Online aggression is a serious social problem in the Internet era, which seriously threatens the physical and mental health of individuals. Exploring how online aggression differs from offline aggression can help us develop targeted prevention and intervention measures. However, the basic difference between online aggression and traditional offline aggression remains unclear. This study tried to address the issues from the perspective of structure and predictors by using network analysis in 1,009 Chinese college students. The dimensions of online and traditional offline aggression were utilized to detect the community. And incorporate individual and situational predictors as nodes for network analysis. The results showed that the nodes of Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire and Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire were divided into two distinct communities. The edge-weight bootstrapped difference test showed that callous-unemotional traits, trait anger, empathy, and guilt were only associated with offline aggression. Furthermore, moral disengagement and social exclusion were more closely associated with offline aggression than online aggression, while violent attitude was more associated with online aggression. These findings support and expand the Barlett and Gentile Cyberbullying Model, enhancing our comprehension of both offline and online aggression, and providing inspiration for prevention and intervention in offline and online aggression in the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MladenovićM, OšmjanskiV, StankovićSV. Cyber-aggression, cyberbullying, and cyber-grooming: A survey and research challenges. ACM Comput Surv, 2022; 54(1):1–42; doi: 10.1145/3424246
2.
OlweusD. School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 2013; 9(1):751–780; doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516
3.
BarlettCP. From theory to practice: Cyberbullying theory and its application to intervention. Comput Hum Behav, 2017; 72:269–275; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.060
4.
BarlettCP, GentileDA. Attacking others online: The formation of cyberbullying in late adolescence. Psychol Pop Media Cult, 2012; 1(2):123–135; doi: 10.1037/a0028113
5.
CenY, SuS, DongY, et al.Longitudinal effect of self‐control on reactive–proactive aggression: Mediating roles of hostile rumination and moral disengagement. Aggress Behav, 2022; 48(6):583–594; doi: 10.1002/ab.22046
6.
GuoY, LiR, XiaL. Effects of relative deprivation on change in displaced aggression and the underlying motivation mechanism: A three‐wave cross‐lagged analysis. Br J Psychol, 2024; 115(1):1–19; doi: 10.1111/bjop.12674
7.
HouY, LiX, XiaL-X. Common mechanisms underlying the effect of angry rumination on reactive and proactive aggression: A moderated mediation model. J Interpers Violence, 2024; 39(5–6):1035–1057; doi: 10.1177/08862605231201819
8.
WangC, LiX, XiaL-X. Long-term effect of cybervictimization on displaced aggressive behavior across two years: Mutually predicting mediators of hostile emotion and moral disengagement. Comput Hum Behav, 2023; 141:107611; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107611
9.
ZhuW, WangH, XiaL-X. An experimental task to measure proactive aggression under incentive condition: A Reward-Interference Task. Personal Individ Differ, 2019; 149:273–285; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.001
10.
WangL, NgaiSS. Understanding the effects of personal factors and situational factors for adolescent cyberbullying perpetration: The roles of internal states and parental mediation. J Adolesc, 2021; 89(1):28–40; doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.03.006
11.
CasperDM. Types of Traditional (Offline) Bullying. In: The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A Comprehensive and International Review of Research and Intervention, Vol. 1. Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ; 2021; pp. 96–119; doi: 10.1002/9781118482650.ch6
12.
LiebermanA, SchroederJ. Two social lives: How differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes. Curr Opin Psychol, 2020; 31:16–21; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.022
13.
EvangelioC, Rodríguez-GonzálezP, Fernández-RíoJ, et al.Cyberbullying in elementary and middle school students: A systematic review. Comput Educ, 2022; 176:104356; doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104356
14.
LiC. Traditional bullying and cyberbullying in the digital age and its associated mental health problems in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Adolesc Psychiatry, 2024.
15.
KowalskiRM, SchroederAN, GiumettiGW, et al.Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol Bull, 2014; 140(4):1073–1137.
16.
SaulnierL, KrettenauerT. Internet impropriety: Moral identity, moral disengagement, and antisocial online behavior within an early adolescent to young adult sample. J Adolesc, 2023; 95(2):264–283; doi: 10.1002/jad.12112
17.
BatmazH, TürkN, KayaA, et al.Cyberbullying and cyber victimization: Examining mediating roles of empathy and resilience. Curr Psychol, 2023; 42(35):30959–30969; doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-04134-3
18.
FaganAA. Child maltreatment and aggressive behaviors in early adolescence: Evidence of moderation by parent/child relationship quality. Child Maltreat, 2020; 25(2):182–191; doi: 10.1177/1077559519874401
19.
