Dark Triad Personality Traits and Cyberbullying: The Mediating Role of Emotional Empathy

Abstract

Nowadays, with the widespread use of the Internet, cyberbullying has become a pervasive threat to people. This study aimed to create a structural model of cyberbullying based on dark personality traits, with empathy as a mediating factor among students. A total of 360 students of the Mohaghegh Ardabili University were included using the multistage random sampling method. Data were collected using the Cyber-Bullying/Victimization Experiences Questionnaire, Dark Triad Personality Scale, and Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy. Collected data were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation test and structural equation modeling in SPSS and AMOS 24. The direct route of Machiavellianism and psychopathy was positively significant for cyberbullying and negatively significant for empathy. Empathy also has a direct negative effect on cyberbullying. Furthermore, there was an indirect effect of Machiavellianism and psychopathy on cyberbullying through empathy. Dark personality traits including Machiavellianism and psychopathy are significant risk factors for cyberbullying, with these traits indirectly contributing to cyberbullying through empathy deficits.

Introduction

Bullying is aggressive behavior where individuals or groups intentionally target others. A common form, cyberbullying, involves harassment online through disrespect and neglect.¹ With the rise of Internet and smartphone access, cyberbullying has become a significant global issue in the 21st century.^2–3 In cyberbullying, one person abuses their power to scare the other.⁴

Researchers have focused on how dark personality traits, such as Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism, influence cyberbullying.⁵ Individuals with high Machiavellianism often mistreat others to achieve their goals, regardless of others’ satisfaction.⁶ In a recent study by Triantoro et al.,⁷ Machiavellianism was found to be the strongest predictor of cyberbullying (β = 0.154, p = 0.01), followed by psychopathy (β = 0.113, p = 0.01) and narcissism (β = 0.059, p = 0.01). Psychopaths exhibit impulsive behavior, callousness, low empathy,⁸ and aggression, often viewing themselves as superior and having difficulty learning from punishment.⁹ Studies link psychopathy to bullying behaviors.^10–14 In contrast, narcissists crave excessive admiration, see themselves as exceptional, have low empathy, and are often self-centered and exploitative.¹⁵ A recent research¹⁶ demonstrated a positive correlation between narcissism and cyberbullying (r = 0.20, p < 0.01).

Empathy, the ability to understand and share others’ feelings, contributes to engaging in cyberbullying behavior.¹⁷ Empathy can be viewed as both a trait-level (between-person) and a state-level (within-person) construct.¹⁸ Trait empathy reflects a person’s general tendency to show empathetic behavior, while state empathy involves variations in empathetic responses influenced by specific interactions¹⁸ or social contexts.¹⁹ In a recent study,²⁰ cyberbullying was related to the dark triad personality traits including Machiavellianism (r = 0.27, p < 0.001), psychopathy (r = 0.40, p < 0.001), and narcissism (r = 0.21, p < 0.001). Consistently, Dow and Crawley²¹ discovered that psychopathy (r = –0.35, p < 0.001) and Machiavellianism (r = –0.28, p < 0.001) have a negative correlation with empathy. However, Wigati et al.²² revealed that empathy does not play a role in cyberbullying and has no impact on it. This finding was further supported by Mujidin et al.’s study.²³ Both studies were conducted in East Asian countries, where researches (e.g., by Xu et al.²⁴) suggest that people tend to show lower sympathy and empathy toward those in distress. On the contrary, Martinez et al.²⁵ and Talaei and Kadkhodaei²⁶ suggested that empathy effectively reduces cyberbullying, with another study² indicating empathy moderates the link between moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Zhu et al.²⁷ also identified empathy as a protective factor. Alavi et al.¹⁰ found no link between Machiavellianism and cyberbullying, while narcissism and psychopathy showed a positive correlation. Conversely, Gajda et al.²⁸ argued that Machiavellianism and psychopathy relate to cyberbullying, but narcissism has little impact.

