Assessing the Links Between Parenting Practices,Moral Emotions,and Cyberbullying Perpetrations Among a Sample of Iranian Sports Fans

Abstract

Parenting practices have direct effects on children’s moral development and delinquency. A growing empirical literature also documents the influence of morality on offending patterns. Yet, our understanding of the interrelationships among parenting practices, morality, and cyberbullying is limited. This study contributes to and extends this line of research by examining the extent to which moral emotions mediate the relationship between parenting practices and sports fans’ cyberbullying. We used a sample of 384 Iranian high school students from the 35th Boys Sports Olympiad Tournament in Shiraz, Iran. The results from structural modeling analysis show that both parenting practices and moral emotions are associated with the likelihood of sports fans’ decision to perpetrate cyberbullying and that moral emotions mediate the association between parenting practices and cyberbullying. The robust and consistent patterns of the results signify the importance of parenting and moral development in curbing the problem of cyberbullying.

Keywords

parenting moral emotions moral identity parenting practices cyberbullying

Introduction

Online social networks have flourished in the professional sports realm, with sports-related companies, professional leagues, teams, and individual athletes creating social media accounts for a variety of purposes including enhanced accessibility and visibility to the public, distribution of information, and promotion of goods or services (MacPherson & Kerr, 2019). Through these online social networks, communication among fans, players, and sports figures has changed dramatically (Thompson et al., 2018). Fans have more control over information on their favorite teams and players than ever before (Wakefield & Bennett, 2018). Developing communication and information technologies has thus offered a new way for supporters to interact with their favorite athletes and clubs (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020).

Owing to the popularity of social media, sports clubs and athletes invest significant time and resources in sharing sport-related content with their fans online (Filo et al., 2015). Various forms of social media platforms—whether they be websites, mobile applications, or various hybrid forms—are used by sports organizations, college athletes, and professional athletes to raise interactivity levels among sports fans (Billings et al., 2017). Although some scholars contend that social media are excellent channels for fostering relationships with sports fans, other scholars hypothesize that these online channels can increase the probability of deviant behaviors such as cyberbullying (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020), fanaticism (Alshehri, 2016), and online aggression (MacPherson & Kerr, 2019; Mudrick et al., 2016; Sanderson, 2013). Fans’ anonymity and accessibility to their favorite pages can increase cyberbullying perpetration (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020). For example, online fan–athlete interactions can provide an opportunity for fans to send harmful comments of a sexual, physical, emotional, or discriminatory nature directly to athletes (Kavanagh et al., 2016).

Sports fans communicating online do not meet their rivals face-to-face, and such anonymity can increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviors toward rivals. Fans often use fake usernames and perpetrate cyberbullying against rivals with whom they do not have a previous relationship (Barlett, 2015; Barlett et al., 2017; Camacho et al., 2018; Resett & Gámez-Guadix, 2017). Hence, although fans view social media platforms as the optimal medium for sharing their positive and negative feelings with other fans, players, and sports figures (Stavros et al., 2014), the increased opportunities for interaction online are likely to raise the possibility of aggressive behaviors (Alshehri, 2016; Shadmanfaat et al., 2020).

The prevalence of fans’ cyberbullying perpetration in Iran has garnered attention from academics and practitioners because of its pervasiveness and unique cultural aspect (see Shadmanfaat et al., 2019, 2020). Shadmanfaat et al. (2020) reveal that roughly 30% of their Iranian sample had a history of cyberbullying perpetration. In Iran, verbally and physically aggressive behaviors are accepted as an integral part of sports fandom (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020).

A recent line of theoretical and empirical research has shown that a range of factors can influence fans’ aggressive behaviors such as social learning (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020), general strain (Shadmanfaat et al., 2019), negative emotions (Shadmanfaat et al., 2019), and personalities and sports identities of sports fans (Delia, 2019). However, although a growing body of the literature documents the various correlates of fans’ aggressive behavior, research is yet to explore the relationships among parenting practices, moral capabilities (moral identity, moral values, and moral emotions), and cyberbullying for sports fans. To bridge this gap in the body of knowledge on this topic, the current study assesses whether moral capabilities mediate the association between parenting practices and cyberbullying perpetration among Iranian sports fans.

Literature Review

Fans’ Cyberbullying Perpetration

Cyberbullying can be defined as aggressive and offensive behaviors committed to harm others through communication and information technologies (i.e., internet software and smartphones; Camacho et al., 2014). The offender can individually or collectively send contemptuous and destructive messages to a third person or public groups (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). It is a willful (deliberate but not random behavior), repeated (an identifiable bullying pattern that is not rare), and harmful (the victim must recognize that harm was inflicted) action perpetrated online (Kabiri et al., 2020). Fans’ cyberbullying behavior can be considered as one type of fandom phenomenon, and it can involve using social media to post mean or hurtful comments, pictures, and videoclips or spread rumors and threaten opponents (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020).

Sports fans employ social media to build community and promote preferred representations of athletes and sports figures. In the online domain, fans can come together to build collective self-esteem, both prosocially and antisocially (Sanderson, 2013). For example, Mudrick et al. (2016) argue that social media allow fans to express their status as members of certain groups as well as their positive and negative feelings. Vale and Fernandes (2018) observe that social media have changed the way supporters engage with sports teams, athletes, and other fans, and this online context can be used for expressing personal and social sport identity to other users. However, Alshehri (2016) indicates that social media play a role in nurturing sports fanaticism, which may also take the form of violence and riots in stadiums as well as cyberbullying. Fans respond to the social identity threat in several ways, including rallying, stigmatizing, victimization, intimidation, and degradation (Sanderson, 2013). Social media thus enable fans to perpetuate messages that elevate group distinctiveness, minimize in-group issues, and derogate out-group members (Sanderson, 2013).

Sports fans seek to maintain a positive team identity by using emotion- and problem-focused coping. When their sports identity is threatened, they may try to maintain the value of their identity and respond to threats outside the group aggressively (Delia, 2019). Sports fans on social media often react aggressively to each other during their interactions (Clavio & Kian, 2010; Frederick et al., 2012; Sanderson, 2013; Stavros et al., 2014; Wakefield & Bennett, 2018). In summary, although sports fans use social media applications and online pages such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, as well as blogs to establish and express their social identities, these social media can serve as an effective arena in which fans engage in verbal aggression against each other.