FallaD, RomeraEM, Ortega-RuizR. Aggression, moral disengagement and empathy. a longitudinal study within the interpersonal dynamics of bullying. Front Psychol, 2021; 12:703468; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703468
20.
RitchieMB, NeufeldRWJ, YoonM, et al.Predicting youth aggression with empathy and callous unemotional traits: A Meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev, 2022; 98:102186; doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102186
21.
WestSJ, LaskoEN, HallCJ, et al.Some revenge now or more revenge later? Applying an intertemporal framework to retaliatory aggression. Motiv Sci, 2022; 8(1):33–55; doi: 10.1037/mot0000248
22.
LevinsonCA, ZerwasS, CalebsB, et al.The core symptoms of bulimia nervosa, anxiety, and depression: A network analysis. J Abnorm Psychol, 2017; 126(3):340–354; doi: 10.1037/abn0000254
RobsonC, WitenbergRT. The influence of moral disengagement, morally based self-esteem, age, and gender on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. J Sch Violence, 2013; 12(2):211–231; doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.762921
27.
WhittakerE, KowalskiRM. Cyberbullying via social media. J Sch Violence, 2015; 14(1):11–29; doi: 10.1080/15388220.2014.949377
28.
KimM, EllithorpeM, BurtSA. Anonymity and its role in digital aggression: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav, 2023; 72:101856; doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2023.101856
29.
Marín-LópezI, ZychI, Ortega-RuizR, et al.Empathy online and moral disengagement through technology as longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2020; 116:105144; doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105144
30.
GrafD, YanagidaT, SpielC. Sensation Seeking’s differential role in face-to-face and cyberbullying: Taking perceived contextual properties into account. Front Psychol, 2019; 10:1572; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01572
31.
Mateus FranciscoS, Costa FerreiraP, Veiga SimãoAM, et al.Moral disengagement and empathy in cyberbullying: How they are related in reflection activities about a serious game. BMC Psychol, 2024; 12(1):168; doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-01582-3
32.
TennakoonH, SaridakisG, ChandrakumaraA, et al.Exploring the effects of personal and situational factors on cyber aggression. Cyberpsychology, 2024; 18(3).
33.
BarlettCP, CoyneSM. Learning to cyberbully: Longitudinal relations between cyberbullying attitudes and perpetration and the moderating influence of participant sex: A brief report. Aggress Behav, 2023; 49(5):547–553; doi: 10.1002/ab.22089
34.
FinkelEJ, HallAN. The I3 Model: A metatheoretical framework for understanding aggression. Curr Opin Psychol, 2018; 19:125–130; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.013
35.
MassaAA, MaloneyMA, EckhardtCI. Interventions for perpetrators of intimate partner violence: An I3 Model Perspective. Partn Abuse, 2020; 11.
36.
GoodnightJA, WilhoitSA, ReceveurA. Social learning theory and the development of aggression. In: The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression. Wiley; 2017; doi: 10.1002/9781119057574.whbva039
37.
BanduraA, BarbaranelliC, CapraraGV, et al.Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1996.
38.
FunkJB, ElliottR, UrmanML, et al.The attitudes towards violence scale: A measure for adolescents. J Interpers Violence, 1999; 14(11):1123–1136; doi: 10.1177/088626099014011001
39.
MaxwellJP, SukhodolskyDG, SitCHP. Preliminary validation of a Chinese version of the State‐Trait Anger Expression Inventory‐2. Asian J of Social Psycho, 2009; 12(1):1–11; doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.01264.x
40.
GilmanR, Carter-SowellA, DeWallCN, et al.Validation of the ostracism experience scale for adolescents. Psychol Assess, 2013; 25(2):319–330; doi: 10.1037/a0030913
41.
BernsteinDP, SteinJA, NewcombMD, et al.Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse Negl, 2003; 27(2):169–190; doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00541-0
42.
KimonisER, FrickPJ, SkeemJL, et al.Assessing callous–unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits. Int J Law Psychiatry, 2008; 31(3):241–252; doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.04.002
43.
AquinoK, ReedII A. The self-importance of moral identity. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2002; 83(6):1423–1440; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
44.
GengY, XiaD, QinB. The basic empathy scale: A Chinese validation of a measure of empathy in adolescents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev, 2012; 43(4):499–510; doi: 10.1007/s10578-011-0278-6
45.
CohenTR, WolfST, PanterAT, et al.Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2011; 100(5):947–966; doi: 10.1037/a0022641
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.
