Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
Differential Associations Between Cyberbullying Victimization and Three Types of Cyberbullying Bystander Behavioral Processes: Three-Level Meta-Analyses
The study conducts the three-level meta-analyses to examine associations between cyberbullying victimization and three types of cyberbullying bystander behavioral processes: negative engagement, passive outsider, and positive engagement. A total of 86 effect sizes from 38 studies were included, involving 32,391 participants. Studies on the association between cyberbullying victimization and bystander behavioral processes, published before September 30, 2024, were systematically identified via Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, and CNKI, including only quantitative studies reporting sufficient effect size data. The results indicated that individuals with cyberbullying victimization showed greater bystander involvement. Specifically, cyberbullying victimization was significantly positively associated with bystander negative engagement behavioral processes. This association was stronger in samples with older participants, a higher percentage of females, and more recent publication years. Although the overall association between cyberbullying victimization and positive bystander behavioral processes was non-significant, moderator analysis revealed cyberbullying victimization was positively associated with aggressive and constructive interventions, but not with general helping. Moreover, the overall association was stronger in samples with a higher percentage of females. No significant association was found between cyberbullying victimization and passive outsider behavioral processes, and no moderators were significant.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
3.
AssinkM.van der PutC. E.MeeuwsenM.de JongN. M.OortF. J.StamsG.HoeveM. (2019). Risk factors for child sexual abuse victimization: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 145(5), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000188
4.
AvşarF.Ayaz-AlkayaS. (2024). Effect of a multi-model based intervention on bullying prevention through peer advocacy. Current Psychology, 43, 21383–21392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05874-0
5.
BanduraA. (1976). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
6.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis, Chapter 7: Converting among effect sizes. Wiley.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6
9.
BusseyK.LuoA.FitzpatrickS.AllisonK. (2020). Defending victims of cyberbullying: The role of self-efficacy and moral disengagement. Journal of School Psychology, 78, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.11.006
10.
CaoB.LinW. (2015). How do victims react to cyberbullying on social networking sites? The influence of previous cyberbullying victimization experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.009
11.
ChenQ. (2024). Reactions of adolescent cyber bystanders toward different victims of cyberbullying: the role of parental rearing behaviors. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 377. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01879-3
12.
ChuX. W. (2020). The bystander effect in cyberbullying – A study based on network groups [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Central China Normal University.
13.
CohenJ. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 115–159.
14.
CookR. D.WeisbergS. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. Chapman & Hall.
15.
CuiK.XieH.PengH. (2023). How past cyber victimization affects bystanders’ position taking in offline bullying situations: A moderated mediation model of self-concept and social support. School Mental Health, 15, 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09557-8
DingH.ZhaoC.HuangF.WeiH.LeiL. (2025). Do cyberbullying victims feel more entitled to bully others online? The moderating role of gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(11–12), 2538–2555. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241275991
ErreygersS.PabianS.VandeboschH.BaillienE. (2016). Helping behavior among adolescent bystanders of cyberbullying: The role of impulsivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.03.003
20.
Escortell-SánchezR.Caba-MachadoV.MachimbarrenaJ. M.González-AbaurreaE.Sevilla-FernándezD.González-CabreraJ. (2025). Longitudinal associations between cybervictimization, cyberperpetration, and cyberbystanding: Cross-lagged panel analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 18, Article 100662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100662
21.
FergusonC. J.BrannickM. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024445
22.
FerreiraP. C.Veiga SimãoA. M.PaivaA.MartinhoC.PradaR.RochaJ. (2022). Serious game-based psychosocial intervention to foster prosociality in cyberbullying bystanders. Psychosocial Intervention, 31(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2022a5
23.
ForsbergC.ThornbergR.SamuelssonM. (2014). Bystanders to bullying: Fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.878375
24.
GouldnerA. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. AmericanSociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
25.
HayashiY.TahmasbiN. (2022). Psychological predictors of bystanders’ intention to help cyberbullying victims among college students: An application of theory of planned behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), NP11333–NP11357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521992158
26.
HessM.Schultze-KrumbholzA.ScheithauerH. (2020). Effects of the preventive intervention program “Media Heroes” on the association between traditional and cyberbullying and internalizing problems. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 29(2), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1026/0942-5403/a000307
HuangX. Y. (2022). Influence of ingroup favoritism on willingness to actively intervene in cyberbullying bystanders (Unpublished master’s thesis). Fuzhou University.
29.
HuangY.ChouC. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1581–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005
JeongR.GilbertsonM.RiffleL. N.DemarayM. K. (2024). Participant role behavior in cyberbullying: An examination of moral disengagement among college students. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00137-7
32.
JiaY.WuY.JinT.ZhangL. (2022). How are bystanders involved in cyberbullying? A latent class analysis of the cyberbystander and their characteristics in different intervention stages. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), Article 16083. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316083
33.
KankarašM.CapecchiS. (2025). Neither agree nor disagree: Use and misuse of the neutral response category in Likert-type scales. METRON, 83, 111–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40300-024-00276-5
34.
KasturiratnaK. T. A. S.HartantoA.ChenC. H. Y.TongE. M. W.MajeedN. M. (2025). Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences, and interventions of cyberbullying victimization. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 101–132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02011-6
35.
KazerooniF.TaylorS. H.BazarovaN. N.WhitlockJ. (2018). Cyberbullying bystander intervention: The number of offenders and retweeting predict likelihood of helping a cyberbullying victim. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(3), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy005
36.