Parenting, Morality, and Cyberbullying

The socialization process begins in the family context. Moral socialization is defined as a process through which a person learns and internalizes the norms of right and wrong using relational experiences with significant others such as family members, teachers, and peers (Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2010a). According to Bandura (1991), the moral standards to which adults subscribe can directly influence the development of their children’s moral beliefs. Parents coach and guide their children’s moral behaviors by sending them verbal and nonverbal messages (e.g., beliefs, attitudes) about desirable behaviors (Llorca et al., 2017).

In the field of criminology, the moral emotions of guilt and shame are hypothesized to emerge from the successful socialization in the family, school, and peers (Svensson et al., 2013; Wikström & Sampson, 2003). Individuals who receive strong parental support and are subjected to love-oriented techniques of parental control internalize moral norms more than their counterparts and subsequently feel more shame and guilt when they happen to violate rules (Svensson, 2004; Svensson et al., 2013). The impact of socialization on moral development is not confined to childhood but continues into adolescence and beyond (Svensson et al., 2017).

The relationships between parenting practices and deviant behavior have long been of interest to criminologists (see Burt et al., 2006; Gibbs et al., 1998; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hay, 2001). A vast amount of empirical research has shown that poor parenting has a significant effect on a child’s delinquency (Barnes et al., 2006; O’Donnell et al., 2012; Svensson, 2003; Unnever et al., 2006). Two relatively recent studies examining the impact of parenting practices on juvenile delinquency patterns are worth noting (see also Bowman et al., 2007). In the first, De Kemp et al. (2006) use longitudinal data from Dutch adolescents to examine the main and interaction effects of different parenting dimensions. Notably, their structural equations show that parental support and monitoring are the most important predictive factors of adolescents’ delinquent behavior. In the second study, Svensson et al. (2017) use fixed-effects regression models to examine the relationship between parenting and changes in moral values and moral emotions, showing that within-individual changes in parental monitoring and attachment to parents are significantly linked to within-individual changes in moral values and moral emotions. Although these studies investigate the relationship between parenting and delinquency, cross-cultural research examining the interrelationships among parenting practices, morality, and cyberbullying perpetration remains limited.

Moral Identity, Moral Emotions, Moral Values, and Cyberbullying

Moral behaviors are linked to a multitude of factors, including moral socialization, empathy, moral courage, and moral identity (Baumert et al., 2013; Blasi, 2004; Hitlin, 2007). In particular, moral identity, defined as the cognitive schema a person holds about his or her moral character (Aquino et al., 2009), can affect moral emotions (anticipated guilt and shame) and in turn deviant behavioral modalities (Hardy & Carlo, 2011; Kavussanu et al., 2015). A person’s moral identity is stored in memory as a complex knowledge structure comprising moral values, goals, traits, and behavioral scripts (Aquino & Reed, 2002).

One’s morality and his or her sense of identity are linked (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Blasi (2004) notes that moral identity is a powerful source of moral motivation because people generally desire to pursue consistency in their sense of identity. If morality is central to an individual’s identity, modal identity thus heightens the sense of responsibility to behave in accordance with his or her moral beliefs and values (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Similarly, according to situational action theory (SAT), the centrality of moral virtues to one’s identity is an important source of motivation to behave, and this personal identification, in turn, reduces the likelihood of criminal behavior (Wikström et al., 2012).

People with higher measures of moral identity are found to be less antisocial and criminal (Hardy et al., 2015, 2017; Kavussanu et al., 2015) and less aggressive (Hardy et al., 2012, 2014). Aquino and Reed (2002) contend that individuals vary in the degree to which they consider being moral as a central part of their identity. When moral identity is high and salient, individuals develop moral emotions such as anticipated shame and guilt, which prevent them from engaging in antisocial behaviors (Aquino et al., 2007). Individuals with high moral identity also tend to be prosocial in various social domains (e.g., civic engagement and donation behaviors; Gotowiec & van Mastrigt, 2019; Hardy et al., 2015; Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007).

The field of sports criminology has examined the relationship between moral identity and sport-related behavioral patterns. For example, Sage et al. (2006) and Kavussanu et al. (2013) find that sports players with strong moral identity report less frequent cheating and aggressive behaviors (see also Kavussanu et al., 2015). The results suggest that sports players whose moral identity is primed are more likely to feel guilty if they deliberately engage in aggressive behaviors. In a similar vein, Shields et al. (2018) demonstrate that moral identity is the best predictor of prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport. A recent meta-analysis largely attests to the findings of past research on the importance of moral identity (Hertz & Krettenauer, 2016). Thus, it can be hypothesized that moral identity is also linked to sports fans’ cyberbullying behaviors.

Besides moral identity, normative perceptions (moral standards, beliefs, and values) can be helpful to understand cyberbullying perpetration. In the SAT framework, moral values and moral emotions are considered as a moral filter (Wikström, 2010). In SAT, crime is a moral action guided by (moral) rules about what it is right or wrong in particular circumstances (Pauwels & Svensson, 2015). Similarly, cyberbullying, a less conventional crime, is an action that breaches the moral rules defined in law (Wikström, 2014). Thus, SAT suggests that moral values—rules about what is good or bad as well as the emotional reaction toward aggressive behaviors such as shame and guilt—have a significant role in shaping sports fans’ perceptions of cyberbullying as a legitimate or illegitimate potential response to rivals (Wikström, 2010).

Taken together, those who are morally stronger (i.e., have high moral standards and values) are more likely to act in a nondeviant way. Conversely, those who have lower moral commitment consider cyberbullying as one of their primary action choices (Wikström & Treiber, 2015). Supporting this, Perren and Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger (2012) find that moral standards exert direct effects on cyberbullying perpetration. Similarly, Menesini et al. (2013) also confirm the link between adolescents’ moral values and cyberbullying. Grégoire and Pauwels (2019) suggest that moral values are antecedents of moral emotions such as shame and guilt. Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman (2010a, 2010b) also note that shame and guilt arise from interpretations of one’s moral failures (moral standards). Accordingly, we assume that moral values have direct effects on moral emotions in a way that the violation of moral standards is accompanied by shame and guilt.