Overall, cyberbullying is a significant health concern, with studies indicating that dark triad personality traits might predict it, though findings are inconsistent and the mechanisms remain unclear. Conflicting results about empathy’s role may stem from factors such as gender bias²⁰ and cultural differences in empathic patterns (e.g., Wigati et al.²² and Mujidin et al.²³). Similarly, studies show mixed findings on the link between dark triad personality traits and cyberbullying, influenced by measurement methods (see Gajda et al.²⁸) and cultural effects (see Alavi et al.¹⁰).

Research indicates that personality significantly influences the perpetration of visual and text-based cyberbullying. Cyberbullies typically spend considerable time online and engage in risky behaviors, but individual personality traits are key predictors of this behavior.^29,30 Dark triad traits, known for their exploitative nature, show indifference to the harm caused to others in the pursuit of personal goals.³¹ Jones and Figueredo³² found that all three traits are linked by a core of callousness and manipulation, with similar studies noting deficits in empathy³³ and low agreeableness.³⁴

Due to the various limitations and conflicting results of past research, and the important role of personality traits in the development of cyberbullying behavior, it is crucial to study dark triad personality traits along with other factors that may influence cyberbullying behavior. Therefore, this study investigates the role of dark triad personality traits in cyberbullying behavior, with emotional empathy as a mediator. Our research explores this connection, shown in Figure 1. Although the mediation model was based on theoretical frameworks, our hypotheses were atemporal, meaning causality cannot be inferred from the analysis.³⁵ This study is significant due to conflicting results in this area, providing insights for future research.

FIG. 1.

The proposed model of cyberbullying.

Materials and Methods

Participants and procedure

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili (ID: IR.UMA.REC.1401.080). A total of 360 students from the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili were selected as the study sample through cluster sampling, meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria required informed written consent and participants aged 18–65 years. Exclusion criteria included comorbid disorders (e.g., substance abuse, psychotic disorders) assessed via the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [DSM-5], Research Version [SCID-5-RV]), recent psychiatric interventions (past 6 months), severe physical issues, visual or hearing impairments, a history of neurological disorders (assessed via self-reports), and failure to meet study requirements.

We randomized three of the nine faculties and selected four classes from each for data collection, totaling 522 participants. After explaining the research objectives and ethical considerations, 83 individuals declined to participate, leaving 439 assigned. Of these, 79 were excluded for reasons such as comorbid psychiatric disorders (N = 56), previous interventions (N = 19), and physical problems (N = 4). Ultimately, 360 individuals participated, but seven incomplete questionnaires were removed, resulting in 353 fully completed questionnaires for analysis. Descriptive statistics of the demographic information and baseline variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables

Variables	N (n = 353)	Mean (SD)*	Skewness	Kurtosis
Age (years)		20 (4.31)	1.21	0.98
Gender
Male	77 (21.8 percent)
Female	276 (78.2 percent)
Degree
BA	218 (61.7 percent)
MA	94 (26.6 percent)
PhD	41 (11.6 percent)
Socioeconomic status
Low	56 (15.8 percent)
Middle	240 (67.9 percent)
High	67 (18.9 percent)
Civil status
Single	285 (80.7 percent)
Married	68 (19.3 percent)
Dark Triad Personality Traits
Machiavellianism		11.18 (6.24)	0.90	0.05
Psychopathy		17.10 (8.07)	0.08	−0.92
Narcissism		10.29 (6.13)	1.12	0.60
Total		38.57 (16.12)	0.53	−0.32
Emotional empathy
Reactive empathy		23.11 (3.96)	−1.17	1.95
Expressive empathy		18.37 (3.42)	−0.99	1.13
Cooperative empathy		19.25 (5.50)	−0.36	−1.13
Emotional effectiveness		19.73 (4.23)	−0.43	−0.14
Emotional stability		12.78 (3.02)	−0.48	−0.43
Empathy toward others		13.99 (3.13)	−0.84	−0.20
Control		6.58 (2.06)	−0.36	−0.95
Total		113.58 (16.68)	−1.20	1.97
Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying		14.49 (4.60)	1.11	1.79
Cyber-victimization		15.98 (4.21)	1.80	1.12
Total		30.44 (8.07)	1.64	1.02

SD = Standard Deviation.

