The Role of Short- and Long-Term Cognitive Empathy Activation in Preventing Cyberbystander Reinforcing Cyberbullying Behavior

Abstract

The long- versus short-term effectiveness of empathy activation on reducing bystander behavior reinforcing cyberbullying was tested. The focus was on limiting the frequency of forwarding a message ridiculing a peer. Experimental research on adolescent students was conducted in conditions simulating online contact. The results confirmed the significance of cognitive empathy activated immediately prior to decision making on limiting involvement in reinforcing cyberbullying behavior. The long-term impact of empathy was markedly limited.

Introduction

Young people in cyberspace encounter both positive and negative social contexts, including cyberbullying. The definition of cyberbullying has been disputed,¹ but most commonly it is described as “an aggressive act or behavior that is carried out using electronic means by a group or an individual repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself.”²^(p36) Multiple studies depict bullying as a group process in which peer bystanders play an important role (in traditional bullying and cyberbullying alike) in contributing to the problem or in helping to resolve it.^3–5,6–8 Bystanders can react toward bullying and cyberbullying in three basic ways: supporting the victim, acting as outsiders, or reinforcing the bullying.⁴ Cyberbystanders can participate in cybervictimization, especially by forwarding mockery messages.⁵ Although only a minority of cyberbystanders forward this kind of material,^5,9 modern technology allows one act of cyberbullying to be repeated many times by others and thus extend the victim's experience of it.⁹ This increases the indirectness of the process, as cyberbystanders take control over the recipients of the original communication.¹ On the other hand, cyberbystander disapproval of cyberbullying acts can effectively limit their scope (i.e., not forwarding a mockery message prevents it from spreading).^5,8

A body of evidence clearly shows the relationship between empathy and lower rates of bullying⁸ and cyberbullying¹⁰ in the context of cyberbystanders as well.^5,7,8 However, while traditional bullying is associated mainly with low affective empathy,¹⁰ cyberbullying is related to both affective and cognitive empathy.¹¹ Cognitive empathy is the ability to understand the beliefs, feelings, and intentions of others.¹² It is based on cognitive representations of other people paired with the intentionally controlled ability to anticipate the consequences of one's behavior for others and perceive the perspective of another person.¹³ Active teaching of “perspective taking” has become an effective component of school violence prevention programs.¹⁴ Studies show that such forms of empathy activation are effective in reducing both offline and online negative bystander behavior.^4,5,8

Eliciting cognitive empathy may be particularly adequate in the cyberspace context, which is naturally devoid of emotional signals.^5,8 Complex mechanisms activating this kind of empathy can significantly expand the scope of empathy beyond direct interaction, increasing its effectiveness over time, irrespective of prior priming.¹⁵ This refers to separating empathy-triggered responses from provisional and direct cues priming concentration on the situation of the other.

Most studies on cyberbystander reactions confirm the short-term impact of empathy in reducing cyberbystander behavior reinforcing bullying.^5,7,8 The current research focuses on whether the impact of activating cognitive empathy on limiting cyberbystander pro-bullying behavior can have long-term effects.

Materials and Methods

The aim of the study was to examine, using experimental methods, the effects of cognitive empathy activation on bystander behavior toward cyberbullying acts. Hypotheses were tested concerning (a) cognitive empathy activation (taking of the perspective of another person by focusing on the negative consequences of cybervictimization) as a factor reducing the odds of cyberbystander behavior reinforcing bullying, and (b) short- versus long-term effectiveness of empathy activation on reducing pro-bullying behavior.

Participants, study design, and procedures

The sample consisted of 442 pupils (227 boys) aged 12–17 years (M_age=14.72 ears; SD_age=1.52 years). The study was conducted in groups in school computer labs with random assignment to either the experimental or the control group. Data were collected online using unique passwords assuring participant anonymity. A web application— simulation of an instant messenger as part of a social networking site—was used. The study followed a simple between-participant, two-by-two design with empathy and time gap manipulation as factors.