Indeed, the SAT model places the concept of morality at the center of its theoretical propositions in explicating deviance. The primary proposition of SAT is that morality can inhibit criminal and deviant behaviors (Wikström et al., 2012). The SAT literature has shown that moral emotions such as shame and guilt are robust predictors of criminal decision making (Svensson et al., 2013; Wikström, 2014). Individuals with weak moral emotions (anticipated guilt and shame) and values (what is wrong and right) are more likely to see crime as an acceptable action alternative (Wikström & Treiber, 2015). Svensson et al. (2013) contend that moral emotions play a central role in guiding people’s choice of behavior and that shame and guilt are closely linked to moral behaviors.

The emotion of guilt is related to a specific act, whereas shame involves the individual’s perceived self through the eyes of others and others’ disapproval (Pauwels & Svensson, 2015). Individuals experience shame when they focus on the negative aspects of themselves—the self who did or did not do it (Tracy & Robins, 2006). On the contrary, guilt is directly about the act (Tangney, 1995). Individuals feel guilty when they focus on the negative aspects of their behavior—the thing done or undone (Tracy & Robins, 2006).

Feelings of shame and guilt prevent individuals from engaging in deviant behaviors (Grégoire & Pauwels, 2019; Harvey et al., 2017; Kavussanu et al., 2015; Kavussanu & Ring, 2017; Menesini et al., 2013; Svensson, 2004; Svensson et al., 2013, 2017; Tangney et al., 2014; Wikström & Svensson, 2008). For example, Svensson et al. (2013) find that guilt and shame prevent adolescents from engaging in deviant behavior because these feelings help them view delinquent acts as morally wrong (see also Grégoire & Pauwels, 2019). In the case of cyberbullying, Perren and Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger (2012) show that feelings of remorse, shame, and guilt tend to lead to a decreased likelihood of cyberbullying perpetration.

Current Study

The effects of ineffective parenting practices on cyberbullying have been studied at length by criminologists and psychologists (Chang et al., 2015; Elsaesser et al., 2017; Floros et al., 2013; Law et al., 2010; Makri-Botsari & Karagianni, 2014; Martínez et al., 2019; Shapka & Law, 2013; Vazsonyi et al., 2017). In addition, there has been much investigation into the extent to which morality can lessen the risk of cyberbullying (Bussey et al., 2015; Kyriacou & Zuin, 2016; Menesini et al., 2013; Perren & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012; Robson & Witenberg, 2013). Although some studies examine the role of morality as a mediator between parenting practices and delinquent behaviors (see Ishoy, 2017; Svensson et al., 2013, 2017), assessing the interrelationships among parenting, moral capabilities (moral identity, moral values, and moral emotions), and cyberbullying perpetration deserves further empirical scrutiny. The limited research available to date suggests that parenting practices can influence moral capabilities, which subsequently can affect the probability of cyberbullying.

Regarding Iranian sports culture, fans are highly committed to sports figures (Rahmati et al., 2014). Sports matches and related events are a very important part of daily life for fans, Iranian supporters talk about sports matters every day, and their social identity is affected by sports identity and team identification (Rahmati et al., 2014). Similarly, research from Iran has shown that morality is one of the most important predictors of fans’ deviant behaviors (Kabiri et al., 2020). In fact, what is right or wrong determines fans’ engagement in offending (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020). It is established that fans’ attitudes about the wrongfulness of certain behavior predict future deviant behaviors (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020). For example, recent evidence form Iranian fans has shown that a positive attitude toward aggression that originates from a person’s moral capabilities leads to actual cyberbullying, willingness to cyberbullying, and physical and verbal aggression in the stadium (Shadmanfaat et al., 2019, 2020). Also, because parenting has a significant role in shaping one’s attitudes and behaviors (Ishoy, 2017; Svensson et al., 2013, 2017), parents’ behaviors and parenting styles influence the fan’s personal control capacity and consequently affect offending patterns (Kabiri et al., 2020).

Following the comprehensive review of the related literature so far, we have ultimately reached a research hypothesis that has rarely been studied: that is, parenting practices influence their children’s moral capacities, and moral capacities, in turn, influence the likelihood of cyberbullying among them. As noted, ineffective parenting increases the probability of deviance, including cyberbullying, among children (Chang et al., 2015; Elsaesser et al., 2017; Floros et al., 2013; Law et al., 2010; Makri-Botsari & Karagianni, 2014; Martínez et al., 2019; Shapka & Law, 2013; Vazsonyi et al., 2017). Morality is also strongly linked to cyberbullying (Bussey et al., 2015; Kyriacou & Zuin, 2016; Menesini et al., 2013; Perren & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012; Robson & Witenberg, 2013). Thus, it is quite plausible that poor parenting’s effects on cyberbullying can be indirectly mediated by moral capacities. The current study is aimed at testing this mediational hypothesis. To that end, we present five specific research hypotheses as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Ineffective parenting has a significant direct positive effect on cyberbullying perpetration.

Hypothesis 2: Moral capabilities have a significant direct positive effect on cyberbullying perpetration.

Hypothesis 3: Ineffective parenting has indirect effects on cyberbullying perpetration through moral capabilities.

Hypothesis 4: Moral emotions mediate the relationship between moral identity and cyberbullying perpetration.

Hypothesis 5: Moral emotions mediate the relationship between moral values and cyberbullying perpetration.

Method

Participants

To test the integrated model of parenting and morality on cyberbullying perpetration, we used a cross-sectional sample of 384 sports fans in Iran who participated in a research project in spring 2019. The data source for this study was 3,044 high school students who attended the 35th Boys Sports Olympiad Tournament in Shiraz, Iran. The list of high school students served as the sampling frame for the present study. From the list, we utilized the Cochran method of sample size estimation (e.g., Cochran, 1977), and 400 students were randomly selected. The selected students were invited to a large sports gymnasium. Following the approved institutional review board requirements, the purpose of the study was explained, and the participating students provided voluntary consent. The self-administered questionnaires were then distributed, and 384 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a 96% response rate.

Demographic Characteristics

In total, 37% of our respondents were 16 years old (first year of high school), 32.3% were 17 years old (second year of high school), and 30.7% were 18 years old (third year of high school). All respondents were male students. Among them, one fifth (20.3%) of the respondents spent less than an hour on social network sites daily, 27.1% spent between 1 and 2 hr, 28.9% spent between 2 and 3 hr, 16.1% spent between 3 and 4 hr, and 7.6% spent more than 5 hr on social media daily.

