Positive Perceived School Climate and Cyberbullying in Chinese Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model From the Perspective of Internet Characteristics

Abstract

Although substantive research has shown that a positive perceived school climate is an essential protective factor for cyberbullying among adolescents, little research revealed the mechanisms underlying this relationship. This study examined whether normative beliefs about aggression mediate the association between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying and whether this process is moderated by Internet morality. Anonymous questionnaires measuring these variables were administered to 649 junior high school students in China. After controlling for traditional bullying, mediation analysis indicated that normative beliefs about aggression played a full mediating role in the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying. Moderated mediation analysis further revealed that Internet morality moderated the predictive effect of normative beliefs about aggression on cyberbullying. The mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression was stronger in individuals with lower levels of Internet morality. These findings provide insight into making existing interventions more suitable for cyberbullying.

Keywords

positive perceived school climate cyberbullying normative beliefs about aggression Internet morality

Introduction

Bullying is a distinct problem among youth (Doty, Gower, Rudi, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2017). In particular, cyberbullying has gradually become a prevalent phenomenon with the sweeping progress of technology. Cyberbullying and traditional bullying have strong co-occurrence (Ruth, Dorothy, Kathleen, & Jordan, 2019; C. W. Wang, Musumari, Techasrivichien, Suguimoto, & Nakayama, 2019). The perpetrators of traditional bullying are usually also the perpetrators of cyberbullying. Taking advantage of this overlap, an opinion about current interventions for adolescent cyberbullying is making the existing intervention projects targeting traditional bullying applicable to cyberbullying (Pearce, Cross, Monks, Waters, & Falconer, 2011). Cyberbullying peaks among teenagers (Williams & Guerra, 2007), who spend considerable time in school. The establishment of school-based cyberbullying programs can not only focus on high-risk groups but also make the best use of existing programs.

However, owing to the lack of pertinence, the effect of interventions is restricted. For example, a study found that the KiVa program (which has been widely used to reduce traditional bullying) had a relatively low effect on cyberbullying (Williford et al., 2013). Thus, researchers have suggested that Internet-specific measures should be increased (such as monitoring online time) when these school-based programs are used to reduce cyberbullying (Gaffney, Farrington, Espelage, & Ttofi, 2019; Williford et al., 2013). To the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated the mechanisms underlying the connection between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying in terms of Internet characteristics. Without related research in the network context, it is difficult to apply school-based programs to cyberbullying. The theoretical contribution of this research is disclosing the elements that have risk or buffering effects on cyberbullying among teenagers. The research examined whether a positive perceived school climate has a buffering effect while normative beliefs about aggression have a risk effect on cyberbullying. Besides, this study tested Internet morality as an Internet-specific variable that may set the pattern in motion. Given the close relationship between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, traditional bullying was used as a control variable in this study. Furthermore, the result is also of considerable practical importance for improving targeted intervention plans and making them more applicable to prevent or address bullying in the network environment.

Cyberbullying in Early Adolescence

Cyberbullying is particularly prevalent in early adolescence and peaks during the eighth grade (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). Kowalski and Limber (2013) claimed that 21% of 931 American middle school students reported that they were involved in cyberbullying victimization, perpetration, or victimization/perpetration at least once in the past few months. Similarly, a meta-analysis that included 46 Australian studies found that the prevalence of cyberbullying in children and adolescents was approximately 15.17% as victims and 5.27% as perpetrators (Jadambaa et al., 2019). Chinese samples were used in this study. An empirical study shows that 23.5% of Chinese junior high school students had committed cyberbullying at least once in the past year (Chu, Zhou, & Fan, 2020). In another study with Chinese samples, the prevalence of cyberbullying was 16.6% (Li, Sidibe, Shen, & Hesketh, 2019). In general, rates of cyberbullying varied between studies but were estimated to be approximately 14% to 21% (Ansary, 2020; Kowalski, Limber, & Mccord, 2019; Wang, Yogeeswaran, Andrews, Hawi, & Sibley, 2019). Cyberbullying could have a series of adverse effects such as anxiety, depression, deviant behaviors, and even suicide on fragile adolescents (Calvete, Orue, & Gámez-Guadix, 2016; Hu et al., 2019; Vaillancourt, Faris, & Mishna, 2017). Unfortunately, early adolescents experience a fragile period in which their overall mental health declines (Kessler et al., 2007) and self-perceived competence is under construction. Therefore, youth in this stage may be especially vulnerable to the effect of cybervictimization (Cole, Zelkowitz, Nick, Martin, & Spinelli, 2016; Tian, Yan, & Huebner, 2018). Taking into account the high prevalence and serious consequences of cyberbullying in early adolescence, it is necessary to protect adolescents from cyberbullying. Moreover, early prevention could be crucial for the development of cyberbullying across adolescence because early cyberbullying perpetration was found to be closely related to subsequent cyberbullying (Zych et al., 2020).

School is a critical environment that affects the development of adolescents. An increasing body of research has yielded insights into the influence of perceived school climate on adolescents’ academic performance or Internet addiction (Edwards, Mumford, & Serra-Roldan, 2016; Griffin, Cooper, Metzger, Golden, & White, 2017). Bullying is a severe deviant behavior in adolescence (Doty et al., 2017). There are two reasons why this study focuses on cyberbullying rather than traditional bullying. First, the harm caused by cyberbullying might be greater than that caused by traditional bullying (Alisdair, 2006; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). Second, campus projects targeting traditional bullying are relatively complete, but how the perceived school climate, let alone the valid school-based prevention, affects cyberbullying is still unclear. First, the underlying mechanism between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying is largely unclear. In addition, there is a lack of research considering Internet features in the discussion of the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. Identifying the mechanisms from the perspective of Internet characteristics is of considerable significance in developing cyberbullying prevention.