The opening task was the cognitive empathy manipulation. A short movie was presented showing a case of cyberbullying, the victim's feelings, and the impact on her behavior. Its effectiveness has been previously established, showing that watching the movie changed the emotional state according to the valence of the emotions displayed: strengthening the experience of negative emotions and decreasing the experience of positive emotions—symptoms of empathy.⁵

An instruction activating conscious and reflective empathy processes preceded the video. In the experimental condition, the participants were instructed to identify with the situation depicted in the video and to focus on those aspects that reflected the victim's emotions and behavior. Then, from a list of emotions and behaviors, participants selected those that appeared in the video. In the control condition, the focus was on the elements of the background and selecting scenes that appeared in the video from a longer list.

Next, participants made a decision concerning their behavior as bystanders to a cyberbullying act in the “message from a peer” task. Its main element was a picture showing a boy's face on the body of a dog with the following comment: “Hi, this is my classmate, he looks like a total fool.” The task was to make a decision about whether to forward the message. This was the indicator of cyberbystander behavior: reinforcing bullying (forwarding the content) versus neutral (deleting the message).

A time gap manipulation was introduced between the empathy activation task and the “message from a peer” task. In the short-term condition, participants were given the message immediately after the empathy activation (no time gap), and in the long-term condition there was a 1 week gap between the empathy activation and the decision-making task.

Results

In order to test the hypotheses, hierarchical logistic regression analyses were conducted (see Table 1). In the first step, control variables (age and gender) were entered into the model. In the second step, the cognitive empathy manipulation (0 for control group, 1 for experimental condition) was entered into model. In the third step, the time gap manipulation (short- vs. long-term condition) was entered into the model (0 for short term, 1 for long term). Finally, in the fourth step, an interaction between the empathy activation and the time gap manipulation condition was entered into the model.

Table 1.

Logistic Regression Predicting the Effects of Gender, Age, Cognitive Empathy, and Time Gap on Cyberbystander Behavior Reinforcing Cyberbullying

Predictor	B	SE B	Wald's χ ²	OR [95% CI]	Block χ ²
Step 1					1.08
Gender (0, boys)	−0.20	0.22	0.83	0.82 [0.54–1.25]
Age	−0.03	0.07	0.25	0.96 [0.84–1.11]
Step 2					3.67^a
Gender (0, boys)	−0.16	0.22	0.56	0.85 [0.55–1.30]
Age	−0.04	0.07	0.37	0.96 [0.83–1.10]
Condition (0, no empathy)	−0.43	0.22	3.71^a	0.65 [0.42–1.00]
Step 3					10.09^***
Gender (0, boys)	−0.13	0.22	0.37	0.87 [0.57–1.35]
Age	−0.02	0.07	0.09	0.98 [0.85–1.13]
Condition (0, no empathy)	−0.45	0.23	3.90^*	0.64 [0.41–0.99]
Time gap (0, short term)	0.71	0.22	10.12^**	2.03 [1.31–3.14]
Step 4					9.78^**
Gender (0, boys)	−0.13	0.22	0.36	0.87 [0.57–1.35]
Age	−0.03	0.07	0.15	0.97 [0.85–1.13]
Condition (0, no empathy)	−1.06	0.30	12.39^***	0.36 [0.41–0.99]
Time gap (0, short term)	−0.19	0.37	0.26	0.83 [1.31–3.14]
Condition×time gap	1.44	0.47	9.54^**	4.24 [1.70–10.61]

Overall model	χ ²
Likelihood ratio test	24.622^***
Score test	16.34^**
H&L	3.71

p<0.06; ^*p<0.05; ^**p<0.01; ^***p<0.001.

Step 1: Cox & Snell R²=0.002; Nagelkerke R²=0.004.

Step 2: Cox & Snell R²=0.01; Nagelkerke R²=0.02.

Step 3: Cox & Snell R²=0.03; Nagelkerke R²=0.05.