Instruments

Cyberbullying perpetration

Cyberbullying perpetration was measured using the five items developed by Shadmanfaat et al. (2020). Participants were asked the following questions regarding the past year (i.e., the 12 months before the questionnaires were answered): (a) how often have you posted mean or hurtful comments about rivals online, (b) how often have you spread rumors about rivals online, (c) how often have you threatened to hurt rivals online, (d) how often have you posted a mean or hurtful picture of rivals online, and (e) how often have you posted a mean or hurtful video of rivals online? The responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (often).

Moral identity

Moral identity was measured using the five items developed by Aquino and Reed (2002). A list of moral qualities (caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind) was presented to the participants. Consistent with Aquino and Reed and Reed and Aquino (2003), we embellished the purpose of presenting these items by providing the following description: The person with these characteristics could be you or it could be someone else. For a moment, visualize in your mind the kind of person who has these characteristics. Imagine how that person would think, feel, and act. When you have a clear image of what this person would be like, answer the following statements: (a) It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics, (b) being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am, (c) I would be ashamed to be a person who had these characteristics, (d) having these characteristics is not really important to me, and (e) I strongly desire to have these characteristics. Response options ranged from 5 (completely disagree) to 1 (completely agree) where higher scores represent low moral identity.

Moral emotions

Two moral emotions were measured.

Anticipated guilt

The feelings of guilt indicator was measured using the three-item scale developed by Svensson (2015) and Hirtenlehner and Treiber (2017). Respondents were asked (a) would you feel guilty if you posted mean or hurtful comments, pictures, or videos about rivals; (b) would you feel guilty if you threatened to hurt rivals; and (c) would you feel guilty if you spread rumors about rivals online? Responses ranged from (1) very much to (5) not at all.

Anticipated shame

The feelings of shame indicator was measured using the three-item scale developed by Svensson (2015) and Hirtenlehner and Treiber (2017). Respondents were asked (a) if your family members found out that you have committed the abovementioned behaviors, would you feel ashamed; (b) if your close friends or significant others found out that you have committed the abovementioned behaviors, would you feel ashamed; and (c) if your significant others found out that you have committed the abovementioned behaviors, would you feel ashamed? Responses ranged from (1) very much to (5) not at all. Anticipated guilt and shame were summed to create moral emotions. Higher values of moral emotions represent a lower level of anticipated guilt and shame.

Moral values

Moral values were measured using the three items developed by Shadmanfaat et al. (2020). Participants were asked (a) how wrong is it to post mean or hurtful comments, pictures, or videos about rivals; (b) how wrong is it to threaten to hurt rivals online; and (c) how wrong is it to spread rumors about rivals? Responses ranged from (1) very wrong to (5) not wrong at all. Higher values of moral values represent low moral standards.

Ineffective parenting

Ineffective parenting was measured using the nurturant parenting and parenting involvement scales developed by Finley and Schwartz (2004).

Nurturant fathering and mothering scales

Nurturant fathering and mothering were measured using the nine-item retrospective reports of paternal and maternal nurturing (Finley et al., 2008; Finley & Schwartz, 2004). Similar to Reid (2011) and Finley et al. (2008), the Mothering Scale was created by replacing the word “father” with “mother” for each item. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale. Participants are asked to read each item and respond using a 5-point scale (the anchors for the scale vary as a function of the item content). Respondents were asked the following: (a) How much do you think your father enjoyed being a father? (b) When you needed your father’s support, was he there for you? (c) Did your father have enough energy to meet your needs? (d) Did you feel that you could confide in your father? (e) Was your father available to spend time with you in activities? (f) How emotionally close were you to your father? (g) When you were a teenager, how well did you get along with your father? (h) Overall, how would you rate your father? and (i) As you go through your day, how much of a psychological presence does your father have in your daily thoughts and feelings?

Mother and father’s involvement

The Father/Mother Involvement Scale lists 20 domains of paternal involvement (Finley et al., 2008; Finley & Schwartz, 2004). As with the nurturance scales, the Mother Involvement Scale was created by replacing the word “father” with “mother.” Participants reported how much their father/mother had been involved on a linear response scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very involved). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses extracted three subscales of father involvement: expressive involvement (caregiving, companionship, sharing activities, emotional development, social development, spiritual development, physical development, and leisure), instrumental involvement (discipline, protecting, providing income, monitoring schoolwork, moral development, developing responsibility, career development, and developing independence), and mentoring/advising involvement (intellectual development, developing competency, mentoring, and giving advice; Finley et al., 2008; Finley & Schwartz, 2004). The response scale for reported involvement within each domain ranged from 5 (never involved) to 1 (always involved).

Analytic Strategy

Our analyses proceeded in several steps. First, bivariate correlations were conducted to examine the initial associations between the independent and dependent variables. Second, due to the presence of a latent variable (i.e., ineffective parenting) as well as the processual nature of several causal constructs, structural equation modeling was used to test the direct and indirect effects of parenting and morality on self-reported cyberbullying perpetration.

Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Instruments

All scales were found to have high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > .70, composite reliability [CR] > .70; Nunally, 1978), as shown in Table 1. We also tested their discriminant validity by exploring the average variance shared between a construct and its measures. These indices were found to be above .50 as recommended (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). First-order confirmatory factor analysis for these scales was also conducted, and the factor loadings for all the items were significant (above .50). Moreover, the confirmatory factor analysis revealed good fit indices for all (Kline, 2015).

Table 1.

Validity and Reliability of Research’s Measurement Instruments.

	Factor loadings	AVE (MSV)	CR	α
Measures	Minimum–maximum	AVE (MSV)	CR	α
Cyberbullying perpetration	.518–.959	.551 (.268)	.853	.862
Low moral values	.839–.851	.674 (.217)	.861	.881
Low moral emotions	.614–.803	.523 (.268)	.867	.870
Low moral identity	.714–.851	.609 (.234)	.886	.891
Mother’s ineffective parenting				.917
Mother instrumental involvement	.688–.765	.520 (.130)	.896	.904
Mother expressive involvement	.515–.801	.501 (.340)	.887	.876
Mother monitoring/advising	.705–.774	.536 (.340)	.822	.830
Mother nurturance	.667–.758	.504 (.191)	.901	.903
Father’s ineffective parenting				.913
Father instrumental involvement	.664–.781	.559 (.291)	.910	.902
Father expressive involvement	.675–.767	.521 (.291)	.897	.898
Father monitoring/advising	.759–.918	.705 (.138)	.905	.910
Father nurturance	.685–.807	.533 (.081)	.911	.916

Note. AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum shared variance; CR = composite reliability.

