Abstract
Although cyberbullying is relational by nature, prior models focused on individual explanations for cyberbullying rather than integrating contextual processes. We present the Relational Model of Cyberbullying Motivation and Regulation (RMC). This model applies the concepts of proximal processes (e.g., interactions with parents, teachers, peers) from ecological systems theory and the concepts of psychological resources (e.g., autonomy, competency, and relatedness) from self determination theory to explain youth motivation and self-regulation of cyberbullying. First, we review theoretical foundations for the theories involved and outline postulates for youths’ proximal influences, motivations for, and regulation against cyberbullying perpetration. Then, we present a pathway by which the most proximal social influences on youth impact the development of psychological resources, which then may impact cyberbullying. We also present pathways by which autonomy, competence, and relatedness have an indirect impact on cyberbullying via motivation and self-regulation. The RMC informs intervention efforts by identifying proximal contexts and leverage points to disrupt processes that lead to competence and/or autonomy to cyberbully others.
Keywords
On average, U.S. teenagers spent over 8 hours per day online (Common Sense Media, 2021). Excessive screen time is a risk factor for online problem behaviors, including cyberbullying (e.g., Chen et al., 2017; Coyne et al., 2021). Cyberbullying refers to “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). Cyberbullying is associated with adverse consequences for victimized youth, such as depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideation (Kowalski et al., 2019; Kowalski & Limber, 2013; Nesi et al., 2021), and for perpetrators, hyperactivity, conduct problems, and depression (Fletcher et al., 2014; Kırcaburun et al., 2019). Compared to traditional bullying, cyberbullying has distinct features that extend its scope and impact, such as the ability to post anonymously or repost content (e.g., Vanderbocsh & Van Cleemput, 2008). These differences imply that power differentials may differ in cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying (e.g., Barlett et al., 2017). Additionally, repetition may differ online because one post can be shared a multitude of times (Mehari et al., 2014). For more comprehensive discussions of cyberbullying conceptualization and measurement, see Menesini and Nocentini (2009) and Selkie et al. (2016). Given these differences, the theoretical knowledge base of traditional bullying may not adequately apply to cyberbullying. For example, the social capital concepts of gaining influence and social prestige may not apply if bullying is perpetrated anonymously online (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). Thus, theory-driven models that explain cyberbullying interactions in context are needed.
Although cyberbullying interventions show some effectiveness (Gaffney et al., 2019), few use theory to critically identify malleable leverage points to further reduce cyberbullying (Barlett, 2019). To maximize effectiveness, studies are needed to examine the processes by which parents, teachers, and peers influence an individual’s motivation to engage in cyberbullying perpetration and self-regulation to curb cyberbullying activities. To fill this gap, we leverage concepts from ecological systems theory and self-determination theory (SDT) to understand pathways to prevent cyberbullying perpetration. The teenage years are a crucial stage in identity development, and whether the digital environment has a positive or negative influence likely depends on the immediate context of family, school, and peers and support of adolescents’ development of in-person and online identities (Cross et al., 2015). Therefore, we propose the Relational Model of Cyberbullying Motivation and Regulation (RMC), a person*context perspective of cyberbullying perpetration informed by SDT.
In the proposed RMC, we focus on proximal interactions with parents, school staff, and peers, the microsystem interactions closest to the adolescent’s everyday experience (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Family, school, and peer interactions influence adolescents’ sense of autonomy (e.g., ability to make one’s own decisions or sense of agency), competence (e.g., perception of one’s ability to do things successfully and efficiently), and relatedness (e.g., sense of connectedness and belonging; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When these developmental psychological needs are unmet, an internal motivation to engage in cyberbullying may increase as youth seek to meet these needs maladaptively. Additionally, self-regulation to resist anti-social behavior may not fully develop, leading to greater engagement in cyberbullying perpetration. Throughout the paper, we highlight unique digital contexts of cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying. We propose three interrelated postulates: (1) proximal influences impact youth psychological resources, (2) psychological resources impact cyberbullying via motivation, and (3) psychological resources impact cyberbullying via self-regulation. Before elaborating on these theoretical connections, we examine the theoretical foundations of the RMC model.
Theoretical foundations
The relational context of adolescents juxtaposed with individualized motivational processes has not been a focus of prior cyberbullying theory work. Such integration is warranted based on previous research. Cyberbullying researchers often focus on person-specific inputs to examine internal processes rather than contextual or relational inputs. The Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model takes a learning approach to cyberbullying perpetration but focuses on perceived individual benefits derived from the online environment (Barlett & Gentile, 2012). Others have examined the scope of peer influence—for example, past traditional bullying via general strain theory (Paez, 2018) or social norms (Festl et al., 2015). The Swearer and Hymel social-ecological model (2015) emphasizes the interactions between social environments; stressful events; and biological, cognitive, and social vulnerabilities. Others have examined parental control through a self-determination framework (Geng et al., 2022; Scharf & Goldner, 2018). Overall, however, prior theoretical approaches have lacked an emphasis on relational processes, psycholical needs, and reciprocal interactions.