LatanéB.DarleyJ. M. (1969). Bystander “apathy”. American Scientist, 57(2), 244–268.
37.
LiJ.HuebnerE. S.TianL. (2024). Linking childhood maltreatment to cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: A systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 156, Article 108199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108199
38.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
39.
LuoA.BusseyK. (2019). The selectivity of moral disengagement in defenders of cyberbullying: Contextual moral disengagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.038
40.
MafteiA.MăireanC. (2023). Not so funny after all! Humor, parents, peers, and their link with cyberbullying experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, Article 107448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107448
41.
MerliciI. A.MafteiA. (2024). The moral maze of cyberbullying: Navigating the roles of victims, bystanders, and perpetrators in the cycle of harm. Deviant Behavior, 46(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2024.2327563
42.
MoxeyN.BusseyK. (2020). Styles of bystander intervention in cyberbullying incidents. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00039-1
43.
NagarP. M.LeducK.KhaliliN.TalwarV. (2022). Cyber-bystander behavior among Canadian and Iranian youth: The influence of bystander type and relationship to the perpetrator on moral responsibility. Frontiers in Communication, 7, Article 796146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.796146
44.
Olenik-ShemeshD.HeimanT.EdenS. (2017). Bystanders’ behavior in cyberbullying episodes: Active and passive patterns in the context of personal-socio-emotional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515585531
45.
OrwinR. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139–162). Russell Sage Foundation.
46.
PetersonR. A.BrownS. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
47.
PiliavinJ. A.DovidioJ.GaertnerS. L.ClarkR. D. I. (1981). Emergency intervention. Academic Press.
48.
RajchertJ.KonopkaK.OręziakH.DziechciarskaW. (2023). Direct and displaced aggression after exclusion: Role of gender differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163(1), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2042173
49.
RochatM. J. (2023). Sex and gender differences in the development of empathy. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 101(5), 718–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.25009
50.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Sage.
51.
ShiC.RenZ.ZhaoC.ZhangT.ChanS. H. W. (2021). Shame, guilt, and posttraumatic stress symptoms: A three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 82, Article 102443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102443
52.
SobolM.PrzepiórkaA.BłachnioA. (2025). Factors contributing to the defending behavior of adolescent cyberbystanders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 162, Article 108463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108463
53.
SongJ.OhI. (2018). Factors influencing bystanders’ behavioral reactions in cyberbullying situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.008
54.
SteinvikH. R.DuffyA. L.Zimmer-GembeckM. J. (2023). Bystanders’ responses to witnessing cyberbullying: The role of empathic distress, empathic anger, and compassion. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00164-y
55.
ThornbergR.HalldinK.BolmsjöN.PeterssonA. (2013). Victimising of school bullying: A grounded theory. Research Papers in Education, 28(3), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.641999
56.
ThornbergR.LandgrenL.WimanE. (2018). “It depends”: A qualitative study on how adolescent students explain bystander intervention and non-intervention in bullying situations. School Psychology International, 39(4), 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318779225
57.
TianX.HuebnerE. S.TianL. (2025). Defending behavior in bullying and defenders’ psychosocial outcomes among children and adolescents: A series of three-level meta-analyses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-025-02176-x
58.
TriversR. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection (Vol. 136, p. 179). Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.
Valdés-CuervoA. A.Alcántar-NieblasC.Parra-PérezL. G.Torres-AcuñaG. M.Álvarez-MonteroF. J.Reyes-SosaH. (2021). Unique and interactive effects of guilt and sympathy on bystander aggressive defender intervention in cyberbullying: The mediation of selfregulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106842
61.
Van CleemputK.VandeboschH.PabianS. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine “helping,” “joining in,” and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21534
62.
Veiga SimãoA. M.FerreiraP. C.PereiraN.OliveiraS.PaulinoP.RosaH.RibeiroR.CoheurL.CarvalhoJ. P.TrancosoI. (2021). Prosociality in cyberspace: Developing emotion and behavioral regulation to decrease aggressive communication. Cognitive Computation, 13(3), 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09852-7
63.
ViechtbauerW.CheungM. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
64.
WangQ.FanC.ChuX. (2020). The relationship between adolescent cybervictimization and cyberbullying: A moderated mediated model. Psychological Development and Education, 36(2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2020.02.11
65.
WangQ.LinY.TeuberZ.LiF.SuY. (2023). Parental burnout and prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents: The role of empathy. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 14(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010017
66.
WangS. (2025). Choosing to get involved: Examining the psychological mechanisms underlying bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000626
67.
WangS.KimK. J. (2021). Effects of victimization experience, gender, and empathic distress on bystanders’ intervening behavior in cyberbullying. The Social Science Journal, 61(4), 853–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1861826
68.
XuW.ZhaoB.JinC. (2024). A meta-analysis of the relationship between personality traits and cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 79, Article 101992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101992
69.
ZengY.XiaoJ.LiD.SunJ.ZhangQ.MaA.QiK.ZuoB.LiuX. (2023). The influence of victim self-disclosure on bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 13(10), 829. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13100829
70.
ZhangY. L.LiS.YuG. L. (2019). The relationship between self-esteem and social anxiety: A meta-analysis with Chinese students. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(6), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01005
71.
ZhangY. L.LiS.YuG. L. (2021). The relationship between social media use and fear of missing out: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00273
72.
ZhaoY.ChuX.RongK. (2023). Cyberbullying experience and bystander behavior in cyberbullying incidents: The serial mediating roles of perceived incident severity and empathy. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, Article 107484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107484
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