Measures

Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostical and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Research Version

This interview helps mental health professionals diagnose psychiatric disorders.³⁶ The SCID-5-RV’s screening feature is ideal for specific research study assessments.³⁷

Cyber-bullying/Victimization Experiences Questionnaire

This questionnaire by Antoniado et al.³⁸ is divided into two subscales: cyber victimization and cyberbullying. The original study reported reliability coefficients of 0.89 for cyberbullying, 0.80 for cyber victimization, and 0.91 for the overall questionnaire. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.91 for cyberbullying, 0.84 for cyber victimization, and 0.93 for the entire questionnaire.

Dark Triad Personality Scale

This scale, developed by Jonason and Webster,³⁹ includes three subscales: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. The test–retest reliability coefficients were 0.86 for Machiavellianism, 0.76 for psychopathy, and 0.87 for narcissism, with an overall reliability of 0.89. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.83 for Machiavellianism, 0.73 for psychopathy, 0.84 for narcissism, and 0.87 for the entire questionnaire.

Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy

This questionnaire was used to assess trait-level empathy in relation to cyberbullying behavior. This was developed by Mehrabian and Epstein⁴⁰ to measure an individual’s emotional and empathic responses to the emotional reactions of others through seven subscales: reactive empathy, expressive empathy, cooperative empathy, emotional effectiveness, emotional stability, empathy toward others, and control. The total scale reliability is reported at 0.84,⁴⁰ with a current study alpha of 0.89.

Data analysis

The Pearson correlation test was conducted using IBM SPSS version 26 to explore the relationship between variables. Mediational hypotheses were examined through structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS software, assessing fitness indices based on Kline’s criteria.⁴¹

Results

Table 2 reveals a significant positive correlation between cyberbullying and the dark traits of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (p < 0.01). In addition, empathy scores are negatively correlated with cyberbullying and Machiavellianism and psychopathy traits (p < 0.01). We calculated partial correlations between Dark Triad Personality Traits and cyberbullying while controlling for empathy (see Table 2). Our findings indicated a significant correlation between these traits and cyberbullying, even when accounting for empathy (r = 0.53, p < 0.01).

Table 2.

Correlations and Partial Correlations Among Model Variables

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Machiavellianism	1
2. Psychopathy	0.59^**	1
3. Narcissism	0.45^**	0.29^**	1
4. Cyber-victimization	0.47^**	0.50^**	0.24^**	1
5. Cyberbullying	0.61^**	0.56^**	0.17^**	0.72^**	1
6. Cyberbullying/victimization (total score)	0.60^**	0.58^**	0.24^**	0.89^**	0.92^**	1
7. Reactive empathy	−0.37^**	−0.38^**	0.05	−0.42^**	−0.60^**	-0.54^**	1
8. Expressive empathy	−0.36^**	−0.39^**	0.02	−0.39^**	−0.54^**	−0.52^**	0.52^**	1
9. Cooperative empathy	−0.21^**	−0.22^**	0.06	−0.23^**	−0.28^**	−0.27^**	0.40^**	0.32^**	1
10. Emotional effectiveness	−0.21^**	−0.26^**	0.22^**	−0.23^**	−0.38^**	−0.32^**	0.55^**	0.32^**	0.36**	1
11. Emotional stability	−0.15^**	−0.13^*	0.04	−0.23^**	−0.33^**	−0.29^**	0.40^**	0.31^**	0.22^**	0.30^**	1
12. Empathy toward others	−0.34^**	−0.32^**	−0.03	−0.31^**	−0.48^**	−0.41^**	0.50^**	0.41^**	0.22^**	0.29^**	.28^**	1
13. Control	−0.11^*	−0.14^**	−0.02	−0.19^**	−0.26^**	−0.23^**	0.36^**	0.26^**	0.19^**	0.23^**	0.37^**	0.23^**	1
14. Empathy (total score)	−0.38^**	−0.41^**	0.09	−0.44^**	−0.63^**	−0.56^**	0.82^**	0.67^**	0.67^**	0.69^**	0.58^**	0.61^**	0.48^**	1
15. Dark Triad (total score)	0.83^**	0.70^**	0.78^**	0.49^**	0.53^**	0.57^**	−0.26^**	−0.27^**	−0.13^*	−0.07	−0.08	−0.26^**	−0.11^*	−0.26^**	1