Social context
Bronfenbrenner’s early work (1979) emphasized that youth interact with their world nested within concentric realms of social influence, which conceptually frames the contextual nesting of digital technology and social influence on individual cyberbullying behaviors. Cross et al. (2015) applied a socio-ecological framework to cyberbullying in schools, emphasizing the contextual influences that contribute to cyberbullying, which illustrates Bronfenbrenner’s earlier conceptualization. In his later work, Bronfenbrenner also emphasized the interaction between person and proximal contexts over time in his Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Tudge et al., 2009). Applying Bronfenbrenner’s later conceptualization of the bioecological model, we extend past work by examining psychological needs in the context of proximal interactions with the strongest daily influence on adolescents’ psychological needs and subsequent cyberbullying behaviors. This is critical because the online environment has been conceptualized as a “super peer,” with increasing direct influence in the proximal processes of children’s lives (Elmore et al., 2017). In the past, corporations (exosystem) and social media influencers (macro system) did not typically have direct interactions with adolescents, but now they have interactions with them as if they were a best friend.
In addition, we focus on the ways that parents, school staff, and peers contribute to adolescents’ development of inner psychological resources that can be risk or protective factors for cyberbullying perpetration. Although most cyberbullying occurs at home, given a lack of parental knowledge related to cyberbullying and the current emphasis on school-based bullying prevention (Doty et al., 2022), experts have called for an ecological approach to cyberbullying prevention that would address multiple systems (e.g., Cross et al., 2015). The consideration of both digital influences that cut across ecological systems and proximal processes are critical in the RMC model.
RMC focus on proximal processes
Further, research is lacking on direct and indirect proximal processes by which motivation and self-regulation predict cyberbullying and are influenced by parent, teacher, and peer interactions. Proximal processes refer to consistent, reciprocal interactions in the immediate environment that are the “engines of development” (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, p. 118; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). In other words, individuals in the microsystem influence children and parents through proximal processes. The RMC focuses on the interaction of processes in the online environment with the built environment. Examples include parent-child conversations about technology, the classroom hierarchy when children’s skillful use of technology outpace teachers’, and the influence of anonymity in online peer interactions. RMC also extends and complements past work, building on two foundational theoretical traditions, ecological systems perspective and SDT, integrated into a person*context model. Unique contributions of RMC include (1) the influence of reciprocal interactions on psychological needs and later motivation for and self-regulation of cyberbullying behavior, (2) consideration of macrosystem influences that approach young people at the microsystem level through technology interactions, (3) the cross-cutting contexts of technology on proximal processes that influence youth’s online behavior over time. Next, we discuss how RMC includes the individual context and the interaction between individual and social contexts.
Individual influences on cyberbullying
Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) describes individual-level psychological processes that predict behavior through shifts in motivation and self-regulation with applications to youth development (Hui & Tsang, 2012). Ryan and Deci (2000) argue that three psychological needs underlie motivation and self-regulation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Fulfilled needs can serve as protective factors (e.g., Liew et al., 2014), or deficient needs can serve as risk factors (e.g., Herrera et al., 2021). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are associated with motivation and self-regulation (Figure 1; Deci & Ryan, 2012). Self-determination theory describes how an individual develops “…propensities for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-being” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 68). Self-determination theory can also be used to identify the internal and external factors that inhibit such growth (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which implies SDT can predict antisocial behaviors such as cyberbullying perpetration. By framing SDT concepts within an ecological perspective, we also explicitly acknowledge multi-dimensional and cross-level social influences on the development of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Model for the Relational Model of Cyberbullying Motivation and Regulation (RMC): Parent, teacher, and peer influences on cyberbullying mediated by adolescent psychological factors. Note. Proximal processes labeled ‘A’ represent the direct and cross-level ecological influences on autonomy, competence, and relationships. Processes labeled ‘B’ and ‘C’ represent the direct and indirect influences of psychological needs on cyberbullying perpetration via motivation and self-regulation.
An ecological application of SDT to cyberbullying requires the identification of both external and internal factors that predict cyberbullying perpetration. When one is motivated to first engage in a behavior, external reinforcers are likely the catalyst, which consists of external rewards (e.g., improved social status) and punishments (e.g., having privileges revoked) that motivate an individual to behave (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Alternatively, if one resists engaging in a behavior, external factors may also be reinforcing (e.g., no resulting social “drama”). The development of autonomy, competence, and relatedness subsequently increases internal motivations and self-regulation, slowly transitioning away from the importance of external influences on behavior. In other words, self-determination is a continuous process that slowly transitions from external rewards to internalizing values and attitudes, an identity formation process. Eventually, behavior becomes strongly predicted by internal motivational means where individuals value personal performance before reaching an integrated, internally motivated, and self-regulated state. We apply this process of developing internalized motivation and self-regulation to cyberbullying, addressing the individual-level motivation and self-regulation with respect to cyberbullying behavior.