Results

Table 2 reports the zero-order correlations between the independent and dependent variables. As the results indicate, there are moderately strong correlations between low moral values, low moral emotions, low moral identity, father’s ineffective parenting, mother’s ineffective parenting, and cyberbullying perpetration (rs > .23, ps < .01). Likewise, there are significant correlations between the ineffective parenting of the father and mother, on one hand, and with low moral values, low moral emotions, and low moral identity, on the other (rs > .18, ps < .01). In addition, low moral emotions are significantly correlated with low moral values and low moral identity (rs > .47, ps < .01).

Table 2.

The Zero-Order Correlations Between Independent and Dependent Variables (N = 384).

Measures	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Cyberbullying perpetration	5.04	3.80	—
2. Low moral values	6.26	2.37	.491 **
3. Low moral emotions	13.88	5.20	.517 **	.471**
4. Low moral identity	11.36	3.93	.500 **	.461**	.484**
5. Mother instrumental involvement	18.47	5.74	.317 **	.264**	.286**	.349**
6. Mother expressive involvement	16.03	5.23	.222 **	.183**	.198**	.203**	.287**
7. Mother monitoring/advising	9.21	3.61	.278 **	.330**	.283**	.270**	.326**	.501**
8. Mother nurturance	23.75	7.70	.366 **	.391**	.351**	.379**	.363**	.325**	.385**
9. Father instrumental involvement	20.41	5.44	.299 **	.299**	.314**	.281**	.175**	.072	.177**	.156**
10. Father expressive involvement	19.15	4.96	.227 **	.232 **	.284**	.272**	.083	.077	.141**	.170**	.410**
11. Father monitoring/advising	8.44	3.64	.320 **	.294 **	.284**	.209**	.201**	.171**	.183**	.256**	.351**	.335**
12. Father nurturance	21.71	6.99	.291 **	.258 **	.279**	.318**	.256**	.180**	.172**	.225**	.182**	.265**	.258**

p < .01.

To fully investigate the direct and indirect effects of parenting on cyberbullying perpetration, structural equation modeling with bootstrapping was employed. As the structural model (see Table 3 and Figure 1) shows, father’s ineffective parenting (β = .17, p = .05), mother’s ineffective parenting (β = .19, p = .05), low moral identity (β = .15, p = .01), low moral values (β = .13, p = .01), and low moral emotions (β = .19, p = .01) have a direct effect on cyberbullying perpetration. Moreover, father’s ineffective parenting (β = .14, p = .01), mother’s ineffective parenting (β = .19, p = .01), low moral identity (β = .03, p = .01), and low moral values (β = .03, p = .05) have an indirect effect on cyberbullying perpetration. Likewise, father’s ineffective parenting (β = .27, p = .01), mother’s ineffective parenting (β = .20, p = .05), low moral identity (β = .17, p = .01), and low moral values (β = .14, p = .05) have a direct effect on low moral emotions. With regard to the indirect paths, father’s ineffective parenting (β = .05, p = .05) and mother’s ineffective parenting (β = .14, p = .01) have an indirect effect on moral emotions. Regarding low moral values, father’s ineffective parenting (β = .28, p = .01) and mother’s ineffective parenting (β = .43, p = .01) have a direct effect on low moral values. Finally, father’s ineffective parenting (β = .26, p = .01) and mother’s ineffective parenting (β = .45, p = .01) have a direct effect on low moral identity. The model accounts for 43% of the variance in cyberbullying perpetration, 39% of the variance in low moral values, 39% of the variance in low moral emotions, and 39% of the variance in low moral identity. For the fitted structural equation modeling, the summary statistics (i.e., CMIN/DF = 1.452, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = .965, comparative fit index [CFI] = .973, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .034, and PClose = .965) are above the cutoff values and represent the goodness-of-fit for the proposed model.

Table 3.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Integrated Model of Parenting and Morality on Cyberbullying Perpetration (N = 384).

Independent variable	Dependent variable	Direct effect			Indirect effect
Independent variable	Dependent variable	b	β	p	b	β	p	R ²
Age	Cyberbullying perpetration	.089	.019	.623	—	—	—
Daily social media usage	Cyberbullying perpetration	.089	.028	.427	—	—	—
Father’s ineffective parenting	Cyberbullying perpetration	.207	.174	.022	.170	143	.003
Mother’s ineffective parenting	Cyberbullying perpetration	.139	.191	.027	.139	.190	.001
Low moral identity	Cyberbullying perpetration	.144	.149	.008	.031	.032	.007
Low moral values	Cyberbullying perpetration	.214	.134	.001	.044	.027	.017
Low moral emotions	Cyberbullying perpetration	.139	.191	.017	—	—	—
R² of model								R² = .431
Father’s ineffective parenting	Low moral emotions	.433	.267	.001	.135	.083	.011
Mother’s ineffective parenting	Low moral emotions	.204	.204	.021	.137	.137	.001
Low moral identity	Low moral emotions	.221	.167	.005	—	—	—
Low moral values	Low moral emotions	.314	.143	.016	—	—	—
R² of model								R² = .393
Father’s ineffective parenting	Low moral values	.207	.279	.001	—	—	—
Mother’s ineffective parenting	Low moral values	.197	.431	.001	—	—	—
R² of model								R² = .389
Father’s ineffective parenting	Low moral identity	.319	.259	.001	—	—	—
Mother’s ineffective parenting	Low moral identity	.340	.451	.001	—	—	—
R² of model								R² = .392

Figure 1.

The effect of parenting and morality on cyberbullying perpetration.

Discussion

The emergence of social media apps as a new channel for communication has changed the nature of the interactions among fans, players, and sports clubs. Now, fans have high accessibility to the online pages of sports figures and clubs; moreover, they can freely share multimedia sports content on fan pages and chat directly with athletes. Although this opportunity can be used as a strong means of relationship marketing (Thompson et al., 2018; Wakefield & Bennett, 2018), cyberbullying, fanaticism, and online aggression have also become more prevalent (Alshehri, 2016; Delia, 2019; MacPherson & Kerr, 2019; Mudrick et al., 2016; Sanderson, 2013; Shadmanfaat et al., 2020). A recent study in Iran showed that the availability of social media has increased the perpetration of cyberbullying among sports fans (Shadmanfaat et al., 2020). Yet, research findings from the psychological and criminological fields on parenting practices and morality have not yet been fully incorporated into this type of cyberbullying. Drawing on the literature suggesting that morality can mediate the association between parenting practices and crime and analogous behaviors (Ishoy, 2017; Svensson et al., 2023, 2017), the current study sought to examine the extent to which moral capabilities mediate the relationship between parenting practices and cyberbullying perpetrated by sports fans. Our research, using data from a sample of 384 Iranian students, yielded four key findings.