Controlling for empathy
Variables	Dark triad (total score)	Cyber-bullying/victimization (total score)
Dark triad (total score)	1
Cyberbullying/victimization (total score)	0.53^**	1

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

Implementation of the model showed that fitness indices had the desired values (IFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.94, χ²/df = 2.04, PCFI = 0.80, PNFI = 0.76, and RMSEA = 0.055) (see Figure 2).

FIG. 2.

Structural equation modeling (standard mode).

Results revealed that both Machiavellianism and psychopathy had significant negative impacts on empathy; similarly, the direct route of empathy on cyberbullying was negatively significant. In addition, Machiavellianism and psychopathy had significant and positive effects on cyberbullying (Table 3).

Table 3.

The Direct Effects of all Paths for the Model

	Path coefficients	T	Standard error	Sig.
Machiavellianism → Empathy	−0.44	−3.18	0.31	0.001
Psychopathy → Empathy	−0.37	−2.56	0.34	0.01
Narcissism → Empathy	0.33	5.32	0.12	p < 0.001
Machiavellianism → Cyberbullying	0.35	3.38	0.21	p < 0.001
Psychopathy → Cyberbullying	0.30	2.81	0.23	0.005
Narcissism → Cyberbullying	−0.06	−1.22	0.09	0.223
Empathy → Cyberbullying	−0.34	−5.36	0.06	p < 0.001

According to the findings presented in Table 4, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, which are considered dark personality traits, have indirect impacts on cyberbullying through empathy. However, the study did not confirm the indirect effect of narcissism on cyberbullying through empathy.

Table 4.

The Results of the Indirect Effect Analysis

Indirect effects	Indirect path coefficients	Sig.	Result
Machiavellianism → Empathy → Cyberbullying	0.151	0.014	Approved
Psychopathy → Empathy → Cyberbullying	0.125	0.012	Approved
Narcissism → Empathy → Cyberbullying	−0.111	0.184	Not approved

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis by introducing empathy in the first step and Dark Triad Personality Traits in the second. It revealed that both models were significant (see Table 5); empathy explained 31.7 percent of the variance in cyberbullying, F(1, 351) = 163.07, p < 0.001, adj. ΔR2 = 0.317 (see Model 1, Table 5). Adding Dark Triad scores to the model significantly increased the explained variance in cyberbullying, F(2, 350) = 183.51, p < 0.001, adj. ΔR² = 0.195. In this model, Dark Triad Personality Traits significantly predicted cyberbullying while controlling for empathy (see β-values of Model 2, Table 5).

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Cyberbullying

	F-statistic	Adj. R²	b	SE b	β
Model 1	F(1, 351) = 163.07	0.317^***
Empathy			−0.27^***	0.02	−0.56^***
Model 2	F(2, 350) = 183.51	0.512^***
Empathy			−0.22^***	0.02	−0.45^***
Dark Triad Personality Traits			0.23^***	0.02	0.46^***

***

p < 0.001.

SE, standard error.

We developed a bi-factor model to assess if the shared variance in empathy and Dark Triad traits accounts for the observed correlations. Implementation of the bi-factor model showed that fitness indices had the desired values (IFI = 0. 94, TLI = 0.92, GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94, χ²/df = 2.64, PCFI = 0.67, PNFI = 0.65, and RMSEA = 0.068) (see Figure 3).