Linking mechanisms between context and individual
Psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness become the linking mechanisms between proximal processes in the immediate context and an individual’s internal motivation and behaviors. Learning to fill these needs is critical to identity development, and adolescents may experiment with them as they negotiate their identity. For youth, much of this process plays out through technology (e.g., social media or video chat), which acts as a “super-peer,” intimately involved in the proximal processes of children’s lives like never before (Elmore et al., 2017). In RMC, we focus on processes as individuals interact in an online environment rather than specific behaviors on devices or platforms given rapidly changing technology (Anderson & Jiang, 2022). Proximal processes and individual-level interactions that reinforce cyberbullying perpetration over time, nested within ecological contexts are represented in Figure 1, in line with Bronfenbrenner’s later PPCT model. In the model, autonomy, competence, and relatedness are internal processes that mediate the relationship between proximal processes of developmental support and risk for cyberbullying. Developmentally responsive attention is needed to understand how parents, school staff, and peers influence these aspects of youth identity formation within digital environments.
Proximal processes associated with risk of cyberbullying perpetration
Postulate #1
From a social-ecological perspective, the most proximal social influences on youth (parents, school staff, peers) impact the development of psychological resources (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), which subsequently may impact cyberbullying. These influences may have interactive effects, or in other words, mutually reinforcing or buffering influences (e.g., Hong et al., 2018).
Parental influences
Parenting practices in digital environments have been described in many ways, most commonly as “parental mediation.” Research suggests that parental mediation of social/digital media influences youth outcomes, including time spent online, online behaviors, and social interactions like cyberbullying (Charalampous et al., 2018; Kokkinos et al., 2016). Proximal processes suggest reciprocal effects, thus acknowledging that youth behavior also influences parenting (Doty et al., 2017).
Parental monitoring and autonomy support
As youth mature, the role of parents in supporting youth behavior in the digital environment shifts with youth demonstration of skills and development (Moreno et al., 2019). Active media parenting (e.g., parental discussion; interactions around media) is consistently related to lower cyberbullying (López-Castro & Priegue, 2019), but restrictive media parenting (e.g., rule setting; technology control) has mixed findings with respect to cyberbullying (e.g., Meter & Bauman, 2018; Wright, 2017). Autonomy support may be the reason for the mixed findings. Among children 10- to 18-year-old, parental media monitoring characterized as both autonomy supporting and restricting was positively related to media disclosure and negatively related to media secrecy (Padilla-Walker et al., 2020). Parental media monitoring, characterized as both controlling and restricting, was associated with higher levels of media secrecy, which in turn, was linked to relational aggression. Autonomy-supportive styles of media parenting have been related to increased youth engagement in prosocial behaviors and decreased antisocial behaviors (Meeus et al., 2018). This relationship was mediated by youth exposure to prosocial media content and a lack of antisocial media content, suggesting that autonomy-supportive parenting promotes healthy media choices that result in pro-social behaviors. Other studies have found a relationship between parental psychological control and increased cyberbullying, whereas autonomy support was related to lower cyberbullying (Fousiani et al., 2016; Legate et al., 2019). Autonomy-supportive parenting may encourage adolescent disclosure, which consistently links to positive outcomes for youth, including lower cyberbullying (Law et al., 2010; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Further, these findings align with the SDT perspective that when individuals feel controlled, they may be more prone to anti-social behaviors and aggression (Moller & Deci, 2010). These studies suggest autonomy-supportive parenting strategies rather than controlling restrictive strategies are needed.
Identity development, social interaction, and risk behaviors all exist specifically within online and social media environments, and parental monitoring while supporting autonomy remains critically important for youths’ online interactions. The permanence of some aspects of online behaviors (e.g., shared online pictures) may be impactful for youth identity formation, and too much online autonomy early in adolescence (ages 11–13) could increase the risk of cyberbullying involvement without parents knowing (Erickson et al., 2016). Overall, research suggests parenting approaches related to youth online behaviors impact social behaviors in other domains (e.g., peer and teacher relationships), and developmentally appropriate autonomy-supportive approaches have the potential to reduce cyberbullying risk.