First, both parenting practices and morality exert direct effects on fans’ cyberbullying engagement. Prior research has demonstrated that cyberbullying is significantly related to parent–child relationships (Chang et al., 2015; Elsaesser et al., 2017; Floros et al., 2013; Law et al., 2010; Makri-Botsari & Karagianni, 2014; Martínez et al., 2019; Shapka & Law, 2013; Vazsonyi et al., 2017). Our findings are congruent with the research that has found support for the link between ineffective parenting and cyberbullying.

Second, we found that ineffective parenting diminishes the moral capacity of children, which is in line with the findings from the literature on this issue (Grégoire & Pauwels, 2019; Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2010a; Svensson, 2004; Svensson et al., 2013, 2017). Ineffective parenting has negative effects on children’s moral values and identity. Inept parenting practices are also powerful predictors of low moral emotions such as shame and anger.

Third, our findings indicated that moral identity and moral values mediate the association between parenting practices and fans’ cyberbullying perpetration. Specifically, both mother’s and father’s ineffective parenting practices predicted lower moral identity and moral values in the structural equation model, which in turn predicted significant increases in the incidence of cyberbullying. This finding is congruent with prior research that has shown that morality can mediate between parenting practices and delinquent behaviors (Ishoy, 2017; Svensson et al., 2013, 2017).

Fourth, in analyses designed to examine the direct and indirect effects of moral identity and moral values on cyberbullying through moral emotions, the results showed that moral identity and moral values are positively and significantly associated with moral emotions. In other words, those with high moral identity or high moral values tend to have high levels of anticipated guilt and shame, and vice versa. Reduced levels of moral emotions significantly predicted higher levels of cyberbullying. The indirect pathways observed herein also dovetail with prior studies on deviance (Aquino et al., 2007; Grégoire & Pauwels, 2019; Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2010a, 2010b). Although several theories incorporate various constructs derived from morality, empirical investigations of the causal mechanisms among moral values, moral identity, and moral emotions have rarely been conducted. Our study contributes to and extends this line of research by exploring whether moral values and moral identity affect fans’ cyberbullying through moral emotions.

Conclusion

The findings of this study showed that parental behaviors and parental involvement and engagement in daily activities of children; proper performance in the field of education, and training of children; as well as providing a warm and supportive environment for children lead to the internalization of moral values in children. Moreover, the normative and ethical behavior of parents in interacting with their children, as well as representing this moral identity in the social environment outside the home, foster moral identity in children. The results also showed that mothers play a more important role in the process of socializing and internalizing moral values than fathers do, possibly because of the greater communication and interaction with children in the Iranian family environment. It was also found that individuals’ moral emotions are influenced by one’s moral identity and internalized moral values; those with higher moral identity and higher levels of internalized moral values exhibit more emotional responses to moral and ethical issues such as engaging in deviant behaviors. The findings of this study highlight the important role of parents in nurturing and developing children’s moral capacities as well as their potential involvement in offending.

In conclusion, the current study finds support for the combined model of parenting, moral capacity, and cyberbullying perpetration. This study, however, is not without its limitations. It used a sample of boys (high school students), which decreases the generalizability of these findings to girls. Moreover, failure to consider the level of interest in sports (level of fan identification, fan identity, and fan sports engagement) could have affected the accuracy of the results. A key limitation pertains to the cross-sectional nature of the current study design. Although we have presented elaborate structural path models among parenting, morality, and cyberbullying, the measurement of the constructs was conducted at the same time. With such data, in no way could time sequence among the constructs be established. Thus, although common sense dictates that poor parenting leads to children’s low morality, we are not able to fully exclude a possibility of reverse causation where nice and warm parents in the beginning gradually become impetuous and ineffective parents only because of continuing and annoying immoral behaviors of the children. In the future, longitudinal data should be employed to establish a strong causal argument on this issue.

Despite its limitations, our findings complement recent research examining the relationships among parenting practices, morality, and delinquency (Svensson et al., 2017) by showing that mother’s and father’s ineffective parenting can influence children’s moral development, which subsequently affects the likelihood of involvement in cyberbullying. Considering the primacy of parenting, education for parents regarding proper nurturance can eventually increase their children’s moral capacities and reduce cyberbullying and possibly other deviant behaviors. Because morality has a direct association with cyberbullying, morality-related education for students can also bear fruits in curbing cyberbullying. Notably, our results regarding sports fans’ cyberbullying emerged among a sample of adolescences from Iran, where competitiveness and rivalry revolving around sports fandom are commonplace. The current study highlights the importance of considering parenting practices and moral capabilities to build a complete model of cyberbullying by sports fans.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jaeyong Choi

References

Alshehri

(2016). The effect of increasing awareness about the use of social media on sport fanaticism for Saudi soccer fans [Doctoral dissertation]. Middle Tennessee State University.

Aquino

Freeman

Reed

Lim

V. K.

Felps

(2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141.

Aquino

Reed

Thau

Freeman

(2007). A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 385–392.

Aquino

Reed

(2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

Bandura

(1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Kurtines

W. M.

Gewirtz

J. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45–103). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barlett

C. P.

(2015). Anonymously hurting others online: The effect of anonymity on cyberbullying frequency. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(2), 70–79.

Barlett

C. P.

Chamberlin

Witkower

(2017). Predicting cyberbullying perpetration in emerging adults: A theoretical test of the Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model. Aggressive Behavior, 43(2), 147–154.

Barnes

G. M.

Hoffman

J. H.

Welte

J. W.

Farrell

M. P.

Dintcheff

B. A.

(2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance on substance use and delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1084–1104.

Baumert

Halmburger

Schmitt

(2013). Interventions against norm violations: Dispositional determinants of self-reported and real moral courage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1053–1068.

10.

Billings

A. C.

Qiao

Conlin

Nie

(2017). Permanently desiring the temporary? Snapchat, social media, and the shifting motivations of sports fans. Communication & Sport, 5(1), 10–26.

11.