FIG. 3.

Bi-factor model of the variance of empathy and Dark Triad Personality Traits.

Discussion

The study examined the links between dark personality traits, emotional empathy, and cyberbullying in university students. Results showed that Machiavellianism and psychopathy directly increase cyberbullying. These findings are consistent with multiple studies^28,42–45 and inconsistent with the results of some other studies.^11,12,46 Some reasons for these agreements and disagreements can be attributed to the significant role of empathy in the present study. Besides, our results showed that narcissism had no significant effect on cyberbullying, which was inconsistent with the results of Baughman et al.,⁴⁷ Goodboy and Martin,²⁹ and van Geel et al.¹⁵ Again, given that empathy was the main responsible for the reported relationship between Dark Triad and cyberbullying, some reason for these agreements and disagreements can be attributed to this significant factor. Moreover, when justifying the findings of the recent research, we can point to the differences in personality traits of people. Narcissists are more self-centered and focused on seeking attention, making them less likely to engage in online bullying. In contrast, people with Machiavellian traits plan their harmful actions to avoid detection and maintain credibility. Thus, cyberspace offers a suitable platform for these individuals to engage in cyberbullying.⁴⁸ To support our findings, we can cite a research study conducted by Sari and Adriani,⁴⁸ which showed that narcissistic individuals become more self-centered as they seek attention, while those with Machiavellian traits plan their actions to avoid being exposed when harming others. Zhu and Jin’s⁴⁹ research also showed that Machiavellianism and psychopathy have stronger links with aggression than narcissism. Panatik et al.⁴³ suggested that both Machiavellianism and psychopathy traits can lead to cyberbullying attitudes in students, while narcissism does not predict this behavior.

Our study found that empathy has a direct negative impact on cyberbullying which is consistent with some previous studies.^50–53 However, this contradicts the results of other studies.^20,23,54 This disagreement with previous studies may stem from methodological issues, such as gender-specific patterns (e.g., Schade et al.²⁰) and cultural effects (e.g., Wigati et al.²² and Mujidin et al.²³). Individuals with low empathy tend to engage in antisocial behaviors,⁵⁵ likely due to difficulties in regulating their emotions.⁵⁶

The study found that Machiavellianism and psychopathy directly reduce empathy levels, aligning with previous research.^57–59 This finding contradicted Schade et al.,²⁰ who claimed that empathy did not significantly affect the link between dark triad personality traits and cyberbullying, attributing this to gender-specific patterns in their research. Research shows that individuals with dark personality traits often have difficulty identifying emotions in facial expressions and tend to exhibit lower levels of empathy.⁵⁹

Our study found that Machiavellianism and psychopathy indirectly contributed to cyberbullying through empathy, while we did not confirm empathy’s mediating role with narcissism. These findings align with previous research showing a negative correlation between empathy and dark personality traits.^21,57,58 Our findings are also consistent with other studies.^50–53,60 Dark personality traits are nonadaptive behaviors that can increase the likelihood of cyberbullying, marked by low empathy and reduced shame after aggressive actions. Interestingly, narcissists, who seek approval, are less prone to cyberbullying.

The current study highlights the need for specialists in cyberbullying to assess dark personality traits. Effective evaluation allows for psychotherapeutic programs that consider the role of empathy in individuals with Machiavellianism and psychopathy who engage in cyberbullying. Our findings emphasize the importance of therapeutic approaches that enhance empathy in such patients. Psychotherapeutic methods, including cognitive and mindfulness-based interventions, can be effective in this regard.

The present study has several limitations. It is cross-sectional and observational, so causal conclusions cannot be drawn. Future research should consider a longitudinal design. In addition, the small sample size limited to university students may affect the generalizability of the results. Larger and more diverse samples from the broader population are needed. Lastly, the study focused solely on emotional empathy, overlooking cognitive empathy, which should be included in future research.