Theoretical Framework

Social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) can provide a conceptual lens for this study. The theory holds that people are born with a propensity to commit crimes, so what truly needs to be explained is “not to commit crimes” rather than “to commit crimes.” Social connection, which refers to the connection between individuals and society, is the core concept of this theory. It is the fear of breaking social connections with important people (parents, friends, etc.) or important social structures (schools, units, etc.) that keep individuals from committing crimes. The social connection includes four components: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. These components interact with each other. Attachment plays a fundamental role in restraining crime. Hirschi (1969) argues that teenagers who are not attached to traditional institutions might not follow normal beliefs and then might commit crimes. Social connections are manifested and maintained by certain social institutions while schools are considered one of the most important social institutions in the adolescent years (Sampson & Laub, 1997). The general aggression model proposed by Anderson and Bushman provides theoretical support from the perspective of cognition. It claimed that an individual’s behavior could be predicted by individual and situational inputs, and one’s cognition plays a mediating role in this process. Thus, a positive perceived school climate might influence teenagers’ cyberbullying by mediating normative beliefs about aggression.

Moreover, Hirschi (1969) claims that social control theory fails to integrate with other ideas of why juvenile delinquency occurs in some adolescents but not others. Although social control theory can explain part of the association with crime, it is necessary to add more variables to the model (Hirschi, 1969). The theory of moral disengagement was developed based on Bandura’s social cognition theory (Bandura, 2010). It is possible to explain why individuals do not feel guilt or remorse when committing a crime. Individuals with low morality standards are more likely to engage in immoral behaviors in an easily provoked environment (Jin, 2018). A review of existing studies supports the role that morals play in the process of committing crimes. Therefore, morality might be an important supplement to the hypothesized conceptual models. However, there is no empirical study that examined morality in social control theory from the perspective of Internet characteristics, which is a gap that the study seeks to fill.

Positive Perceived School Climate and Cyberbullying

While the school climate refers to the characteristics and quality of school culture (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009), the perceived school climate is the campus environment perceived by teenagers on an individual level (Jia et al., 2009), and a positive perceived school climate refers to a good feeling of the school climate. A positive perceived school climate is an individual difference variable in this research. Studies have shown that perceived associations with school can reduce cyberbullying (Wong, Chan, & Cheng, 2014) while feeling unsafe in school is considered a risk factor for being a cyberbullying perpetrator (Sourander et al., 2010).

According to social control theory, if an individual is in a marginal position in traditional society (i.e., their social links are not close), the possibility of them committing a crime will increase. This study aimed to explore the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying. Many studies have supported the influence of a positive perceived school climate on adolescent bullying (Acosta et al., 2019). Those who believed in more school discipline or whose teacher-student relationships were more positive had fewer behavioral problems in the future (M. T. Wang, Selman, Dishion, & Stormshak, 2010). When students collectively reported better feelings of peer support, school discipline, and school safety in the school, they were less likely to report bullying (Konishi, Miyazaki, Hymel, & Waterhouse, 2017). A tracking survey showed that more negative school experiences were also associated with more bullying perpetration (Zhao, Bear, Yang, Qian, & Cheng, 2020). However, there are fewer studies about a positive perceived school climate with cyberbullying perpetration than studies focusing on bullying perpetration. Although few studies have been performed, the influence of a positive perceived school climate on adolescent cyberbullying has been supported. Research with a sample of 1917 Hong Kong secondary adolescents indicated a negative correlation between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying (Wong et al., 2014). Williams and Guerra (2007) found that a single unit increase in perceived school climate scores, which ranged from 9 to 36, was associated with a 9% decline in the incidence rate of cyberbullying. A similar result is also found in a Chinese sample; adolescents who reported a positive school climate are less likely to commit cyberbullying (X. C. Wang, Zhao, & Lei, 2019).

To date, studies have focused on the link between perceived school climate and total bullying (Acosta et al., 2019; Konishi et al., 2017; M. T. Wang et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2020). The particularity of cyberbullying and its relationship with perceived school climate has not been fully explored. Little research has been discussed the internal mechanisms underlying this association (C. W. Wang et al., 2019). How this association works in the network environment remains largely unknown. Therefore, the research takes a novel point of network peculiarity to explore the underlying mechanisms and hypothesizes primarily that a positive perceived school climate is associated with less cyberbullying (H1).

Normative Beliefs About Aggression as a Mediator

The environment has an important impact on the formation of individual normative beliefs while normative beliefs about aggression are considered to be the most important factor for individual bullying (Burton, Florell, & Gore, 2013; Guerra, Williams, & Sadek, 2011). Normative beliefs about aggression are to what extent an individual thinks an attack response is reasonable or will be accepted by other members of society (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). It is an individual level variable.

The general aggression model proposed that individual and situational inputs can influence an individual’s underlying appraisal and decision-making process through cognition, emotion, and arousal and then affect one’s behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Youth cyberbullying is one of the deviant behaviors resulting from the process between perceived school climate, which is affected by the school situation, and their normative beliefs about aggression (as one of their cognitive processes) over time.

Previous empirical studies support the mediating role of normative beliefs about aggression in the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and aggression. First, perceiving a positive school climate leads to a lower normative belief about aggression. The research demonstrated that individuals’ aggression norms are influenced by the moral climate in the classroom but not by the behavior observed by classmates. Students showed less aggression in classes where peers and teachers discourage aggression than other classes (Henry, Guerra, Huesmann, Tolan, Vanacker, & Eron, 2000). However, if students perceived a bad school climate, they tended to think that the school allows students to be bullied because of their clothing, nationality, or other reasons, and perpetrators were more likely to believe that the school allows students to gain respect through violence (Pecjak & Pirc, 2017). In addition, firm normative beliefs about aggression tend to predict more cyberbullying (Gendron, Williams, & Guerra, 2011; Williams & Guerra, 2007). If teenagers think that it is reasonable and appropriate to attack others under social norms, they will undoubtedly employ more bullying (Guerra et al., 2011; Werner & Nixon, 2005; Zhu, Chu, Zhang, & Li, 2020). Williams and Guerra (2007) divided normative beliefs about aggression into six levels and found that the incidence of cyberbullying increased by 24% per level. Similarly, the finding from a cross-cultural sample supported the prediction of cyberbullying using normative beliefs about aggression (Ang, Tan, & Talib, 2011). Thus, although not yet tested, it is reasonable to hypothesize that normative beliefs about aggression play a mediating role between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying (H2).

Internet Morality as a Moderator

Since most of the sports where cyberbullying occurs are not schools, some researchers suggest adding blocks targeting Internet particularities to school-based intervention programs (Gaffney et al., 2019; Williford et al., 2013). Based on these findings, this study intends to explore the moderating role of Internet morality. Internet morality refers to the moral standards of individuals when they use the Internet, which can regulate their words and deeds (Luo, 2007). It is an important protective factor in the network.

