Are Cyberbullies Less Empathic? Adolescents' Cyberbullying Behavior and Empathic Responsiveness

Abstract

Meta-analyses confirm a negative relationship between aggressive behavior and empathy, that is, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Based on theoretical considerations, it was, therefore, hypothesized that a lack of empathic responsiveness may be characteristic for cyberbullies in particular. In the present study, 2.070 students of Luxembourg secondary schools completed an online survey that included a cyberbullying questionnaire⁴ and a novel empathy short scale. According to the main hypothesis, analyses of variances indicated that cyberbullies demonstrated less empathic responsiveness than non-cyberbullies. In addition, cyberbullies were also more afraid of becoming victims of cyberbullying. The findings confirm and substantially extend the research on the relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior. From an educational point of view, the present findings suggest that training of empathy skills might be an important tool to decrease cyberbullying.

Introduction

Cyberbullying is a recent phenomenon resulting from the advancement of new communication technologies. It has been described as the deliberate and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices,¹ carried out as an aggressive act by a group or individual, against a victim who cannot easily defend himself.² A great number of electronic communication tools provide opportunities for cyberbullying, including cell phones (e.g., text messages, pictures/video clips) or the Internet (e.g., email, instant messaging, and chat rooms).

Unlike traditional bullies, cyberbullies can benefit from greater anonymity, and many victims may not have the knowledge or administrator rights to identify the user of an anonymous email account or a mobile phone card.¹ In addition, cyberbullies have a stronger feeling of power and imperviousness to sanctions than traditional bullies. Altogether, cyberbullying appears to be a more pervasive phenomenon, which may occur anywhere and at any time.³ With regard to current communication technologies, there is no place for cybervictims to hide. In contrast, perpetrators benefit from the breadth of the audience and a greater invisibility compared with traditional forms.

Irrespective of the differences just mentioned, the question emerges as to whether cyberbullying is a covert form of psychological bullying.⁴ If so, then the same causal risk and protection factors or psychosocial correlates of becoming the target or the perpetrator of traditional bullying might also apply to cyberbullying. In line with this notion, recent studies suggested that students' roles in traditional bullying predicted the same behavior in cyberbullying.^4–7

Cyberbullying and empathy

Empathy can be defined as sharing another person's emotional state,^8,9 for example, when observing another person in distress. Hoffman¹⁰ sees empathy as a feeling that fits someone else's condition more than one's own, but this feeling does not have to match that of the other person exactly. For example, empathic persons may observe an angry friend and feel themselves angry or sad or compassionate, depending on the situation and the reason that caused the angry feeling of the friend.

Other approaches suggest that empathy involves both an emotional and a cognitive dimension. Here, empathy is defined as the ability to understand and share another person's emotional state or context.¹¹ Although no consensus has yet been reached among researchers, it is suggested to conceptualize empathy as a multidimensional construct with cognitive and emotional components^12,13 that have to be taken into account to understand empathy as a fundamental emotional ability or personality trait that differs between individuals and develops from the cradle on.^10,14

Two meta-analyses confirmed the negative relationship between antisocial behavior and empathy.^13,15 Both cognitive and emotional empathy were shown to mitigate aggressive behavior.¹³ To date, however, research has mainly focused on the link between empathy and aggression in general, and few studies addressed the empathic skills of traditional bullies. These studies revealed an inconsistent pattern. Some studies reported a weak-to-moderate negative relationship between empathy and bullying others.^16–20 Other studies found a significant difference between prosocial children and bullies, but this difference disappeared when controlling for sex.²¹ Also, a negative relationship between empathy and bullying was observed either only for boys²² or only for girls (for affective empathy).¹⁹ Further, differences in trait empathy were found between bullies and non-bullies for boys regarding violent bullying and for girls regarding indirect bullying.¹⁹

As just mentioned, cyberbullies can remain more anonymous and distant than traditional face-to-face bullies and, hence, will less likely observe the immediate consequences of their behavior. Therefore, cyberbullies may even experience less empathy for their victims than traditional bullies.²³ Alternatively, cyberbullying may particularly attract persons with low trait empathy. However, first research findings are inconsistent. In one study, cyberbullies were not found to have a lack of empathy in comparison to victims, bully victims, and non-involved persons,²⁴ which is at odds with findings on traditional bullying. In contrast, another study found lower peer-estimated values of empathy for cyberbullies than for non-cyberbullies, although the sample size was quite small (N=71).²⁵ A third study used self-reports to measure empathy and cyberbullying and found a weak negative relationship between the constructs for the overall sample.²⁶ In all three studies, empathy was understood as a general personality trait and not directly related to a specific ability to understand and share another person's emotional state in the context of current communication technologies.