Conclusions

Our research indicated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy traits significantly influence cyberbullying, mediated by emotional empathy. Health care professionals should consider these psychological factors when developing therapeutic plans.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

All authors thank the subjects for their sincere cooperation in performing the study.

Authors' Contributions

S.B. conceived the original idea, designed and directed the project, and developed the theoretical framework. S.B. and S.N. contributed to sample preparation; S.N. carried out the implementation; S.B. performed the analytic calculations; S.D. & S.B., wrote the article. Jobson, L., conceived the study and was in charge of the overall direction and planning. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and manuscript.

Ethics Code

The institutional review board of Mohaghegh Ardabili University approved the study protocol (IR.UMA.REC.1401.080).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were under the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and complied with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this article.

References

Hinduja

, Patchin

. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Arch Suicide Res, 2010; 14(3):206–221.

Liu

, Han

, Ma

, et al. Moral disengagement and cyberbullying perpetration among adolescents: The moderating role of empathy. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2023; 155:107178. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0190740923003742

Muralidharan

, La Ferle

. Religious symbolism in the digital realm: A social advertising approach to motivate bystanders to aid victims of cyberbullying. Int J Consumer Studies, 2018; 42(6):804–812.

Broll

, Reynolds

. Parental responsibility, blameworthiness, and bullying: Parenting style and adolescents’ experiences with traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Crim Justice Policy Rev, 2020; 32:088740342092144.

Paulhus

, Williams

. The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. J Res Pers, 2002; 36(6):556–563. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0092656602005056

Rauthmann

. Acquisitive or protective self-presentation of dark personalities? Associations among the Dark Triad and self-monitoring. Pers Individ Dif, 2011; 51(4):502–508. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0191886911002388

Triantoro

, Lubabin Nuqul

, Purwandari

, et al. The Role of Dark Triad Personality on Cyberbullying: Is It Still a Problem? Int J Sci Technol Res, 2020.

, Wu

, Wang

, et al. Dark personality, marital quality, and marital instability of Chinese couples: An actor-partner interdependence mediation model. Pers Individ Dif, 2020; 154:109689. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0191886919306294

Noor

, Farooq

, Malik

. Dark personality triads and aggression. J Business Manag Res, 2023; 2:86–102.

10.

Alavi

, Abdul Latif

, Ramayah

, et al. Dark tetrad of personality, cyberbullying, and cybertrolling among young adults. Curr Psychol, 2023; 42(32):28441–28451.

11.

Buckels

, Trapnell

, Paulhus

. Trolls just want to have fun. Pers Individ Dif, 2014; 67:97–102. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324

12.

Gibb

, Devereux

. Who does that anyway? Predictors and personality correlates of cyberbullying in college. Comput Human Behav, 2014; 38:8–16. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0747563214002878

13.

March

, Grieve

, Marrington

, et al. Trolling on Tinder® (and other dating apps): examining the role of the dark tetrad and impulsivity. Pers Individ Dif, 2017; 110:139–143. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0191886917300260

14.

Lopes

, Yu

. Who do you troll and why: An investigation into the relationship between the Dark Triad Personalities and online trolling behaviours towards popular and less popular Facebook profiles. Comput Human Behav, 2017; 77:69–76. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0747563217305034

15.

van Geel

, Goemans

, Toprak

, et al. Which personality traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the Big Five, Dark Triad and sadism. Pers Individ Dif, 2017; 106:231–235. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S019188691631100X

16.

Demircioğlu

, Göncü-Köse

. Antecedents of problematic social media use and cyberbullying among adolescents: Attachment, the dark triad and rejection sensitivity. Curr Psychol, 2022; 42(35):1–19; doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-04127-2

17.

Håkansson Eklund

, Summer Meranius

. Toward a consensus on the nature of empathy: A review of reviews. Patient Educ Couns, 2021; 104(2):300–307.