Parental monitoring as adolescents develop digital competence
Many parents identify their lack of technological knowledge as a barrier to effective parental mediation, and adolescents describe using technological knowledge to circumvent parental rules (Erickson et al., 2016). Most parents reported monitoring adolescents’ online behaviors: 61% monitored websites, 60% reviewed social media profiles, 56% followed their child on social media, and 48% reviewed phone calls or texts (Anderson, 2016). However, 40% or less provided frequent education to their children about online risks or feedback about their online behavior (Anderson, 2016). Barlett and Fennel (2018) demonstrated that despite monitoring, parents tend to greatly over- or under-estimate their youth’s time spent online and engagement in cyberbullying perpetration. Youth reported that parents are uninformed about their youth’s cyberbullying, and such parental ignorance predicted increased cyberbullying.
Complete restriction of online access for youth, while possibly effective for short-term risk reduction, is not an effective means for comprehensive digital parenting (Gabrielli et al., 2018). Adolescents need opportunities to develop competency online that complete restriction would not allow. Wisniewski and colleagues (2013) found that autonomy-supportive media parenting was related to youth making efforts to correct mistakes that they made online. When youth learn what behaviors constitute appropriate online interactions, they have opportunities to develop online social competency. Because parents’ online and social media examples influence youth, parents’ competence, modeled effectively, can demonstrate appropriate online engagement and boundary setting to reduce cyberbullying risk.
Parent influence on child relatedness
Youth also learn appropriate online engagement behaviors within the parent-child relationship, which can improve youth relatedness. Parents’ digital interactions with adolescents can improve relatedness (Vaterlaus et al., 2019), but prior studies have highlighted the need for parental engagement to be developmentally appropriate. In a national, representative study, less than half of parents reported engaging as “friends” with their teens through social media; however, excessive parental monitoring of adolescents’ online behavior was found to be more common than active mediation (Anderson, 2016). This suggests that the way parents interact with their children in the digital environment may reduce opportunities for youth to learn appropriate social behaviors through parent-child communication. If relatedness is modeled and practiced (e.g., active parental mediation; Cerna et al., 2016) across in-person and online environments, youth will likely increase their positive relatedness online with peers. Relatedness could enhance internalized motivation for positive online interactions and self-regulation, subsequently reducing risk for cyberbullying (Buelga et al., 2017). While some studies have not found a relationship between the need for parent-child relatedness and cyberbullying (e.g., Fousiani et al., 2016), a systematic review demonstrated that parental warmth and monitoring are consistently linked to lower cyberbullying perpetration behaviors (Elsaesser et al., 2017). These findings align with longitudinal studies that demonstrate that parent-child relationships are foundational for children’s ability to form strong relationships and have prosocial relationships (e.g., Englund et al., 2011), but further research is needed to understand how relatedness links to cyberbullying.
School-staff influences
Support of autonomy
Within the classroom, school staff support autonomy by offering explanations and choices while employing non-controlling language (Núñez & León, 2015). For example, classroom teachers discussing scenarios about internet privacy and cyberbullying could encourage robust discussion and encourage multiple solutions to case studies. Autonomy support also includes acknowledging negative feelings when students are asked to do things they do not want to do (e.g., put away their phones), and reinforcing interest in learning or curiosity in the classroom. This type of classroom environment has been shown to improve engagement and perceived competence (Núñez & León, 2015). Further, autonomy support is a key factor related to students’ feelings of belongingness at school (Vaz et al., 2015).
Schools are well situated to support autonomy by teaching digital technology skills and encouraging youth towards smart choices regarding privacy and online safety. This is critical because many adolescents lack digital safety skills, take risks with privacy, and often do not self-censor online (Valcke et al., 2011). Another way to foster autonomy is through peer-helper programs developed by school staff. Peer-helper programs were effective for overcoming cyberbullying while fostering autonomy (Sadida et al., 2020), illustrating a potential interaction between school-staff and peer efforts. School counselors are in an ideal position to develop and monitor these programs and provide guidance within these groups for students to understand technological risks, practice responsible use, and support those who are vulnerable (American School Counselor Association, 2017). These studies suggest that youth need support for digital literacy to be safe while exercising autonomy online, and the school context can provide the infrastructure for both. Further, adolescents may be more receptive to instruction in these areas if they are taught in an environment that fosters autonomy (Yeagers et al., 2018).
Teachers, digital literacy, and social competence
The importance of the teacher’s role in reducing adolescent cyberbullying has been supported through literature (Gradinger et al., 2016), namely, modeling digital competence and including digital competence in their curriculum for students. However, teachers report feeling unprepared to address cyberbullying due to their own insecurities surrounding digital media (Bradshaw et al., 2013). For example, one study found that new teachers were less likely to have digital literacy (e.g., online safety, cyberbullying knowledge) compared to more seasoned teachers (Tomczyk, 2020). If the schools include a technology-related curriculum, teachers’ own digital literacy could improve.
Meta-analyses have shown teaching youth digital competence is effective in improving skills (Doty et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2019). For example, the German intervention, Media Heroes (Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2016) teaches youth the consequences of cyberbullying, empathy skills for victims, media literacy skills, and action alternatives. The intervention seeks to change cyberbullying attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control to reduce cyberbullying behaviors. A randomized controlled trial demonstrated that social competence increases and cyberbullying significantly decreases for youth who receive the Media Heroes curriculum relative to those who do not (Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2016).