According to the moral disengagement model, individuals with low moral standards are more likely to engage in immoral behaviors in an easily provoked environment (Jin, 2018). Many empirical studies have supported the moral disengagement model. For instance, individuals with high Internet morality adopt more online prosocial behaviors (Ma & Lei, 2011) while individuals with low Internet morality adopt more online cheating and immoral behaviors (Ma & Lei, 2010). The impact of violent environmental exposure on Internet attacks is stronger in individuals with low Internet morality (Jin, Lu, Zhang, Wu, & Jin, 2018). Surprisingly, as far as we know, the role of Internet morality has still not been tested in empirical studies from the perspective of Internet characteristics. Unfortunately, no empirical study reveals the necessary network characteristic factors, which is an urgent problem to solve in prevention (Gaffney et al., 2019; Williford et al., 2013). This research seeks to contribute to filling this gap. In the hypothesized conceptual models, we use the variable that is closely related to network usage—Internet morality—to further expand the usability of previous projects.

Besides, it was believed that people consciously apply some moral principles when making moral judgments (Cushman & Hauser, 2006). Individuals with different levels of Internet morality may adopt different levels of standard or normative beliefs. Therefore, we believe that Internet morality will regulate the second half of the mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression. To summarize, Hypothesis 3 of this study is proposed: Internet morality moderates the influence of normative beliefs about aggression on cyberbullying, namely, the second half of the mediating effect; and the mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression is stronger in individuals with lower Internet morality (H3).

The Present Study

In summary, drawing from social control theory, the general aggression model, and the moral disengagement model, this study explores the influence of a positive perceived school climate on cyberbullying with the mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression and the moderating effect of Internet morality (the model diagram is as shown in Figure 1). Besides, the study provides constructive suggestions for expanding traditional school-based antibullying programs to cyberbullying interventions.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized conceptual model.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Seven hundred fifty students from grades 7 to 8 of a middle school in Wuhan, a mid-sized city in the middle of China, were selected via random cluster sampling. Surveys were administered during school hours in the participants’ classrooms. Participants responded to questionnaires including measures of demographic information, cyber and traditional victimization, a positive perceived school climate, normative beliefs about aggression, and Internet morality. The questionnaires were paper-based, and participants completed the survey with their pens. Two trained psychology graduate students acted as the experimenters. At the beginning of the collection session, the experimenters emphasized the anonymity of this inquiry to encourage honest reporting. Then, the instructions were read aloud. Once the investigation began, communication was forbidden, but questions were allowed. If the participant had any problems during the investigation, he could raise his hand, and the experimenter would come to him and give an answer.

Strict questionnaire sifting was conducted after the survey was finished. A total of 101 samples with a regular response to the positive perceived school climate or normative beliefs about aggression questionnaires, both of which contain inverse scoring questions, were eliminated.

A total of 649 valid questionnaires (367 from boys, 268 from girls, and 24 from respondents with an unreported gender) were obtained. The age of the subjects was from 11 to 15 years old ( $\bar{X}$ = 12.81, SD = 0.76). This project obtained the approval of the Institutional Review Board of the author’s university and informed consent from the stakeholders (i.e., the participating school administrators, teachers, and students concerned).

Measures

Positive perceived school climate

The Chinese version of the perceived school climate scale revised by Jia et al. (2009) was adopted. The questionnaire consists of 25 items and is divided into three dimensions. The “teacher support” dimension includes seven questions, such as “teachers care about me very much”; “autonomous opportunities” has five questions, such as “teachers ask students about what they want to learn”; and “classmate support” has 13 questions, such as “students show solidarity and affection.” Among the 13 questions of this dimension, there are seven inverse scoring questions, such as “Students often fight.” The scale ranged from “never” to “always” on a 4-point scale. Inverse scoring questions are included in the total score after reverse processing. The higher the total score, the better the school climate that the students perceived. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale in this study was .91.

Cyberbullying

To capture cyberbullying, the cyberbullying penetration subscale in the revised cyberbullying inventory, which was revised by Chu and Fan (2017), was adopted. The scale consists of 14 items. Participants were asked to respond to the questions using a 4-point scale (“1” to “4” representing “never implemented,” “1 time,” “2-3 times,” and “more than 3 times,” respectively). The frequency of cyberbullying in the last 6 months was measured (such as “Posting false photos or information online to slander someone”). The higher the score is, the more cyberbullying students are involved in. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale in this study was .91.

Normative beliefs about aggression

The normative beliefs about aggression scale revised by Huesmann and Guerra (1997) and translated by Shao and Wang (2017) was adopted. The 20-item scale includes 12 items that measure beliefs in revenge aggression (e.g., “Fifi hit Mei, and Mei hit Fifi back. Do you object to this?”), and eight items that measure beliefs in general aggression (e.g., “if you are angry, you can call someone names.”). Among the eight questions of this dimension, there are four inverse scoring questions, such as “It’s wrong to insult others.” All questions are measured on a 4-point Likert-type scale (“1” = “definitely not” to “4” = “totally agree with”). Inverse scoring questions are included in the total score after reverse processing. Higher scores indicate that children are more likely to accept aggression as an accepted social norm. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale in this study was .92.

Internet morality

The Internet morality scale compiled by Luo (2007) is adopted. There are nine items in the scale (e.g., “Hackers and their actions should be criticized rather than worshiped.”) measured on a 7-point scale (“−3” = “strongly disagree” to “3” = “strongly agree”). The higher the score is, the higher the level of morality they have on the Internet. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale in this study was .72.

Covariates

This study controlled traditional bullying in the statistical analyses since traditional bullying played an important role in the relation between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying (Ruth et al., 2019; C. W. Wang et al., 2019). The subscale of traditional bullying in the Chinese version of the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire (Awiria, Olweus, & Byrne, 1994) revised by Zhang, Wu, and Jones (1999) was adopted to capture traditional bullying. The scale consists of six questions answered on a 5-point scale ranging from “never happened” to “several times a week.” The frequency of traditional bullying in the last 6 months was measured (such as “ I (we) hit, kick, push, bump, or threaten a classmate intentionally”). Cronbach’s alpha of the scale in this study was .84.