18.

Nezlek

, Feist

, Wilson

, et al. Day-to-day variability in empathy as a function of daily events and mood. J Res Pers, 2001; 35(4):401–423.

19.

Zaki

. Empathy: A motivated account. Psychol Bull, 2014; 140(6):1608–1647.

20.

Schade

, Voracek

, Tran

. The nexus of the dark triad personality traits with cyberbullying, empathy, and emotional intelligence: A structural-equation modeling approach. Front Psychol, 2021; 12:659282.

21.

Dow

, Crawley

. Dark tetrad and empathy: The interrelationship of narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism with affective and cognitive empathy. PsiChiJournal, 2023; 28(3):229–236.

22.

Wigati

, Diponegoro

, Bashori

. Roles of empathy, emotion regulation and school climate against cyber bullying in high schools in Merangin, Jambi. American Research Journal of Humanities & Social Science, 2020.

23.

Mujidin

, Nuryoto

, Rustam

, et al. The role of emotion regulation and empathy in students displaying cyberbullying. Humanitas, 2023; 20(1 SE-Articles):21–28. Available from: http://journal1.uad.ac.id/index.php/Humanitas/article/view/72

24.

, Zuo

, Wang

, et al. Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. J Neurosci, 2009; 29(26):8525–8529.

25.

Martínez

, Rodríguez-Hidalgo

, Zych

. Bullying and cyberbullying in adolescents from disadvantaged areas: Validation of questionnaires; prevalence rates; and relationship to self-esteem, empathy and social skills. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 17(17).

26.

Talaei

, Kadkhodaei

. The impact of ethno-cultural empathy on cyberbullying and moderating role of personality traits among secondary school girls. J Soc Sci, 2023; 19(1):191–218. Available from: https://www.magiran.com/paper/2530954 LK - https://www.magiran.com/paper/2530954

27.

Zhu

, Huang

, Evans

, et al. Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: A comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Front Public Health, 2021; 9:634909.

28.

Gajda

, Moroń

, Królik

, et al. The dark tetrad, cybervictimization, and cyberbullying: The role of moral disengagement. Curr Psychol, 2023; 42(27):23413–23421; doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03456-6

29.

Goodboy

, Martin

. The personality profile of a cyberbully: Examining the dark triad. Comput Human Behav, 2015; 49:1–4. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0747563215001739

30.

Görzig

, Ólafsson

. What makes a bully a cyberbully? Unravelling the characteristics of cyberbullies across twenty-five European countries. J Child Media, 2013; 7(1):9–27; doi: 10.1080/17482798.2012.739756

31.

Jones

, Paulhus

. Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. Handb Interpers Psychol Theory, Res Assessment, Ther Interv, 2010; 249–267.

32.

Jones

, Figueredo

. The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. Eur J Pers, 2013; 27(6):521–531.

33.

Jonason

, Krause

. The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Pers Individ Dif, 2013; 55(5):532–537.

34.

Jakobwitz

, Egan

. The dark triad and normal personality traits. Pers Individ Dif, 2006; 40(2):331–339.

35.

Winer

, Cervone

, Bryant

, et al. Distinguishing mediational models and analyses in clinical psychology: Atemporal associations do not imply causation. J Clin Psychol, 2016; 72(9):947–955.

36.

American Psychiatric Association. The structured clinical interview for DSM-5®. 2019. Available from: https://www.appi.org/products/structured-clinical-interview-for-dsm-5-scid-5

37.

Moriarty

, Res

, Gilbody

, et al. Screening and case finding for major depressive disorder using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): A meta-analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 2015; 37(6):567–576; doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.06.012

38.

Antoniadou

, Kokkinos

, Markos

. Development, construct validation and measurement invariance of the Greek cyber-bullying/victimization experiences questionnaire (CBVEQ-G). Comput Human Behav, 2016; 65:380–390. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0747563216305970

39.