Blasi

(2004). Moral functioning: Moral understanding and personality. In Lapsley

D. K.

Narvez

(Eds.), Moral development, self, and identity (pp. 335–347). Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Bowman

M. A.

Prelow

H. M.

Weaver

S. R.

(2007). Parenting behaviors, association with deviant peers, and delinquency in African American adolescents: A mediated-moderation model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(4), 517–527.

13.

Burt

C. H.

Simons

R. L.

Simons

L. G.

(2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44(2), 353–396.

14.

Bussey

Fitzpatrick

Raman

(2015). The role of moral disengagement and self-efficacy in cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 30–46.

15.

Camacho

Hassanein

Head

(2014). Understanding the factors that influence the perceived severity of cyber-bullying [Paper presentation] (pp. 133-144). The International Conference on HCI in Business.

16.

Chang

F.-C.

Chiu

C.-H.

Miao

N.-F.

Chen

P.-H.

Lee

C.-M.

Chiang

J.-T.

Pan

Y.-C.

(2015). The relationship between parental mediation and Internet addiction among adolescents, and the association with cyberbullying and depression. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 57, 21–28.

17.

Clavio

Kian

T. M.

(2010). Uses and gratifications of a retired female athlete’s Twitter followers. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 485–500.

18.

Cochran

W. G.

(1977). Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

19.

De Kemp

R. A.

Scholte

R. H.

Overbeek

Engels

R. C

. (2006). Early adolescent delinquency: The role of parents and best friends. Criminal Justice Behavior, 33(4), 488–510.

20.

Delia

E. B.

(2019). “You can’t just erase history”: Coping with team identity threat. Journal of Sport Management, 33(3), 203–214.

21.

Elsaesser

Russell

Ohannessian

C. M.

Patton

(2017). Parenting in a digital age: A review of parents’ role in preventing adolescent cyberbullying. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 35, 62–72.

22.

Filo

Lock

Karg

(2015). Sport and social media research: A review. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 166–181.

23.

Finley

G. E.

Mira

S. D.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2008). Perceived paternal and maternal involvement: Factor structures, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering, 6(1), 62–82.

24.

Finley

G. E.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2004). The father involvement and nurturant fathering scales: Retrospective measures for adolescent and adult children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 143–164.

25.

Floros

G. D.

Siomos

K. E.

Fisoun

Dafouli

Geroukalis

(2013). Adolescent online cyberbullying in Greece: The impact of parental online security practices, bonding, and online impulsiveness. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 445–453.

26.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

27.

Frederick

E. L.

Lim

C. H.

Clavio

Walsh

(2012). Why we follow: An examination of parasocial interaction and fan motivations for following athlete archetypes on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 481–502.

28.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

Martin

J. S.

(1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35(1), 40–70.

29.

Gotowiec

van Mastrigt

(2019). Having versus doing: The roles of moral identity internalization and symbolization for prosocial behaviors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(1), 75–91.

30.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.

31.

Grégoire

Pauwels

(2019). Do specific combinations of parent-child relationships predict moral values? Deviant Behavior. Advance online publication. https://www-tandfonline-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1080/01639625.2019.1627018

32.

Hardy

S. A.

Bean

D. S.

Olsen

J. A.

(2015). Moral identity and adolescent prosocial and antisocial behaviors: Interactions with moral disengagement and self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(8), 1542–1554.

33.

Hardy

S. A.

Carlo

(2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action? Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212–218.

34.

Hardy

S. A.

Nadal

A. R.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2017). The integration of personal identity, religious identity, and moral identity in emerging adulthood. Identity, 17(2), 96–107.

35.

Hardy

S. A.

Walker

L. J.

Olsen

J. A.

Woodbury

R. D.

Hickman

J. R.

(2014). Moral identity as moral ideal self: Links to adolescent outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 45–57.

36.

Hardy

S. A.

Walker

L. J.

Rackham

D. D.

Olsen

J. A.

(2012). Religiosity and adolescent empathy and aggression: The mediating role of moral identity. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(3), 237–248.

37.

Harvey

Martinko

M. J.

Borkowski

(2017). Justifying deviant behavior: The role of attributions and moral emotions. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 779–795.

38.

Hay

(2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39(3), 707–736.

39.

Hertz

S. G.

Krettenauer

(2016). Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior? A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 129–140.

40.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711–722.

41.

Hirtenlehner

Treiber

(2017). Can situational action theory explain the gender gap in adolescent shoplifting? Results from Austria. International Criminal Justice Review, 27(3), 165–187.

42.

Hitlin

(2007). Doing good, feeling good: Values and the self’s moral center. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(4), 249–259.

43.

Ishoy

G. A.

(2017). Exploring morality as a mediator of the association between parenting practices and violent and property offending among a sample of juvenile delinquents. Crime & Delinquency, 63(2), 113–136.

44.

Kabiri

Shadmanfaat

S. M. S.

Choi

Yun

(2020). The impact of life domains on cyberbullying perpetration in Iran: A partial test of Agnew’s general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101633.

45.

Kavanagh

Jones

Sheppard-Marks

(2016). Towards typologies of virtual maltreatment: Sport, digital cultures & dark leisure. Leisure Studies, 35(6), 783–796.

46.

Kavussanu

Ring

(2017). Moral identity predicts doping likelihood via moral disengagement and anticipated guilt. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39(4), 293–301.

47.

Kavussanu

Stanger

Boardley

I. D.

(2013). The Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviour in Sport Scale: Further evidence for construct validity and reliability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(11), 1208–1221.

48.

Kavussanu

Stanger

Ring

(2015). The effects of moral identity on moral emotion and antisocial behavior in sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4(4), 268–279.

49.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

50.

Kyriacou

Zuin

(2016). Cyberbullying and moral disengagement: An analysis based on a social pedagogy of pastoral care in schools. Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 34(1), 34–42.

51.

Law

D. M.

Shapka

J. D.

Olson

B. F.

(2010). To control or not to control? Parenting behaviours and adolescent online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1651–1656.

52.

Llorca

Richaud

M. C.

Malonda

(2017). Parenting styles, prosocial, and aggressive behavior: The role of emotions in offender and non-offender adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1246.

53.

MacPherson

Kerr

(2019). Sport fans’ responses on social media to professional athletes’ norm violations. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 1–18.

54.

Makri-Botsari

Karagianni

(2014). Cyberbullying in Greek adolescents: The role of parents. Procedia: Social Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3241–3253.