In other school-based interventions, teachers promoting social competence successfully protected against cyberbullying. In the ViSC Social Competence program, school staff were trained for a year to teach social skills and intercultural competencies to students in secondary schools, which resulted in lower cyberbullying perpetration after the program (Gradinger et al., 2016). Cross et al. (2016) took a comprehensive approach where teachers taught both digital and social competencies directly to students using the Cyber Friendly Schools curriculum. Although teachers only implemented a third of the lessons due to lack of time and confidence regarding the topic, their efforts were embedded in a whole school approach, and results showed a decrease in cyberbullying. These interventions demonstrate that if schools address digital literacy and social skills, competence in these domains becomes a viable mechanism to reduce cyberbullying.
Teachers’ promotion of relatedness
Teachers are a source of emotional support for many vulnerable students, and their support can influence students’ social experiences. Students with positive teacher-student relationships are more likely to be in a low-risk group for cyberbullying (Doty et al., 2017). In a short-term cross-lagged study of early adolescents, cyberbullying predicted poor teacher relationships six months later, and conversely, poor teacher relationships predicted cyberbullying (Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016). This suggests a mutually reinforcing pattern where cyberbullying perpetration and relationships with teachers worsen over time.
Although the RMC focuses on proximal relationships, potential interactions between ecological systems are implied by the nestedness of the model within ecological systems. Strong relationships with teachers also contribute to a positive school climate (e.g., a school’s characteristics, including organization, attitudes, and value system) and school belongingness (Coyle et al., 2022), which are protective factors for youth and negatively associated with cyberbullying perpetration at the exosystem level. A study of 43 middle and high schools found that a poor school climate strengthened the relationship between low school engagement and cyberbullying (Yang et al., 2020). These findings reinforce the idea that teachers strengthen a sense of relatedness, which in turn may reduce cyberbullying both directly and indirectly through school climate.
Peer influences
Despite the substantive role of peers in adolescent identity formation, relatively little is known about how peers promote cyberbullying behavior in digital environments. The RMC provides a framework of associations to explore within the peer context to identify potential points of intervention.
Peer influence and autonomy development
Peers are a powerful influence as youth develop a sense of autonomy. Peer pressure has been considered an external, controlled motivator of online engagement compared to an internal, autonomous one (Luqman et al., 2018). For example, bystanders in cyberbullying incidents are more likely to intervene when other peers are not present (Song & Oh, 2018). A study of perceptions of autonomy among sixth, seventh, and 12th graders revealed that younger adolescents desired more autonomy than older adolescents (Daddis, 2011).
Further, peer group norms contribute to cyberbullying risk. In one study, a risky peer context was associated with cyber-aggression, such that secrecy had a stronger relationship with cyber-aggression in the context of friends’ cyber-aggression (Goldstein, 2016). Youth embedded within a peer group that socially normalizes online risk behaviors (e.g., expectations of peer approval of online risk) are likely to also engage in such behaviors (Chen et al., 2017; Sasson & Mesch, 2014). Additionally, youth may seek to justify online risk behaviors by overestimating the social norm of cyberbullying (Chen et al., 2017). However, parenting moderates the impact of social norms on aggression among middle school students, suggesting an interaction between proximal influences (Farrell et al., 2011). Within the digital environment, the establishment of peer group norms may be complicated, particularly around anonymous cyber-aggressive behaviors. The potential pathway between peer influence and autonomy development elucidated by the RMC model requires measurement of peer pressure and perceived autonomy in online contexts to understand the potential connections to cyberbullying.
Social competence and technology among peers
Social competence refers to having skills to engage in effective social interactions with peers and is often measured by peer acceptance, popularity, and social-emotional skills (Rose-Krasnor, 1997). Social competence develops in part in online settings and may be a protective factor against cyberbullying. Among third through sixth graders, Schoffstall and colleagues (2011) found negative associations between cyberbullying perpetration and social competencies (e.g., self-worth, peer optimism, and mutual friendships), controlling for traditional bullying. High school students tend to use online environments to strengthen offline relationships rather than foster new relationships online (Reich et al., 2012), and it may be that younger youth are more likely to search for social connections via online platforms than older youth, increasing the risk of cyberbullying.
The online environment may provide a new opportunity for youth to socially interact and, in turn, strengthen social competencies (Weinstein, 2018). However, the nuances of social interactions online (e.g., emoji usage, text abbreviations) may require a different set of social skills than face-to-face interactions. Peers are a proximal influence for youth, and substantial social development occurs within the online peer context (Nesi et al., 2018b). Therefore, a lack of social competence in online interactions may affect relatedness in online settings. Additionally, gender may serve as a social stimulus (or demand characteristic) related to gendered technology use (Tudge et al., 2009). For example, girls may be more likely to get tagged on TikTok while boys may be invited to join a Discord group for gaming where they experience different patterns of interactions that influence the development of social competence through adolescence (Jennings & Caplovitz, 2022).