Jonason

, Webster

. The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychol Assess, 2010; 22(2):420–432.

40.

Mehrabian

, Epstein

. A measure of emotional empathy. J Pers, 1972; 40(4):525–543.

41.

Kline

. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3. Baskı). Guilford Press; 2011.

42.

Asih

, Lutfiyah . The dark triad personality in relation to cyberbullying: The role of self-esteem as a mediator [Hubungan Kepribadian Dark Triad dan Cyberbullying: Peran Self-Esteem Sebagai Mediator]. ANIMA Indones Psychol J, 2023; 38:38104.

43.

Panatik

, Abdul Raof

, Nordin

, et al. Effect of dark triad personality on cyberbullying behavior among Malaysian university students. EPESS, 2022; 25:26–44.

44.

Abinayaa

, Nithya

. The role of cyberbullying in psychological distress, mental health and spiritual health among adolescents during pandemic. Indian J Heal Wellbeing, 2022; 13(2). Available from: https://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijhw/article/view/215504

45.

Wright

, Huang

, Wachs

, et al. Associations between cyberbullying perpetration and the dark triad of personality traits: The moderating effect of country of origin and gender. Asia Pacific J Soc Work Dev, 2020; 30(3):242–256; doi: 10.1080/02185385.2020.1788979

46.

Craker

, March

. The dark side of Facebook®: The dark tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviours. Pers Individ Dif, 2016; 102:79–84. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0191886916307930

47.

Baughman

, Dearing

, Giammarco

, et al. Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Pers Individ Dif, 2012; 52(5):571–575. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0191886911005423

48.

Sari

, Andriani

. Empathy as a mediator of the effect of dark triad personality, social support, and demographic factors on cyberbullying behavior in SMAN 10 Depok students. TAZKIYA, 2022; 10(2):122–131.

49.

Zhu

, Jin

. A meta-analysis of the relationship between the Dark Triad and aggressive behaviors. Adv Psychol Sci, 2021; 29(7):1195–1209.

50.

Ang

, Goh

. Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev, 2010; 41(4):387–397.

51.

Steffgen

, König

, Pfetsch

, et al. Are cyberbullies less empathic? Adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2011; 14(11):643–648.

52.

Barlińska

, Szuster

, Winiewski

. The role of short- and long-term cognitive empathy activation in preventing cyberbystander reinforcing cyberbullying behavior. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2015; 18(4):241–244.

53.

Calmaestra

, Rodríguez-Hidalgo

, Mero-Delgado

, et al. Cyberbullying in adolescents from Ecuador and Spain: Prevalence and differences in gender, school year and ethnic-cultural background. Sustainability, 2020; 12(11):4597.

54.

Wigati

, Diponegoro

, Bashori

. Roles of empathy, emotion regulation and school climate against cyber bullying in high schools in Merangin, Jambi. 2020. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:231185716

55.

Zych

, Baldry

, Farrington

, et al. Are children involved in cyberbullying low on empathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of research on empathy versus different cyberbullying roles. Aggress Violent Behav, 2019; 45:83–97. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S1359178917301672

56.

Luthar

, Pušnik

. Intimate media and technological nature of sociality. New Media Soc, 2020; 23:146144482091238.

57.

Wertag

, Ribar

, Sučić

. Empathy of the devil: Sex differences in the Dark Tetrad and empathy. Empir. Stud. Psychol, 2021.

58.

Pajevic

, Vukosavljevic-Gvozden

, Stevanovic

, et al. The relationship between the dark tetrad and a two-dimensional view of empathy. Pers Individ Dif, 2018; 123:125–130. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0191886917306657

59.

Wai

, Tiliopoulos

. The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Pers Individ Dif, 2012; 52(7):794–799.

60.

Pfetsch

. Who is who in cyberbullying? Conceptual and empirical perspectives on bystanders in Cyberbullying. A Social-Ecological Approach to Cyberbullyin, 2016.