In sum, the empirical basis is still sparse. Findings are inconsistent and based on trait measures of general empathy. Studies are also limited, in part, for reasons of sample size. Therefore, no clear conclusion can be drawn about the relationship between empathy and cyberbullying. Nevertheless, this question is especially interesting, because low empathy can be considered a risk factor for aggressive or offending behavior in general.^13,15 If empathy turns out to be negatively related to cyberbullying as well, prevention efforts should include a training of empathy for cyber victims to diminish cyberbullying.

Given the shortcomings in the literature, the aim of the present study was to examine further the role of empathy for cyberbullying. In particular, the hypothesis was tested that cyberbullies show less empathy than non-cyberbullies (see also ref.²⁷). Drawing from the literature about traditional bullying and empathy, we hypothesized to find a negative relationship not only between empathy and traditional bullying but also between empathy and cyberbullying. In addition, age and sex differences for this relationship were explored, along with potential influences of the location of cyberbullying (inside or outside of school), medium of cyberbullying (internet or mobile phone), and bullying status (being a traditional and cyberbully simultaneously).

Method

Participants and procedure

The sample consisted of 2,070 students. A total of 941 (45.5 percent) boys and 1.127 (54.5 percent) girls who attended 7th to 13th grade classes in Luxembourg public secondary schools (56.9 percent were 7th to 9th graders) participated (2 missing values). A total of 73.3 percent (or 22 of 30) of all secondary schools in Luxembourg participated. The mean age of the sample was 15.9 years (SD=2.3; range: 12–24). Participants received school permission to participate before data were collected using an anonymous online survey. Classes were tested as a whole with students working on separate PCs in computer science rooms. Students participated voluntarily and without remuneration. They were assured that data would be treated confidentially and were allowed to end the study whenever they wanted. Only a few participants (1.1 percent) had to be excluded from analyses because of missing data.

Of all the participants, 68.1 percent had Internet access at school, 94.6 percent at home, 39.6 percent at a friend's place, and 7.2 percent at other places. 93.2 percent reported having their own mobile phone. 54.1 percent indicated spending “more than 1 hour/day” on the internet; 34.3 percent, “several hours a week”; 7.9 percent, “several hours per month”; and 3.8 percent, “never or almost never.”

Measures

Cyberbullying questionnaire

A German short version of the cyberbullying questionnaire was used.² Each of the 30 items used a 6-point ordinal scale (almost daily, several times a week, about once a week, about once a month, 1–3 times a year, never). Students indicated how often they had become victims, perpetrators, or witnesses of traditional or cyberbullying, in the current school year (the study was conducted at the end of the school year). Then, participants were asked how often they had become victims of cyberbullying or actively cyberbullied others, both inside or outside school, and for each of six media types (i.e., text message, picture/video clip, phone call, email, websites/chat room, or instant messaging). For the purpose of this study, students who indicated having bullied others at least “about once a month” during the previous year were categorized as “(cyber)bullies.”

Empathy scale

A novel scale was designed for the present study. Lack of empathy was measured with three items specific to the context of cyberbullying. Students indicated their agreement to statements on a 5-point Likert scale (fully agree, slightly agree, partly agree/disagree, slightly disagree, totally disagree; see Table 1).²⁸

Table 1.