Youths’ lack of competence in technological settings has been shown to lead to maladaptive outcomes. When gamers experienced a perceived lack of competence playing online games in an experimentally manipulated environment, they were more likely to display aggressive behavior (Przyblski et al., 2014). This suggests that when the psychological need for competence is thwarted, it leads to maladaptive aggression in online settings.
Relatedness and the peer network
Building social competence in online contexts critically contributes to peer relationships and youths’ sense of identity (Nesi et al., 2018a). When psychological needs are not met, youth may be motivated to cyberbully to try increasing acceptance and satisfying relatedness. Research reveals negative associations between all forms of cyberbullying involvement (e.g., victim, perpetrator, and victim/perpetrator) and perceived peer acceptance among 11- to 15-year-old females (Betts & Spenser, 2017). A longitudinal study of youth in grades 6–8 found that cyber victimization experiences were positively associated with later cyber-aggression, accounting for initial cyber-aggression frequency (Wright & Li, 2013). In a study of students aged 12–14, cyberbullying predicted popularity, though the reverse was not found (Wegge et al., 2016). Barlett and Gentile (2012) argued that youth with small stature or low influence in person may socially benefit from cyberbullying in ways that cannot occur in person. These findings underscore the complexity in youth’s attempts to gain popularity among peers in the online context and suggest that youth may engage in maladaptive behaviors (e.g., cyberbullying) after experiencing victimization. Overall, relationships with parents, school staff, and peers provide contexts that are mutually reinforcing and influence internal psychological resources and, ultimately, cyberbullying.
Youth motivation for cyberbullying
Postulate #2
Autonomy, competence, and relatedness have an indirect impact on cyberbullying via changes in motivation.
Applying the SDT framework, initial cyber-aggressive actions are likely driven by external cues and rewards, which, over time and with continued experiences, become internal patterns of autonomy, relatedness, and competence and make subsequent cyber-aggression actions internally motivated. Factors that increase motivation for online behaviors are often different than the social context of the face-to-face environment.
External motivational factors
In SDT theorizing, research on external factors highlights relatedness as an important influence (Shahar et al., 2003). Barlett and Gentile (2012) demonstrated that cyberbullying perpetration among emerging adults predicted cyberbullying perpetration two months later, which was significantly mediated by positive reinforcement from family and friends. This suggests that external motivation is a process by which proximal relationships influence development, which is on the left of the motivation continuum implicit in RMC (see Figure 1). The authors suggested that stability in cyberbullying perpetration over time was due to others’ encouragement and reinforcement. Further, Espelage et al. (2012) argued that positive feedback in the online community via “likes”, “shares”, etc. may motivate negative online behaviors.
External factors can also be used to reduce cyberbullying perpetration. Williams and Guerra (2007) showed that supportive peer relationships (e.g., potentially adaptive reinforcements) were associated with a lower probability of cyberbullying perpetration. Additionally, extensive research has shown that bystander interventions – when peers intervene to disrupt cyberbullying perpetration actions – are effective (e.g., Brody & Vangelisti, 2016). In contexts where bullying behaviors are socially punished and prosocial behaviors are reinforced, external pressures may inhibit motivation to cyberbully.
Internal motivational factors
Continued learning and experiences with positively-reinforced external factors (e.g., relatedness) may lead to the development of internally-motivated cyberbullying behaviors. Many learning-based psychological theories posit that continued experiences cyberbullying others will lead to developing cyberbullying attitudes that predict subsequent behaviors (c.f., Barlett & Gentile, 2012). For example, the benefits of anonymity and irrelevance of physical stature feed a self-reinforcing learning cycle of cyberbullying perpetration (Barlett & Kowalewski, 2019). Such internal motivational factors are the focus of most SDT research programs seeking to predict various behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2000), corresponding to a high level of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. More specifically, in the RMC model, we refer to intrinsic motivation, where youth view cyberbullying as pleasurable and satisfying.
Revenge-seeking due to anger after a perceived relational provocation (i.e., reactive aggression) is robustly associated with cyberbullying and may represent an autonomy-related reaction in youth (Konig et al., 2010). Meta-analytic work demonstrated that anger positively predicts cyberbullying perpetration (Kowalski et al., 2014). In a longitudinal sampling of US youth, Wave 1 cyberbullying victimization predicted Wave 2 cyberbullying perpetration, but the reverse was not true (Barlett & Wright, 2018). This finding suggests that being victimized online may be a proximal process: a provocation that predicts retaliatory cyberbullying. Similarly, a recent study found that rage and revenge were reasons for both cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying (Graf et al., 2022). Kowalski et al. (2014) argued that the reasons for face-to-face bullying are likely interpersonal (e.g., external) while the reasons for cyberbullying perpetration are likely intrapersonal (e.g., internal). The RMC suggests a progression between the two domains.