Control and Assessment of Common Method Biases

Considering the common method biases caused by measurement methods, some methods were taken to conduct preprogram control or to evaluate the bias. First, this study followed previous advice (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) such as anonymous procedures and the reverse scoring of some items. Second, Harman’s single-factor test was further conducted to assess common method bias. The results showed that the eigenvalues of 14 factors were greater than 1.0, and the variance explained by the first factor was 20.26%, which was less than the critical standard of 40%. This result indicated that there was no serious common method bias in this study.

Statistical Analysis

All of the statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 23.0 and SPSS macro PROCESS 2.16 (http://www.afnaves.com). First, we analyzed descriptive statistics and correlations among variables. Second, Model 4 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) was used to test Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. Finally, we used Model 14 to test the moderated mediation for Hypothesis 3. This approach has been widely accepted to test complex models including moderated mediation models (e.g., Zheng, Yang, Liu, Chu, & Zhou, 2020). We test the significance of the effects with the bootstrapping method, which constructs confidence intervals (CIs) derived from 5,000 bootstrap resamples. If the CI excludes zero, the effect is considered significant. The method has been extensively used to calculate estimators since it could implement statistical tests without the traditional statistical assumption of normality.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Descriptive statistics and the Pearson product-moment correlation matrix of the study variables are presented in Table 1. A positive perceived school climate was significantly negatively correlated with normative beliefs about aggression (r = −.40, p < .001) and cyberbullying (r = −.21, p < .001) but positively correlated with Internet morality (r = .17, p < .001). Normative beliefs about aggression were significantly negatively correlated with Internet morality (r = −.16, p < .001) but positively correlated with cyberbullying (r = .32, p < .001). Internet morality was significantly negatively correlated with cyberbullying (r = −.18, p < .001).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Main Variables.

Variables	$\bar{X}$	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Positive perceived school climate	3.03	0.53	1
2. Normative beliefs about aggression	1.69	0.54	−.40**	1
3. Internet morality	0.71	1.03	.17**	−.16**	1
4. Cyberbullying	1.08	0.26	−.21**	.32**	−.18**	1

Note. N = 649.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Prevalence of Cyberbullying

Figure 2 shows that 27.12% of the adolescents (n = 176) in this study had been involved in cyberbullying at least once in the past 6 months; and among these adolescents, 1.20% of adolescents (n = 8) perpetrated at least two or three episodes of cyberbullying on each of the 14 items on average. The prevalence of cyberbullying in this study is basically consistent with the results of previous studies.

Figure 2.

Prevalence of cyberbullying in past 6 months.

Hypothesis Testing

As shown in Table 2, a positive perceived school climate had a significant direct negative predictive effect on cyberbullying (β = −.07, p < .05), indicating that the better the perceived school climate was, the lower the amount of cyberbullying. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. When a positive perceived school climate and normative beliefs about aggression were both taken as predictive variables, a positive perceived school climate also had a negative predictive effect on normative beliefs about aggression (β = −.07, p < .05). Namely, the better the perceived school climate was, the lower the normative beliefs about aggression were. Normative beliefs about aggression were a significant positive predictor of cyberbullying (β = −.07, p < .05) while a positive perceived school climate was no longer significant (β = −.07, p < .05). The test results of the bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method showed that the mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression was −.04. The upper limit of the 95% CI was −0.014, and the lower limit was −0.079, excluding 0. In other words, normative beliefs about aggression were a complete mediator between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying. Hypothesis 2 of this study was verified.

Table 2.

Testing the Mediating Effect of Positive Perceived School Climate on Cyberbullying.

Outcome	Predictors	R ²	F value	β	LLCI	ULCI	t value
Cyberbullying	TB	.49	303.80**	.68	0.62	0.74	23.51**
Cyberbullying	PPSC			−.07	−0.12	−0.01	−2.30*
NBAA	TB	.20	83.73**	.22	0.15	0.29	6.03**
NBAA	PPSC			−.36	−0.43	−0.29	−9.92**
Cyberbullying	TB	.49	211.06**	.65	0.60	0.71	22.25**
	PPSC			−.03	−0.09	0.04	−0.81
	NBAA			.12	0.05	0.18	3.70**

Note. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. NBAA = normative beliefs about aggression; TB = traditional bullying; PPSC = positive perceived school climate. LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.

As shown in Table 3, the interaction terms of normative beliefs about aggression and Internet morality had a significant predictive effect on cyberbullying (β = −.07, p < .05). A simple slope test was conducted to reveal the moderating effect of Internet morality. As shown in Figure 3, normative beliefs about aggression could significantly and positively predict cyberbullying in individuals with low (one SD below the mean) Internet morality (β_simple = .27, p < .01) but not in those with high (one SD above the mean) Internet morality (β_simple = −.06, p = .41). Furthermore, the conditional indirect effects were tested (at the following values of the moderator: $\bar{X}$ – 1 SD, $\bar{X}$ , and $\bar{X}$ + 1 SD). As shown in Table 4, normative beliefs about aggression could significantly and positively predict cyberbullying in both individuals with low ( $\bar{X}$ – 1 SD) and medium $(\bar{X})$ Internet morality but not in individuals with high ( $\bar{X}$ + 1 SD) Internet morality. The indirect effect was not found in individuals with higher Internet morality. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Figure 3.

Plot of the relationship between normative beliefs about aggression and cyberbullying at two levels of Internet morality.

Table 3.

Testing the Moderated Mediating Effect of Positive Perceived School Climate and Cyberbullying.

Outcome	Predictors	R ²	F value	β	LLCI	ULCI	t value
NBAA	TB	.20	83.73**	.22	0.15	0.29	6.03**
NBAA	PPSC			−.36	−0.43	−0.29	−9.92**
Cyberbullying	TB	.53	147.59**	.60	0.54	0.66	20.43**
	PPSC			−.03	−0.08	0.03	−0.85
	NBAA			.10	0.04	0.16	3.16**
	Internet morality			−.03	−0.09	0.02	−1.20
	INT			.17	−0.22	−0.12	−6.93**

Note. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. NBAA = normative beliefs about aggression; TB = traditional bullying; PPSC = positive perceived school climate; INT = normative beliefs about aggression × Internet morality; LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.

Table 4.

The Conditional Indirect Effects of Internet Morality.