55.

Martínez

Murgui

García

O. F.

García

(2019). Parenting in the digital era: Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 84–92.

56.

Menesini

Nocentini

Camodeca

(2013). Morality, values, traditional bullying, and cyberbullying in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–14.

57.

Mudrick

Miller

Atkin

(2016). The influence of social media on fan reactionary behaviors. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 896–903.

58.

Nunally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

59.

O’Donnell

Richards

Pearce

Romero

(2012). Gender differences in monitoring and deviant peers as predictors of delinquent behavior among low-income urban African American youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(3), 431–459.

60.

Pauwels

L. J.

Svensson

(2015). Schools and child antisocial behavior: In search for mediator effects of school-level disadvantage. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–13.

61.

Perren

Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger

(2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 195–209.

62.

Rahmati

M. M.

Kabiri

Shadmanfaat

S. M.

(2014). Team identification, sport fandom identity and willingness to verbal/physical aggressive actions among soccer fans. International Journal of Basic Sciences and Applied Research, 3(10), 760–764.

63.

Reed

Aquino

K. F.

(2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270–1286.

64.

Reid

M. L.

(2011). The effects of parental nurturance and involvement on peer relationships and psychosocial functioning of young adults [Doctoral dissertation]. Florida International University.

65.

Resett

Gámez-Guadix

(2017). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Differences in emotional problems, and personality. Are cyberbullies more Machiavellians? Journal of Adolescence, 61, 113–116.

66.

Reynolds

S. J.

Ceranic

T. L.

(2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610–1624.

67.

Robson

Witenberg

R. T.

(2013). The influence of moral disengagement, morally based self-esteem, age, and gender on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 211–231.

68.

Sage

Kavussanu

Duda

(2006). Goal orientations and moral identity as predictors of prosocial and antisocial functioning in male association football players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(05), 455–466.

69.

Sanderson

(2013). From loving the hero to despising the villain: Sports fans, Facebook, and social identity threats. Mass Communication Society, 16(4), 487–509.

70.

Shadmanfaat

S. M.

Cochran

J. K.

Muniz

C. N.

Kabiri

(2019). Soccer hooliganism in Iran: A test of Agnew’s general strain theory. Deviant Behavior, 40(5), 544–558.

71.

Shadmanfaat

S. M.

Howell

C. J.

Muniz

C. N.

Cochran

J. K.

Kabiri

Fontaine

E. M.

(2020). Cyberbullying perpetration: An empirical test of social learning theory in Iran. Deviant Behavior, 41(3), 278–293.

72.

Shapka

J. D.

Law

D. M.

(2013). Does one size fit all? Ethnic differences in parenting behaviors and motivations for adolescent engagement in cyberbullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 723–738.

73.

Sheikh

Janoff-Bulman

(2010a). The “shoulds” and “should nots” of moral emotions: A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 213–224.

74.

Sheikh

Janoff-Bulman

(2010b). Tracing the self-regulatory bases of moral emotions. Emotion Review, 2(4), 386–396.

75.

Shields

D. L.

Funk

C. D.

Bredemeier

B. L.

(2018). Relationships among moral and contesting variables and prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport. Journal of Moral Education, 47(1), 17–33.

76.

Stavros

Meng

M. D.

Westberg

Farrelly

(2014). Understanding fan motivation for interacting on social media. Sport Management Review, 17(4), 455–469.

77.

Svensson

(2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use: The impact of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Youth and Society, 34(3), 300–329.

78.

Svensson

(2004). Shame as a consequence of the parent-child relationship: A study of gender differences in juvenile delinquency. European Journal of Criminology, 1(4), 477–504.

79.

Svensson

(2015). An examination of the interaction between morality and deterrence in offending: A research note. Crime & Delinquency, 61(1), 3–18.

80.

Svensson

Pauwels

L. J.

Weerman

F. M.

Bruinsma

G. J.

(2017). Explaining individual changes in moral values and moral emotions among adolescent boys and girls: A fixed-effects analysis. European Journal of Criminology, 14(3), 290–308.

81.

Svensson

Weerman

F. M.

Pauwels

L. J.

Bruinsma

G. J.

Bernasco

(2013). Moral emotions and offending: Do feelings of anticipated shame and guilt mediate the effect of socialization on offending? European Journal of Criminology, 10(1), 22–39.

82.

Tangney

J. P.

(1995). Recent advances in the empirical study of shame and guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(8), 1132–1145.

83.

Tangney

J. P.

Stuewig

Martinez

A. G.

(2014). Two faces of shame: The roles of shame and guilt in predicting recidivism. Psychological Science, 25(3), 799–805.

84.

Thompson

A.-J.

Martin

A. J.

Gee

Geurin

A. N.

(2018). Building brand and fan relationships through social media. Sport, Business Management: An International Journal, 8(3), 235–256.

85.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1339–1351.

86.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Agnew

(2006). Why is “bad” parenting criminogenic? Implications from rival theories. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(1), 3–33.

87.

Vale

Fernandes

(2018). Social media and sports: Driving fan engagement with football clubs on Facebook. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 26(1), 37–55.

88.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Ksinan Jiskrova

Özdemir

Bell

M. M.

(2017). Bullying and cyberbullying in Turkish adolescents: Direct and indirect effects of parenting processes. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 48(8), 1153–1171.

89.

Wakefield

L. T.

Bennett

(2018). Sports fan experience: Electronic word-of-mouth in ephemeral social media. Sport Management Review, 21(2), 147–159.

90.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

(2010). Explaining crime as moral actions. In Hitlin

Vaisey

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 211–239). Springer.

91.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

(2014). Why crime happens: A situational action theory. In Manzo

(Ed.), Analytical sociology: Actions and networks (pp. 74–94). London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

92.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

Oberwittler

Treiber

Hardie

(2012). Breaking rules: The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press.

93.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(2003). Social mechanisms of community influences on crime and pathways in criminality. In Lahey

B. B.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(Eds.), From causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 48–118). Guilford Press.

94.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

Svensson

(2008). Why are English youths more violent than Swedish youths? A comparative study of the role of crime propensity, lifestyles and their interactions in two cities. European Journal of Criminology, 5(3), 309–330.

95.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

Treiber

(2015). Situational theory: The importance of interactions and action mechanisms in the explanation of crime. In Piquero

A. R.

(Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 415–444). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.