Further work is needed to explicate pathways to internalized motivation for cyberbullying distinct from in-person bullying. Reinforcers are likely different in the digital environment than the built environment: reinforcement processes for cyberbullying may be more immediate and come from a range of different sources not available in the built environment (e.g., strangers “liking” a post). Internalized self-regulation processes, also developed through reinforcement, likely require psychological resources specific to employment in the digital environment.
Youth regulation against cyberbullying
Postulate #3
Autonomy, competence, and relatedness have an indirect impact on cyberbullying via self-regulation.
While deficits in relatedness, autonomy, and competence may increase cyberbullying perpetration among adolescents, a strong sense of these may lead to increased self-regulation. In turn, self-regulation has been related to lower levels of cyberbullying (Vazsonyi et al., 2012). We discuss the role of self-regulation in RMC pathways. Studies described below provide preliminary support for this postulate, but additional theoretically driven longitudinal work would strengthen the hypothesized direction of associations.
Psychological needs and self-regulation
Self-regulation, also referred to as self-control or self-discipline, refers to “the idea of voluntary self-governance in the service of personally valued goals and standards” (Duckworth & Kern, 2011). This aligns with the SDT description of identified regulation where individuals perceive value and assign personal importance to behaviors, in this case cyberbullying. Those with poor executive functioning or low attentiveness are likely to lack self-control. We assert that an autonomous-supportive approach to media parenting and teaching digital citizenship in schools are proximal processes that will provide youth with social experiences within healthy boundaries, leading to the development of self-regulation of online behaviors. This requires a consistent, balanced, and scaffolded approach by parents and teachers. In contrast, a permissive approach may not provide any guidance for developing self-regulation, while a restrictive approach may not provide opportunities for social learning and building digital competency. This may be particularly difficult in the digital environment; parents and teachers may need support to teach effective online skills (e.g., Erickson et al., 2016).
We also hypothesize that online experiences within healthy boundaries are likely to provide experiences that will lead to improved self-regulation in online contexts. Restrictive, direct parental control, such as limit setting of screen time and access to passwords, was related to low adolescent risky behavior online but also may have discouraged teens from engaging online or correcting their own mistakes (Wisniewski et al., 2013). In contrast, active discussion and monitoring that included online interaction were related to engagement with others online and correcting their online misjudgments (e.g., deleting posts). These findings reflect that learning appropriate self-regulation of online actions is a developmental process, and pre- and early-adolescents in particular need guidance to counteract impulsive decisions online (Gabrielli & Tanski, 2020). Further, this research highlights autonomy and relational experiences as key ingredients to developing self-regulation and competence.
Such experiences help young people develop the cognitive skill referred to as theory of mind, or an emotional regulation skill of understanding other’s mental states (i.e., perspective taking; Montreuil & Malikin, 2021). This critical social skill is more likely when young people have developed self-regulation, as they are better able to empathize with others (Erbas et al., 2016). Social feedback from parents, teachers, or peers (e.g., proximal processes within close relationships) may facilitate the development of such emotional regulation skills, and interactions within the digital environment may require a unique set of skills specific to the interpretation of online social cues (e.g., recognizing vagueness in text exchanges or use of emojis).
Self-regulation and cyberbullying
Longitudinal studies have examined self-regulation as an antecedent of bullying, but the online environment may heighten this tendency because anonymity undermines social accountability and is associated with a lack of self-control (Chui, 2014). In a cross-lagged panel study of adolescents in the Netherlands, those who reported inattentiveness were more likely to perpetrate cyberbullying (Busch et al., 2015). In a cross-sectional study of youth in 25 countries, Vazsonyi and colleagues (2012) found that low self-control was related to cyberbullying via in-person bullying experiences. Further, a longitudinal cross-lagged panel study found that cyberbullying was related to decreased self-control, but the opposite was not found (Coelho & Marchante, 2018). Boys were also less likely to report self-control. Given differences in parenting, teaching, and youth self-control by gender (Busch et al., 2015; McFarland et al., 2016), gender should be considered a potential moderator in the RMC model. These findings imply that a supportive context for building self-control may be a leverage point for reducing cyberbullying.
Developing positive self-regulation skills such as theory of mind and cognitive reappraisal contribute to prosocial skills, which are protective against cyberbullying. A lack of cognitive flexibility to think about another’s state of emotion has been related to peer aggression and low peer acceptance (O’Toole et al., 2017). The types of activities youth engage with matter—those who engage actively, supportively with close friends, or creatively were more likely to report prosocial skills and positive adjustment (e.g., Swirksy et al., 2021). Further relationships with parents are key in promoting self-regulation (Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010). If youth understand the likely outcomes of their online choices (e.g., positive vs. negative emotions), they may learn to make more intentional choices leading to prosocial behaviors, which are more reinforcing than cyberbullying (Weinstein, 2018).