	Internet morality	Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Conditional indirect effect	$\bar{X}$ – 1 SD	.27	0.09	0.10	0.45
	$\bar{X}$	.11	0.04	0.03	0.18
	$\bar{X}$ + 1 SD	−.06	0.08	−0.22	0.09

Note. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Discussion

Although evidence suggests that it is necessary to improve the existing school-based schemes, research on how to construct these schemes is limited. This study proposed a novel perspective of the network to explore how a positive perceived school climate affects cyberbullying so that targeted improvements could be made to the existing schemes according to the characteristics of the Internet.

The Mediating Role of Normative Beliefs About Aggression

Positive perceived school climate directly negatively predicts cyberbullying, which was consistent with previous reports showing that adolescents who perceived the school climate to be better are less likely to engage in cyberbullying (C. W. Wang et al., 2019; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Wong et al., 2014). Hypothesis 1 in this study is supported. This can be explained by social control theory (Hirschi, 1969), which emphasizes that school serves as an important social institution that prevents adolescents from committing crimes. A positive perceived school climate may create a climate where teenagers feel a close link to others. Once they engage in cyberbullying or do anything bad, they may lose the close connections. Even cyberbullying perpetrators seek and rely on social support (Brewer & Kerslake, 2015). Feeling trusted and cared for by peers was significantly associated with a lower possibility of cyberbullying perpetration (Williams & Guerra, 2007). In addition, a positive perceived school climate provides a perception that others support them, which helps students turn to others more when they encounter setbacks (Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016). It helps those students in trouble release negative emotions and handle problems correctly, which prevents them from engaging in nonsocial adaptive behaviors such as cyberbullying (Pabian & Vandebosch, 2014). A good school climate may provide these teenagers with the resources they need to grow up positively, thus encouraging them to follow the rules and treat others with fairness, which then reduces cyberbullying (Guerra et al., 2011).

Moreover, the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying was mediated by normative beliefs about aggression, as we predicted in Hypothesis 2. A positive perceived school climate negatively predicted normative beliefs about aggression and then decreased the likelihood of cyberbullying among adolescents. This result indicated that normative beliefs about aggression are a salient risk factor for adolescent cyberbullying. This finding is congruent with a previous study showing that normative beliefs about aggression are a critical risk factor for adolescent cyberbullying (Ang et al., 2011; Burton et al., 2013). Three possible explanations exist for the results. First, this finding is congruent with social learning theory. Bullying might be a more effective way to gain status or respect in schools lacking social support and full of terrible interpersonal relationships (Guerra et al., 2011). The poor interpersonal environment allows teenagers to use aggression as a way of handling problems (Turhan, 2017). Increased acceptance of aggressive behavior alters teenagers’ social information processing model, thereby making individuals more likely to exhibit aggression, which aligns with previous research (van Reemst, Fischer, & Zwirs, 2016; Werner, Bumpus, & Rock, 2010). Second, this finding can be explained by cognitive dissonance theory. Aggressive behavior can relieve interpersonal anxiety caused by peer rejection (London, Downey, & Bonica, 2007), even though attacking others is not acceptable under social norms. In order to alleviate anxiety with behavior, “marginal people” who are out of the mainstream of students in school may achieve a cognitive balance by changing their cognitive concepts, such as by improving their acceptance under social norms of aggression (Festinger, 1957). A positive perceived school climate that allows teenagers to feel accepted by others would eliminate anxiety and eventually reduce cyberbullying. Finally, China is a collectivist society (Cai et al., 2020) in which norm-abiding behavior plays an extremely important role (Lapidot-Lefler & Hosri, 2016). Once norms are formed, they have a huge impact on Chinese teenagers. However, social norms may not have such a strong impact in individualistic societies where autonomy and emotional independence are emphasized. The mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression in the patterns of association may vary from ideology to ideology. We suggest that future researches include participants with different cultural contexts and test whether cultural norms are a factor in this designed cyberbullying model.

In summary, these findings contribute to the existing literature and highlight that low normative beliefs about aggression might not only be a desirable consequence of a positive perceived school climate, but they may also alleviate the likelihood of cyberbullying among adolescents. Notably, it is worth noting that normative beliefs about aggression fully mediated the influence of a positive perceived school climate on cyberbullying. This finding confirms the significance of decreased normative beliefs about aggression in preventing cyberbullying.

The Moderating Role of Internet Morality

Most importantly, to the best of our knowledge, this research was the first to explore the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying from a network perspective. This study indicated that Internet morality moderated the mediating effect of a positive perceived school climate on cyberbullying through normative beliefs about aggression. Specifically, the effect of normative beliefs about aggression on cyberbullying was significant in adolescents with low Internet morality but not in those with high Internet morality. Hypothesis 3 in this study is supported. Our result is roughly consistent with previous research showing that adolescents who maintain higher Internet morality are less likely to engage in less deviant behavior online (Ma & Lei, 2010). There could be two possible reasons for the results. First, cues filtered out theory claims that network communication lacks many clues compared with traditional communication due to the lack of bodies, which will lead to more deviant behaviors (Mcewan & Zanolla, 2013). Previous studies have shown that teenagers do not have a clear idea about whether there is morality in the network (Bradley, 2005; Liu, 2006). The Internet morality scale includes items such as “Although in a virtual network society, there are universal ethics” and “Individuals’ online behaviors should be consistent with their offline behaviors.” A low score on the scale means that teenagers are more likely to think the Internet is a “lawless land” without moral constraints and universal ethics. Adding to the lack of social cues, it is more likely for teenagers with low Internet morality to believe that they can take arbitrary actions on the network, which causes them to be easily affected by normative beliefs about aggression to bully others on the Internet. Conversely, high Internet morality individuals might believe that the network is the same as the realistic world and be relatively low deindividuation, therefore having more concerns (legal liability, etc.). To avoid retribution, they will not adopt aggressive behavior easily, even if they accept aggression.