Scales, Item Wordings, and Statistical Values

Item	r_it	Conbach's α
Lack of empathy		0.69
I find websites that make fun of other people funny/amusing.	0.46
Persons being harassed or threatened via cell phone or internet deserve so.	0.57
Everyone should be allowed to spread anything he wants via his own website.	0.47
Preference for “virtual” contacts		0.68
I have more online friends than normal friends.	0.51
It's easier to make friends online than in everyday life/real life.	0.46
I use my cell phone more often to send others text messages than to speak with them directly.	0.51
Fear of cyber victimization		0.79
I am afraid of being harassed or threatened via cell phone or internet.	0.59
I feel physically bad/sick, because I'm being harassed or threatened by cell phone or internet.	0.62
I often do not want to go to school, because I'm being harassed or threatened.	0.70

In addition, fear of cyber victimization and preference for “virtual” contacts were tested with three items each, using the same Likert scale.

Demographic questionnaire

Students recorded their sex, age, and overall years in school.

Results

Traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy

To test for overall mean differences in cyberbullying, a series of 2×2 (bullies vs. non-bullies; boys vs. girls) analyses of variances (ANOVAs) was performed, with empathy for the cybervictim serving as the dependent variable. Cyberbullies showed a greater lack of empathy for others being victimized than non-cyberbullies (F_{(1, 2,065)}=29.71; p<0.001). However, no differences were found between victims and non-victims of cyberbullying (F_{(1, 2,065)}=0.17; p=0.68; see Table 2 for group means). There was no significant effect for sex (F_{(1, 2,065)}=1.84; p=0.18) and no significant interaction (F_{(1, 2,065)}=1.91; p=0.17).

Table 2.

Mean Preference for “Virtual” Contacts, Lack of Empathy, and Fear of Cyber Victimization for Cyberbullies and Non-Cyberbullies

	Non-cyberbullies	Cyberbullies	F	p
Preference for “virtual” contacts	2.47 (1.05)	2.83 (1.12)	10.90	<0.01
Lack of empathy	2.31 (1.04)	2.72 (1.06)	29.71	<0.001
Fear of cyber victimization	1.96 (1.11)	2.39 (1.36)	14.44	<0.001

	Non-victim of cyberbullying	Victim of cyberbullying
Cyberbullying
Preference for “virtual” contacts	2.61 (1.02)	2.67 (0.95)	1.27	n.s.
Lack of empathy	2.37 (1.06)	2.28 (1.00)	0.17	n.s.
Fear of cyber victimization	1.96 (1.14)	2.11 (1.03)	4.13	<0.05

Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

n.s., not significant.

With regard to traditional bullying, a similar pattern of results was observed. A greater lack of empathy was found for bullies than for non-bullies (F_{(1, 2,063)}=61.39; p<0.001) and for boys than for girls (F_{(1, 2,063)}=6.06; p<0.05). The interaction was not significant (F_{(1, 2,063)}=1.06; p=0.30).

However, bullying behavior of both, boys (F_{(1, 937)}=28.57; p<0.001) and girls (F_{(1, 1125)}=33.25; p<0.001), was significantly associated with a greater lack of empathy. Again, no differences were found between victims and non-victims of bullying (see Table 3 for group means).

Table 3.

Mean Preference for “Virtual” Contacts, Lack of Empathy, and Fear of Cyber Victimization for Bullies, Non-Bullies, Victims, and Non-Victims

	Non-bullies	Bullies	F	p
Preference for“virtual” contacts	2.60 (1.02)	2.65 (0.96)	1.21	n.s.
Lack of empathy	2.28 (1.03)	2.84 (1.05)	61.39	<0.001
Anxiousness about being cyberbullied	1.99 (1.13)	1.98 (1.13)	0.03	n.s.

	Non-victim of bullying	Victim of bullying
Preference for “virtual” contacts	2.59 (1.01)	2.68 (0.97)	3.13	n.s.
Lack of empathy	2.42 (0.99)	2.46 (0.96)	0.44	n.s.
Anxiousness about being cyberbullied	1.93 (1.13)	2.11 (1.11)	9.14	<0.01

Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

n.s., not significant.

Of N=103 cyberbullies, 82.5 percent were also traditional bullies (N=85). To test whether being both traditional and cyberbully adds to the effect, a 2×2 ANOVA was performed for the subsample of cyberbullies only. Results showed a marginally significant main effect indicating a greater lack of empathy for cyberbullies who were also traditional bullies compared with nonbullies (F_{(1, 102)}=1.95; p=0.05). Both the main effect for sex (F_{(1, 102)}=1.81; p=0.18) and the interaction effect were not significant (F_{(1, 102)}=2.16; p=0.15).