Implications for prevention and future research
The RMC offers several targets for preventative intervention research from a socio-ecological perspective. A strength of the model is the flexibility to generate several different relationships or bi-directional longitudinal pathways that consider the role of parents, teachers, and peers in the prevention of cyberbullying behavior. The literature on parenting practices (e.g., authoritarian vs. authoritative; Kokkinos, 2013) suggests that these features will influence adolescents’ online behaviors. Therefore, parents are encouraged to apply parenting practices that emphasize warmth and connectedness, framed with clear boundaries and behavioral expectations that are developmentally flexible. The RMC model dovetails with the TECH parenting guidelines designed to promote effective parental media management (Gabrielli et al., 2018), leveraging the role of the parents to enhance youth autonomy through (1) shared decision-making; (2) youth competence through education about risks and consequences of online behavior; and (3) youth relatedness through open communication and active participation in youth online environments. Testing programs to improve parents’ digital competency in randomized controlled trials is critical while concurrently investing in important mediating factors such as youth autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Gabrielli et al., 2018).
Cyberbullying prevention has been found to be effective in promoting healthier online interactions with peers in school settings at the school-wide, classroom-wide, small group, and individual levels (Doty et al., 2021). At the school-wide level, teachers and administrators are encouraged to have discussions regarding online safety and appropriate online activities (Su et al., 2021). Strengthening bystander competencies to address cyberbullying behavior among peers and improving school climate is another potential intervention strategy (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2013) and a potential RMC extension. In qualitative interviews, school counselors reported a spillover effect of cyberbullying into schools and suggested that further support materials for parents, digital citizenship training for youth, and support for school counselors and teachers are needed (Su et al., 2021). Scholars have suggested incorporating social and emotional interventions promoting positive relationships into the school curriculum, focusing on improving relationships among peers and the relationships between adults and students (Bradshaw & Waasdorp, 2019; Cohen & Geier, 2010). Examining the moderating effects of ecological system layers beyond proximal processes is another potential application of the RMC model. For example, the relationship between peers and teachers at school, psychological needs, and motivation to cyberbullying may function differently in a school that allows cell phone use during the day compared to a school that does not. Parent-child relationships may have a differential impact on psychological needs such as autonomy and subsequent development of self-regulation of cyberbullying in a state that allows parents to ban social media use compared to one that does not. Macrosystem considerations include large companies’ social media interactions with young people as a “superpeer,” which hold little relational value and may undermine self-regulation for cyberbullying. Cultivating a positive school climate may improve student outcomes broadly (e.g., autonomy, competence, relatedness), moderating the effect of the proposed RMC pathways to cyberbullying activity (see Figure 1 for proposed mediational pathways).
Limitations
We note here the limitations of the RMC model. A limitation is the lack of attention to moral development in this model. Some have explored the role of the theory of mind and self-regulation with respect to moral development and cyberbullying (Montreuil & Malikin, 2021), and an examination of the role of psychological needs in this relationship could be another potential application of the RMC model. However, we acknowledge that the RMC is not a comprehensive theory that explains all reasons for online harassment, for example moral outrage or moral development (Marwick, 2021; Montreuil & Malikin, 2021). We acknowledge other models address potential moral reasons for harassment, for example, when individuals violate network norms (e.g., online social shaming; Marwick, 2021). The concept of online amplification that has been used to explain network harassing and is unique to the online environment could be applied to the peer interactions that then influence motivation for cyberbullying in the RMC because it emphasizes cross-cutting digital influences. We also recognize a lack of emphasis in the RMC to higher levels of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, because the focus of this paper targeted more proximal influences (i.e., microsystem influences). These are important influences on youth behavior, though, as we argue above, digital contexts could be included as modifiers in the model (e.g., industry, policy impacting media regulations).
Conclusion
Unlike prior models of cyberbullying, the RMC focuses on family, teacher, and peer influences on individual processes of development. The model suggests that prevention efforts focus on leveraging proximal relationships to build youth’s psychological resources and influence motivation and regulation. A commitment to iterative testing of the hypothesized relationships is critical to adolescent development given constant advancements in technology and the high levels of digital engagement among youth. Furthermore, as digital interactions accelerate, the need to promote civil public interactions and healthy private interactions in digital contexts will only increase (U.S. Surgeon General, 2023).
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author was supported in part by funding from USDA REEport Hatch Project FLA-FYC-005789.
Open research statement
As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.
As this paper is theoretical, data are not available. The materials used in the research are not available.