Second, previous studies have shown that individuals with a high level of morality consider adverse effects more before engaging in cyberbullying (Jin, 2018). The superego might inhibit normative beliefs about aggression in individuals with high Internet morality (Detert, Treviño, & Sweitzer, 2008). Besides, cultural background has a significant effect on adolescents’ attitudes toward and moral evaluations of cyberbullying. Emotional attachment, group solidarity, and harmonious relationships with others are emphasized in collectivist societies (Lapidot-Lefler & Hosri, 2016). Teenagers in China (a collectivist society) deem cyberbullying more shamefully and guiltily than those in Canada, which is founded on individualism (Mojdehi, Leduc, Mojdehi, & Talwar, 2019). Chinese adolescents might take a more serious view of the adverse result of cyberbullying than adolescents in other areas even when they hold the same high moral standards. In contrast, individuals with low Internet morality due to low moral standards (Yang & Wang, 2012) seldom care about the harm caused by cyberbullying to others at all. They just follow the principle of willingness and do what they want to do without considering the consequences; therefore, normative beliefs about aggression had a significant prediction effect on cyberbullying in teenagers with low Internet morality.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has some limitations that should inevitably be considered when interpreting the findings. First, although the hypothesized conceptual models are based on relevant theories and empirical researches, correlational study results may not be able to conclusively prove the causal relationship between variables because the data were collected at one time. Further longitudinal analysis is needed to enhance the findings in future studies and provide conclusive evidence about the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying in terms of dynamic and developmental perspectives.

Second, the variables were all collected by the questionnaire method and subjective reports. Although there was no serious common method bias, the results were inevitably affected by social expectations and might not be objective enough. Thus, it is suggested that future studies collect data from multiple perspectives (such as peer nominations or teacher evaluations). If possible, other methods such as behavioral experiments or electroencephalic mapping should be used to address the large gap in research about cyberbullying.

Third, as we mentioned above, cultural background might be a factor in the patterns of association observed. However, there is no empirical evidence in our study because the sample selected in this study was quite limited as only students of a certain school were investigated. Future studies need to expand the sample’s heterogeneity, which may reveal some regional differences.

Finally, since this is the first study to consider Internet features in discussing the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying, only some exploratory work was conducted. Internet morality is only one aspect of the uniqueness of networks, so more detailed research can be further conducted to identify the Internet features that might account for any variation.

Implications

Despite the limitations above, the findings of this study have several significant implications. First, this study found that a positive perceived school climate plays an important role in predicting cyberbullying, which provided theoretical support for school-based cyberbullying intervention programs. The early years of youth are characterized by huge changes in neurobiology and mentality (Steinberg & Morris, 2001) while cyberbullying, which usually results in negative development, peaks during this period. Prevention is believed to be the most favorable mode of avoiding the unwanted development of cyberbullying behavior in the first step (Van Zalk, 2020), especially considering that early adolescence is a crucial period for the prevention of cyberbullying (Zych et al., 2020). In China, schools are the main places to undertake youth education, so the promotion of school-based intervention programs is very practical. This finding indicated that creating a good school climate helps to reduce cyberbullying among adolescents. Therefore, schools should encourage teachers to support students, call on students to help each other, and seek to provide students with more opportunities for autonomy.

Second, normative beliefs about aggression were found to be a vital factor connecting a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying, which played a completely mediating role between the two. The influence of a positive perceived school climate on cyberbullying has been partially supported by research, and school-based interventions have been developed. Unfortunately, despite this, research on how a positive perceived school climate can affect cyberbullying is limited, which undoubtedly limits the further expansion of the program. Previous studies have shown that normative beliefs about aggression might be the most crucial predictor of cyberbullying, and this study verified this conclusion again. Thus, intervention programs should focus on reducing normative beliefs about aggression (such as advocating a “zero-tolerance attitude” for cyberbullying in schools), eliminating incorrect perceptions of cyberbullying among adolescents, and helping them to realize the essential harm of cyberbullying.

Finally, this study is the first to explore the relationship between a positive perceived school climate and cyberbullying from the perspective of Internet characteristics. The results proved the critical role of Internet morality, which is of constructive significance for improving existing schemes and formulating targeted schemes. The results reminded us that we should pay attention to the characteristics of teenagers’ Internet use when extending the existing school-based intervention program to the Internet situation to achieve a better intervention effect. Furthermore, schools and parents ought to attach importance to Internet morality education among teenagers. This can improve their Internet morality level and help them realize that the principles of tolerance and equality are important in any context.

Conclusion

With the sweeping progress of technology, teenagers show increasingly more new psychological characteristics that are inseparable from the Internet. Internet morality is one of them. The results identified a critical mechanistic pathway (i.e., via normative beliefs about aggression) through which a positive perceived school climate perception is associated with less cyberbullying. Moreover, this influence varies with the individual’s Internet morality. The moderated mediating effect is stronger in adolescents with low Internet morality than for those with high Internet morality, indicating that poor perceived school climate appears to be extremely harmful for adolescents with low Internet morality. Although further replication and extensions are needed, this study is of great importance for unpacking how a positive perceived school climate influences cyberbullying in early adolescence. Future interventions should fully consider the psychological characteristics of adolescents in the new environment.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jea-10.1177_0272431621989816 – Supplemental material for Positive Perceived School Climate and Cyberbullying in Chinese Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model From the Perspective of Internet Characteristics

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jea-10.1177_0272431621989816 for Positive Perceived School Climate and Cyberbullying in Chinese Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model From the Perspective of Internet Characteristics by Hui-fen Shi, Cui-ying Fan, Xiao-wei Chu, Xue-chen Zhang and Ling-ling Wu in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jea-10.1177_0272431621989816 – Supplemental material for Positive Perceived School Climate and Cyberbullying in Chinese Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model From the Perspective of Internet Characteristics

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jea-10.1177_0272431621989816 for Positive Perceived School Climate and Cyberbullying in Chinese Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model From the Perspective of Internet Characteristics by Hui-fen Shi, Cui-ying Fan, Xiao-wei Chu, Xue-chen Zhang and Ling-ling Wu in The Journal of Early Adolescence

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: This research was supported by the central university’s basic scientific research operation fee of Central China Normal University (CCNU18CXTD03) and the major achievement cultivation project of the collaborative innovation center for quality monitoring of education (2019-04-009-bzpk01).

ORCID iD

Hui-fen Shi

Author Biographies

Hui-fen Shi is a master candidate in the School of Psychology, Central China Normal University. Her major research interests include aggressive and problematic online or offline of children and adolescents, with a focus on cyberbullying and bullying intervention in schools.

Cui-ying Fan is a professor in the School of Psychology, Central China Normal University (CCNU). Her research interests involve cyberbullying and adolescent mental health. She also serves as a researcher in the Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior (CCNU), Ministry of Education, China.