No significant correlations were found between age and lack of empathy (r=0.03; p=0.08, N=2,052), or between age and the intensity of cyberbullying (r=0.02 [Kendall's Tau]; p=0.29, N=2,047). Also, an ANOVA comparing different age groups among cyberbullies yielded no significant differences in their lack of empathy (F_{(4, 99)}=1.87; p=0.12; see Table 4).

Table 4.

Mean Lack of Empathy for Different Age Groups of Cyberbullies

Age	M	n
12–13	2.88 (1.40)	17
14–15	2.51 (1.13)	36
16–17	2.98 (0.96)	15
18–19	3.19 (1.07)	21
20–24	3.39 (1.24)	11

Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

Compared with non-victims, victims of traditional bullying were also more afraid of becoming cybervictims (F_{(1, 2,062)}=9.14; p<0.01, for the main effect, see Table 3 for group means). This is especially true for the female sample (F_{(1, 1127)}=22.32; p<0.001). Also, cyberbullies were more afraid of being cyber-victimized themselves (F_{(1, 2,063)}=14.44; p<0.001; see Table 2). Although in the 2×2 (cyberbullies vs. noncyberbullies; boys vs. girls) ANOVA, the main effect for sex (F_{(1, 2,063)}=2.89; p=.095) and the interaction effect (F_{(1, 2,063)}=3.20; p=.074) were only marginally significant, a test of the simple main effects showed that this was only true for female (F_{(1, 1126)}=17.35; p<0.001), but not for male cyberbullies (F_{(1, 936)}=1.81; p=.18).

Empathy and cyberbullying via mobile phone or Internet

Two 2×2 (cyberbullies vs. non-cyberbullies; boys vs. girls) ANOVAs were performed to further explore the differences in empathy depending on the specific media used for perpetration. A group variable for “Internet bullies” was computed by combining bullying behavior using chat rooms, email, and instant messengers. In contrast, “mobile phone bullies” comprised bullying via mobile phone calls, sending pictures or short messages to the victim. Both mobile phone bullies (F_{(1, 2,065)}=44.20; p<0.001, for the main effect) and Internet bullies (F_{(1, 2,065)}=31.61; p<0.001, for the main effect) showed a greater lack of empathy than did non-cyberbullies. Additionally, the ANOVA comparing Internet bullies to nonbullies indicated a significant sex difference with men showing a greater lack of empathy than women (F_{(1, 2,064)}=9.86; p<0.01).

Empathy and cyberbullying inside or outside of school

An equivalent grouping variable was computed for cyberbullies perpetrating from inside versus outside school. Again, two 2×2 ANOVA indicated that cyberbullies both within school (F_{(1, 2,060)}=48.27; p<0.001, for the main effect) and outside school (F_{(1, 2,064)}=46.45; p<0.001, for the main effect) showed a greater lack of empathy than noncyberbullies. In addition, and with regard to cyberbullies outside school, boys showed a significantly greater lack of empathy than girls (F_{(1, 2,064)}=7.88; p<0.01).

Empathy and cyberbullying: being both bully and victim

It has been argued that differences in empathy between bullies and non-bullies may result from the inclusion of persons who are both cyberbullies and victims of cyberbullying.²⁴ This was tested by splitting the sample into four groups, taking into account their status both as victims and perpetrators. The resulting four groups (neither cyberbully nor victim: “non-involved,” cybervictim-only, cyberbully-only, and “cyberbully and victim”) were compared in a 4×2 ANOVA with sex as second independent variable. Results show a significant main effect on lack of empathy for the created grouping variable regarding the perpetrator/victim status (F_{(3, 2,056)}=10.87; p<0.001, see Table 5 for group means), but not for sex (F_{(1, 2,056)}=2.79; p=.10; F_{(3, 2,056)}=1.05; p=.37, for the interaction).

Table 5.

