11–29.
71.
WilsonFRPanWSchumskyDA (2012) Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development45(3): 197–210.
72.
YbarraMBoydDKorchmarosJ, et al. (2012) Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health51: 53–58.