Xiao-wei Chu is a PhD candidate in the psychology, Central China Normal University. His research interests focus on adolescents’ online anti-social behaviors, especially cyberbullying and cyber-aggression.

Xue-chen Zhang is a PhD candidate in the psychology, Central China Normal University. Her research interests focus on peer relationship and adolescents’ psychological health.

Ling-ling Wu is a master candidate in the School of Psychology, Central China Normal University. Her research interests are in the areas of personality and anti-social behaviors.

References

Acosta

Chinman

Ebener

Malone

P. S.

Phillips

Wilks

(2019). Evaluation of a whole-school change intervention: Findings from a two-year cluster-randomized trial of the restorative practices intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 876-890. doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01013-2

Alisdair

A. G.

(2006). Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: The legal response. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 28, 123-136.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Ang

R. P.

Tan

K. A.

Talib

M. A.

(2011). Normative beliefs about aggression as a mediator of narcissistic exploitativeness and cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2619-2634.

Ansary

N. S.

(2020). Cyberbullying: Concepts, theories, and correlates informing evidence-based best practices for prevention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50, 101343. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2019.101343

Awiria

Olweus

Byrne

(1994). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do coping with bullying in schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42, 403.

Bandura

(2010). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 27-46.

Bradley

(2005). Internet lives: Social context and moral domain in adolescent development. New Directions for Youth Development, 108, 57-76.

Brewer

Kerslake

(2015). Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 255-260.

10.

Burton

K. A.

Florell

Gore

J. S.

(2013). Differences in proactive and reactive aggression in traditional bullies and cyberbullies. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22, 316-328.

11.

Cai

H. J.

Huang

Z. H.

Lin

Zhang

M. Y.

Wang

X. O.

. . . Jin

Y. M.

(2020). The change of Chinese psychology over the past half century: Empirical research. Advances in Psychological Science, 28, 1599-1618.

12.

Calvete

Orue

Gámez-Guadix

(2016). Cyberbullying victimization and depression in adolescents: The mediating role of body image and cognitive schemas in a one-year prospective study. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22, 271-284.

13.

Chu

X. W.

Fan

C. Y.

(2017). Revision of the Revised Cyberbullying Inventory among junior high school students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 1031-1034.

14.

Chu

X. W.

Zhou

Z. K.

Fan

C. Y.

(2020). Relationship between peer rejection and cyberbullying: The mediating role of anger and the moderating role of perceived anonymity. Psychological Development and Education, 36, 584-593.

15.

Cohen

McCabe

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180-213.

16.

Cole

D. A.

Zelkowitz

R. L.

Nick

Martin

N. C.

Spinelli

(2016). Longitudinal and incremental relation of cybervictimization to negative self-cognitions and depressive symptoms in young adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1321-1332.

17.

Cushman

Hauser

Y. M.

(2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17, 1082-1089.

18.

Detert

J. R.

Treviño

L. K.

Sweitzer

V. L.

(2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374-391.

19.

Doty

J. L.

Gower

A. L.

Rudi

J. H.

McMorris

B. J.

Borowsky

I. W.

(2017). Patterns of bullying and sexual harassment: Connections with parents and teachers as direct protective factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 2289-2304.

20.

Edwards

O. W.

Mumford

V. E.

Serra-Roldan

(2016). A positive youth development model for students considered at-risk. School Psychology International, 28, 29-45.

21.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

22.

Gaffney

Farrington

D. P.

Espelage

D. L.

Ttofi

M. M.

(2019). Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 134-153. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002

23.

Gendron

B. P.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

(2011). An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence, 10, 150-164.

24.

Griffin

C. B.

Cooper

S. M.

Metzger

I. W.

Golden

A. R.

White

C. N.

(2017). School racial climate and the academic achievement of African American high school students: The mediating role of school engagement. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 673-688.

25.

Guerra

N. G.

Williams

K. R.

Sadek

(2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82, 295-310.

26.

Hayes

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3), 335-337.

27.

Henry

Guerra

Huesmann

Tolan

Vanacker

Eron

(2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 59-81.

28.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

29.

Liu

Hsiao

R. C.

H. C.

Liang

S. H. Y.

Lin

C. F.

Yen

C. F.

(2019). Cyberbullying victimization and perpetration in adolescents with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: Correlations with depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 49, 4170-4180. doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04060-7

30.

Huesmann

L. R.

Guerra

N. G.

(1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408-419.

31.

Jadambaa

Thomas

H. J.

Scott

J. G.

Graves

Brain

Pacella

(2019). Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53, 878-888. doi:10.1177/0004867419846393

32.

Jia

Y. M.

Way

Ling

G. M.

Yoshikawa

Chen

X. Y.

Hughes

Z. H.

(2009). The influence of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment: A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents. Child Development, 80, 1514-1530.

33.

Jin

T. L.

(2018). The relationship between violence exposure and online aggressive behavior in college students: The role of ruminative responses and Internet moral (Master’s dissertation). Harbin Normal University, Harbin, China.

34.

Jin

T. L.

G. Z.

Zhang

Y. T. N.

Jin

X. Z.

(2018). The effect of violent exposure on online aggressive behavior of college students: The role of ruminative responses and internet moral. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50, 127-136.

35.

Kessler

R. C.

Matthias

Anthony

J. C.

De Graaf

Demyttenaere

Gasquet

. . . Kawakami

(2007). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry, 6, 168-176.

36.

Konishi

Miyazaki

Hymel

Waterhouse

(2017). Investigating associations between school climate and bullying in secondary schools: Multilevel contextual effects modeling. School Psychology International, 38, 240-263.

37.

Kowalski

R. M.

Giumetti

G. W.

Schroeder

A. N.

Lattanner

M. R.

(2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073-1137.

38.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. P.

(2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, S13-S20.

39.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. P.

Mccord

(2019). A developmental approach to cyberbullying: Prevalence and protective factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 20-32. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009

40.

Lapidot-Lefler

Hosri

(2016). Cyberbullying in a diverse society: Comparing Jewish and Arab adolescents in Israel through the lenses of individualistic versus collectivist cultures. Social Psychology of Education, 19(3), 1-17.

41.

J. M.

Sidibe

A. M.

Shen

X. Y.

Hesketh

(2019). Incidence, risk factors and psychosomatic symptoms for traditional bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 107, 104511. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104511

42.