Mean Lack of Empathy for the Different Roles in Cyberbullying

	Role of cyberbullies and victims
	Non-involved	Cybervictim only	Cyberbully only	Cyberbully and victim	F	p
Lack of empathy	2.33 (1.04)	2.36 (1.08)	3.04 (1.15)	2.44 (1.09)	10.87	<0.001
N	1901	61	74	29

Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

A post hoc analysis (Scheffé test) revealed significant differences for the cyberbully-only group compared with the “not-involved” group (mean difference=0.71, p<0.001) and the cybervictim-only group (mean difference=0.69, p<0.01), and a tendency compared with the “cyberbully and victim” group (mean difference=0.60, p=.07).

Discussion

In the present study, cyberbullies showed less empathy for others being victimized than non-cyberbullies, those who have become both cyberbullies and victims, and those who were not at all involved in cyberbullying. The present results are, therefore, in line with studies documenting a negative relationship between empathy and cyberbullying^25,26 and in contrast to results stating no lack of empathy of cyberbullies,²⁴ perhaps due to the use of a different instrument to measure empathy.²⁴

In contrast to other studies, empathy was tested using items that focused on the cyber context exclusively. We believe that it is important to account for the greater anonymity of the cyberbully (compared to the traditional bully) and the lack of immediate feedback from the victim. However, future research should include both general and context-specific measures of empathy to further examine differences between empathy in online and offline situations.

In addition, only few sex effects were observed. Type of media (Internet versus cell phone) or location of perpetration (inside versus outside school) did not matter at all. Altogether, these findings are in line with studies showing a negative relationship between empathy and aggression.¹⁵

It is important to note that the literature on the relation of empathy and bullying is not entirely clear cut. However, mixed results are likely to reflect differences in methodology: most studies that found an overall negative relationship between empathy and bullying used self-reported bullying scales, including the present study.^16–20 In contrast, studies that yielded mixed or sex-moderated effects used peer reports of bullying behavior.^21,22 Since self-report measures of empathy can focus on mental states (e.g., affective and cognitive processes) and peer-report measures heavily rely on visible, behavioral expressions of empathy (e.g., verbal statements or helping behavior in favor of a victim), future research should compare both measurement types directly.

The present study further suggests that a lack of empathy might be a risk factor for cyberbullying behavior. Therefore, our findings have important implications for prevention and intervention. With regard to the development of new anticyberbullying trainings, improving empathy skills might be promising in decreasing both, traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Understanding and sharing the emotions of others seems to be a prerequisite of preventing such unwanted behavior.

However, the present study also has some limitations. For example, data were collected online, which might constrain generalization of findings. Further, the measurement of empathy may have contributed to the results. Although the observed reliability of the novel instrument (i.e., empathy short scale) was acceptable, its measurement characteristics have to be confirmed in further studies. In addition, only a global measure for empathy was used. It has been suggested that affective and cognitive components contribute to empathy separately.^12,13 Also, the used empathy scale is domain specific for the area of media use (Internet and cell phones). Results may, therefore, not hold for empathy at large.

Since the focus of the study was cyberbullying in general, future research should also take into account different modes and roles in cyberbullying (e.g., direct versus indirect aggression).¹³

One might argue that classifying students as (cyber)bullies on the basis of (cyber)bullying behavior “about once a month” is an overly liberal interpretation of the criterion of repetition. However, even a single act of cyber aggression might meet the criterion, because it may entail wide circulation, the chance to be copied by others, and the persistent accessibility on a website for many people. Also, even a single aggressive threat can cause emotional damage and concern about the future.²⁹

Finally, although the present study tested a large sample (almost 75 percent of all secondary schools in Luxembourg participated), the study is based on a cross-sectional design, which does not permit the interpretation of causal effects. Experimental and/or longitudinal study designs should determine whether a lack of empathy causes aggressive online behavior, or whether cyberbullying decreases empathy, or a reciprocal influence or third variable leads to the negative relationship.

In sum, the study highlights the role of empathy in cyberbullying. Cyberbullies were found to show less empathy for others than non-cyberbullies. The present findings indicate that prevention programs should be aware that empathy plays an important role in the context of online aggression. With regard to prevention, skills training for adolescents may, therefore, include specific components to train empathic responsiveness in the context of media use. This may be achieved, for example, by showing the consequences for the victim of cyberbullying. Recently, it has been demonstrated that viewers of media violence showed strong empathic responses when the consequences of a violent act were highlighted.³⁰

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We thank Luc Bredemus for data collecting.

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Hinduja

, Patchin

. 2009. Bullying. Beyond the schoolyard. Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.

Smith

, Mahdavi

, Carvalho

, Tippett

. 2006. An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. London: Unit for School and Family Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of London.

Willard

. 2006. Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: responding to the challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.

Smith

, Mahdavi

, Carvalho

, Fisher

, Russell

, Tippett

. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2008; 49:376–379.

Juvonen

, Gross

. Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 2008; 78:496–499.

Kowalski

, Limber

. Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescents Health, 2007; 41:22–28.

Slonje

, Smith

. Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2008; 49:147–147.

Eisenberg

, Strayer

. 1987. Empathy and its development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberg

, Guthrie

, Cumberland

, Murphy

, Shepard

, Zhou

, Carlo

. Prosocial development in early adulthood: a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002; 82:993–913.

10.

Hoffman

. 2001. Toward a comprehensive empathy-based theory of prosocial moral development. Bohart

, Stipek

. Constructive and destructive behavior. Implications for family, school and society. New York: American Psychological Association, 61–86.

11.

Cohen

, Strayer

. Empathy in conduct disordered and comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 1996; 32:988–910.

12.

Davis

. 1994. Empathy: a social psychological approach. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Communications.

13.

Jolliffe

, Farrington

. Empathy and offending. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2004; 9:441–435.

14.

Batson

, Duncan

, Ackerman

, Buckley

, Birch

. Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981; 4:290–212.

15.

Miller

, Eisenberg

. The relationship of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1988; 103:324–320.

16.

Correia

, Dalbert

. School bullying. Belief in a personal just world of bullies, victims, and defenders. European Psychologist, 2008; 13:248–246.

17.

Endresen

, Olweus

. 2001. Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: sex differences, age trends, and relationship to bullying. Bohart

, Stipek

. Constructive and destructive behavior. Implications for family, school and society. New York: American Psychological Association, 147–165.

18.

Espelage

, Mebane

, Adams

. 2004. Empathy, caring, and bullying: toward an understanding of complex associations. Espelage

, Swearer

. Bullying in American schools: a social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 37–61.

19.

Jolliffe

, Farrington

. Examining the role between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 2006; 32:540–510.

20.

Nickerson

, Mele

, Princiotta

. Attachment and empathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 2008; 46:687–716.

21.

Warden

, Mackinnon

. Prosocial children, bullies and victims: an investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2003; 21:367–418.

22.

Gini

, Albiero

, Benelli

, Altoe

. Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 2007; 33:467–469.

23.

Pornari

, Wood

. Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 2010; 36:81–113.

24.

Almeida

, Marinho

, Esteves

, Gomes

, Correia

. Virtual but not less real: a study of cyber bullying and its relations with moral disengagement and empathy. Abstracts book 20th Biennial ISSBD Meeting, Würzburg, Germany, 2008.

25.

Schultze-Krumbholtz

, Scheithauer

. Social-behavioral correlates of cyberbullying in a German student sample. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 2009; 217:224–232.

26.

Ang

, Goh

. Cyberbullying among adolescents: the role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 2010; 41:387–310.

27.

Steffgen

, König

, Pfetsch

, Melzer

. The role of empathy for adolescents' cyberbullying behaviour. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny, 2011(in press).

28.

König

, Steffgen

. Do victims of bullying tend to be cyber bullies? Abstracts book 13th Workshop Aggression. Potsdam: Germany, 2008.

29.

Dzuka

, Dalbert

. Aggression at school: belief in a personal just world and well-being of victims and aggressors. Studia Psychologica, 2007; 49:313–317.

30.

Konijn

, Nije Bijvank

, Van der Heijden

, Walma Van Der Molen

, Hoorn

. 2008. Babies against bullets: empathy as an intervention technique in violent video game play. International Communication Association, Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, May 22–26, 2008.