Step 4: Cox & Snell R²=0.05; Nagelkerke R²=0.08.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

The analysis shows that age and gender had no impact on cyberbystander behavior in the presented study. Including empathy activation into the model in the second step revealed a slight improvement in the model (model chi square is marginally significant). The coefficient for empathy indicates a slightly lower likelihood of cyberbystander behavior reinforcing bullying in the empathy activation condition. The third model with the time gap manipulation substantially improves the overall model fit. Including the time gap significantly increases the probability of pro-cyberbullying behavior. Finally, in the last step, a significant interaction term between the two experimental conditions (see Fig. 1) shows that the odds of cyberbystander behavior reinforcing bullying drop after empathy activation but only in the short-term condition.

FIG. 1.

Interaction of time gap and cognitive empathy manipulation on cyberbystander behavior reinforcing cyberbullying.

Discussion

The results of this study confirmed previous findings indicating that cognitive empathy is a significant factor in preventing cyberbystander behavior reinforcing bullying.⁵ Actively taking on the perspective of a cybervictim reduces the probability of pro-cyberbullying behavior of bystanders. These findings are in line with several previous studies on the relationship of empathy to bullying,^7,8,10 especially with data showing that adolescents in pro-bullying roles seem to lack empathy for victims.³ Staying away from bullying situations, on the other hand, is positively associated with empathy,^3,8 which was also demonstrated in the present study.

These results are consistent with those of other studies on the role of perspective taking.^13,15 They also extend current knowledge of the associations of cyberbullying and empathy, showing that situational activation of empathy may limit behavior supporting online aggression, which is in line with some recent findings.^5,7,8 Cognitive empathy priming increases the availability of the other person's perspective.^12,13 This encourages a deeper understanding of the other person's situation and prevents pro-cyberbullying activities.

However, modification of cyberbullying behavior was observed only when the stimulus was applied immediately prior to such activity. Future research should continue exploring underlying reasons for low long-term effectiveness of empathy activation on cyberbystander behavior and ways for improving it.

This study has some limitations. The investigated behavior is only one of many possible bystander reactions toward cyberbullying measured in only one type of online setting. Nevertheless, several specific implications for the prevention of cyberbullying follow the results of this study. First, they underline the importance of cyberbystanders as a powerful social influence in creating positive antibullying behavioral models. Second, they demonstrate the significance of cognitive empathy activation in preventing cyberbystander behavior reinforcing bullying. Third, they highlight the limited effectiveness of empathy in the long term. If these findings are replicated, it will show that external empathy induction is one way to prevent behavior reinforcing cyberbullying.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Langos

. Cyberbullying: the challenge to define. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2012; 15:285–289.

Smith

. (2011) Bullying in schools: thirty years of research. In Monks

, Coyne

, eds. Bullying in different contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, pp. 36–60.

Polyhonen

, Juvonen

, Salmivalli

. What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying?. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2010; 56:142–163.

Sallmivali

. Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 2010; 15:112–120.

Barlinska

, Szuster

, Winiewski

. Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2013; 23:37–51.

Desmet

, Bastiaensens

, Van Cleemput

, et al. Mobilizing bystanders of cyberbullying: An exploratory study into behavioural determinants of defending the victim. Annual Review of Cybertherapy & Telemedicine, 2012; 181:58–63.

Freis

, Gurung

. A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2012; 2:11–19.

Machackova

, Dedkova

, Sevcikova

, et al. Bystanders' support of cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2013; 23:25–36.

Slonje

, Smith

, Frisén

. Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of remorse by bullies: a pilot study. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2012; 9:244–260.

10.

Jolliffe

, Farrington

. Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 2006; 32:540–550.

11.

Ang

, Goh

. Cyberbullying among adolescents: the role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 2010; 41:387–397.

12.

Decety

, Jackson

. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral Cognition Neuroscience Review, 2004; 3:71–100.

13.

Hoffman

. (2000) Empathy and moral development. Implication for caring and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Chandler

. Egocentric and antisocial behaviour. The assessment and training of social and perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology, 1973; 9:326–332.

15.

Galinsky

, Moskowitz

. Perspective-taking: decreasing expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2000; 78:708–724.