Liu

(2006). Current situation and educational countermeasures of Internet moral among junior high school students (Master’s dissertation). Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, China.

43.

London

Downey

Bonica

(2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 481-506.

44.

Luo

X. L.

(2007). Internet psycho-structure of moral trait, moral consciousness and their relationship of undergraduates (Master’s dissertation). Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China.

45.

X. H.

Lei

(2010). Adolescents’ Internet morality and deviant behavior online. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42, 988-997.

46.

X. H.

Lei

(2011). Adolescents’ Internet morality and pro-social behaviors online. Psychological Science, 34, 2423-2428.

47.

Mcewan

Zanolla

(2013). When online meets offline: A field investigation of modality switching. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1565-1571.

48.

Mojdehi

A. S.

Leduc

Mojdehi

A. S.

Talwar

(2019). Examining cross-cultural differences in youth’s moral perceptions of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 22, 243-248.

49.

Pabian

Vandebosch

(2014). Using the theory of planned behavior to understand cyberbullying: The importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 463-477.

50.

Pabian

Vandebosch

(2016). Short-term longitudinal relationships between adolescents’ (cyber)bullying perpetration and bonding to school and teachers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 1-11.

51.

Pearce

Cross

Monks

Waters

Falconer

(2011). Current evidence of best practice in whole-school bullying intervention and its potential to inform cyberbullying interventions. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 21, 1-21.

52.

Pecjak

Pirc

(2017). Bullying and perceived school climate: Victims’ and bullies’ perspective. Studia Psychologica, 59, 22-33.

53.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Mackenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: Aa critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

54.

Ruth

W. L.

Dorothy

L. E.

Kathleen

C. B.

Jordan

P. D.

(2019). Traditional and cyber bullying and sexual harassment: A longitudinal assessment of risk and protective factors. Aggressive Behavior, 45, 181-192.

55.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In Thornberry

T. P.

(Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 165-182). London, England: Transaction Publishers.

56.

Shao

Wang

Y. Q.

(2017). Reliability and validity of normative beliefs about aggression scale among middle school students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 1035-1038.

57.

Sourander

Klomek

A. B.

Ikonen

Lindroos

Luntamo

Koskelainen

Helenius

(2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 720-728.

58.

Steinberg

Morris

A. S.

(2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83.

59.

Tian

Yan

Huebner

E. S.

(2018). The effects of cyberbullying and cybervictimization on early adolescents’ mental health: The differential mediating roles of perceived peer relationship stress. Cyberpsychology Behavior & Social Networking, 21, 429-436.

60.

Turhan

. (2017). Negative effects of media on children and youth’ socialization process: A study on violent and aggressive behaviors. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 46(2), 368-398.

61.

Vaillancourt

Faris

Mishna

. (2017). Cyberbullying in children and youth: Implications for health and clinical practice. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry/Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 62, 368-373.

62.

Vandebosch

Cleemput

K. V.

(2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1349-1371.

63.

van Reemst

Fischer

T. F. C.

Zwirs

B. W. C

. (2016). Social information processing mechanisms and victimization: A literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17, 3-25.

64.

Van Zalk

. (2020). The development of internalizing behaviors in early adolescence: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Early Adolescence, 40, 1281-1290. doi:10.1177/0272431620919174

65.

Wang

C. W.

Musumari

P. M.

Techasrivichien

Suguimoto

S. P.

Nakayama

(2019). Overlap of traditional bullying and cyberbullying and correlates of bullying among Taiwanese adolescents: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 19, Article 1756. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-8116-z

66.

Wang

M. J.

Yogeeswaran

Andrews

N. P.

Hawi

D. R.

Sibley

C. G.

(2019). How common is cyberbullying among adults? Exploring gender, ethnic, and age differences in the prevalence of cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 22(11), 736-741.

67.

Wang

M. T.

Selman

R. L.

Dishion

T. J.

Stormshak

E. A.

(2010). A tobit regression analysis of the covariation between middle school students’ perceived school climate and behavioral problems. Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence, 20, 274-286.

68.

Wang

X. C.

Zhao

F. Q.

Lei

(2019). School climate and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration: A moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and friends’ moral identity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260519860089

69.

Werner

N. E.

Bumpus

M. F.

Rock

(2010). Involvement in Internet aggression during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 607-619.

70.

Werner

N. E.

Nixon

C. L.

(2005). Normative beliefs and relational aggression: An investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 229-243.

71.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

(2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Adolescence Health, 41, 14-21.

72.

Williford

Elledge

L. C.

Boulton

A. J.

Depaolis

K. J.

Little

T. D.

Salmivalli

(2013). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on cyberbullying and cybervictimization frequency among Finnish youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42, 820-833.

73.

Wong

D. S. W.

Chan

H. C.

Cheng

C. H. K.

(2014). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among adolescents in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review, 36, 133-140.

74.

Yang

J. P.

Wang

X. C.

(2012). Effect of moral disengagement on adolescents’ aggressive behavior: Moderated mediating effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44, 1075-1085.

75.

Zhang

W. X.

J. F.

Jones

(1999). Revision to the Chinese version of Olweus Child Bullying Questionnaire. Psychological Development and Education, 2, 7-11, 37.

76.

Zhao

J. T.

Bear

G. G.

Yang

C. Y.

Qian

Cheng

(2020). Moral disengagement and bullying perpetration: A longitudinal study of the moderating effect of school climate. School Psychology, 35, 99-109. doi:10.1037/spq0000348

77.

Zheng

Y. L.

Yang

X. J.

Liu

Q. Q.

Chu

X. W.

Zhou

Z. K.

(2020). Perceived stress and online compulsive buying among women: A moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 13-20. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.012

78.

Zhu

X. W.

Chu

X. W.

Zhang

Y. H.

Z. H.

(2020). Exposure to online game violence and cyberbullying among Chinese adolescents: Normative beliefs about aggression as a mediator and trait aggressiveness as a moderator. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 29, 148-166. doi:10.1080/10926771.2018.1550830

79.

Zych

Ttofi

M. M.

Llorent

V. J.

Farrington

D. P.

Ribeaud

Eisner

M. P.

(2020). A longitudinal study on stability and transitions among bullying roles. Child Development, 91, 527-545.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB