Parental Phubbing and Adolescents’ Cyberbullying Perpetration: A Moderated Mediation Model of Moral Disengagement and Online Disinhibition

Abstract

The current study sought to examine whether parental phubbing was significantly related to adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration and if moral disengagement mediated this relationship. We further examined whether online disinhibition moderated the direct and indirect relationships between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. The participants included 2,407 adolescents from seven middle schools in China who completed the questionnaires regarding their experience with parental phubbing, moral disengagement, cyberbullying perpetration, and online disinhibition. Results indicated that adolescents with a high level of parental phubbing were likely to cyberbully others. Moral disengagement significantly mediated the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. Furthermore, online disinhibition moderated the indirect relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. Specifically, the paths from parental phubbing to moral disengagement and from moral disengagement to cyberbullying perpetration became strengthened when adolescents experienced high levels of online disinhibition.

Keywords

parental phubbing cyberbullying perpetration moral disengagement online disinhibition

Introduction

With the development of information technology, there has been an explosion of smartphone use in everyday life. For instance, the number of smartphone users was estimated to be about 847 million in China by the end of June 2019 (China Internet Network Information Center, 2019). More importantly, individuals feel inseparable from their smartphones (Lepp et al., 2015). Furthermore, using smartphones also exists in the interaction between parents and children. For example, 75% of the 167 American parents were on their device at least three times a day while in direct supervision of their children (Ante-Contreras, 2016), and 65% of mothers reported technology intruding upon parent–child interactions (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Although, using smartphone offers us unrestricted connectivity to social networks and brings positive results to social lives (Goodman-Deane et al., 2016), it also brings some negative consequences such as negative parent–child interactions. Parental phubbing, as a negative parent–child interaction, refers to the extent to which parents use or are distracted by their smartphones when they interact with their children (Wang et al., 2020).

Given that parental phubbing becomes a common occurrence and can significantly predict child externalizing and internalizing behaviors (McDaniel, 2019; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018a, 2018b), it is of theoretical and practical importance to explore whether parental phubbing could significantly increase adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. Thus, we examined the effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration and whether moral disengagement was a potential mediator of this relationship. We also included online disinhibition to determine whether the direct and indirect relationships between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement would vary as the functions of online disinhibition.

Parental Phubbing and Adolescents’ Cyberbullying Perpetration

The empirical research on parental phubbing spans only a few years. The earliest studies mainly relied on parental reports of their own behaviors to measure parental phubbing (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; McDaniel et al., 2018; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018a, 2018b) and they largely ignored adolescents as reporters to measure perceptions of parental phubbing (Stockdale et al., 2018). In fact, compared to parental self-reports, adolescents’ perceptions of parents’ behaviors are better predictors of adolescents’ own behaviors (Bogenschneider et al., 1997). That is, if adolescents are feeling ignored or rejected in the face of parental phubbing, their perceptions are particularly important when examining behaviors such as cyberbullying perpetration. The frustration–aggression hypothesis may help explain the effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. This hypothesis proposes that aggression is the result of frustration, which is produced whenever the ability to achieve a desired goal is blocked (Berkowitz, 1989). More importantly, aggression is not always directed at the perpetrator of the frustration and may instead be displaced against innocent victims (Gilbert & Bushman, 2017).

Parents have a critical influence on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. Many studies confirm that adolescents are less likely to engage in cyberbullying perpetration when they feel their families are warm and their parents usually provide adequate monitoring (Elsaesser et al., 2017). In contrast, adolescents are at higher risk for cyberbullying involvement when they are poorly monitored and feel isolated (Kowalski et al., 2014). Furthermore, phubbed individuals usually feel socially excluded in their in-person interactions and experience a sense of social exclusion (David & Roberts, 2017). Similarly, family members become frustrated when others do non-urgent activities on their phones in the presence of others (Oduor et al., 2016). Therefore, parental phubbing, as an exclusion behavior, can send a “very clear message” to adolescents that parents view smartphones as more important than their children (Wang et al., 2020). When parents consistently allow smartphones to interfere in their parent–adolescent interactions, adolescents will have strong feelings of being ignored or even rejected (Stockdale et al., 2018). This may induce a feeling of frustration and lead adolescents to regard parental phubbing as a frustration.

Although parents are the perpetrators of this frustration, adolescents may not directly aggress against their parents. They may engage in more displaced aggression such as bullying innocent victims online. Moreover, previous studies also roughly support our argument by showing that parents’ technology interference (a similar notion to parental phubbing, we replaced “parental phubbing” with it) during parent–child activities can significantly and positively predict child externalizing and internalizing behaviors (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018a, 2018b; Wang et al., 2020). More importantly, Stockdale et al. (2018) find that adolescents’ perceptions of their parental phubbing are positively associated with their cyberbullying perpetration. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that parental phubbing could significantly increase adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration.

The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement

Although parental phubbing may significantly increase adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration, it is important to note that not all adolescents who face parental phubbing homogeneously display higher levels of cyberbullying perpetration. Unfortunately, previous studies have not examined possible mediators or moderators that could affect this relationship. For instance, Stockdale et al.’s (2018) study focused on the direct relationship between parents’ technoference and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration only, ignoring the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying this relationship. Considering that moral disengagement is a stronger predictor of cyberbullying perpetration (Kowalski et al., 2014; Wang, Yang et al., 2019; Wang, Zhao et al., 2019), we proposed moral disengagement as a potential mediator of the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. In other words, adolescents, who experienced higher levels of parental phubbing, may be more likely to develop a high level of moral disengagement, which in turn leads them to more likely bully others online. Moral disengagement is a self-regulation process, which can help individuals reduce the tension created when enacted behavior such as bullying others does not match their moral standards and norms (Wang et al., 2016). The moral disengagement theory proposes that most people have developed personal moral standards to guide good behavior and deter bad behavior (Bandura et al., 1996). However, this process can be deactivated selectively through moral disengagement. Thus, adolescents with high moral disengagement are more likely to cyberbully others. Nevertheless, no research to date, to our knowledge, has examined whether moral disengagement can mediate the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. We proposed this mediating effect because of the following two reasons.

The first piece of evidence is that adolescents, who have a high level of moral disengagement, are more likely to bully others online. Numerous cross-sectional studies have supported this argument by showing that moral disengagement is significantly associated with cyberbullying perpetration (Robson & Witenberg, 2013; Wang, Zhao et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018). Even after controlling for third variables, this relationship remains significant (Bussey et al., 2015; Meter & Bauman, 2018; Wang et al., 2016; Wang, Yang et al., 2019). Results from longitudinal research further confirm the stability of this relationship by indicating that adolescents’ moral disengagement can significantly predict higher levels of cyberbullying perpetration at one year later, even after controlling for their baseline cyberbullying perpetration (Orue & Calvete, 2016). Results from meta-analyses also indicate that individuals with high moral disengagement are more likely to bully others online (Chen et al., 2017; Gini et al., 2014; Kowalski et al., 2014).

The second piece of evidence is adolescents’ moral disengagement as a malleable social cognitive orientation is usually influenced by the external social contexts (Wang, Zhao et al., 2019). Specifically, Bandura et al. (1996) propose that adolescents’ moral disengagement develops from the increasing interplay between them and the external social context in which they operate. In other words, adolescents’ moral disengagement may be affected by their perceptions of the external social contexts such as their perceptions of parental phubbing. Although no studies to date, to our knowledge, have examined the direct relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ moral disengagement, previous studies have indicated adolescents’ moral disengagement is affected by the other family variables such as parental attachment and childhood maltreatment (Bao et al., 2015; Hyde et al., 2010; Wang, Yang et al., 2019; Wang, Yang et al., 2017). Thus, it is possible that adolescents who experience higher levels of parental phubbing will have strong feelings of being ignored or even rejected (Stockdale et al., 2018) and these feelings may lead adolescents to develop higher levels of moral disengagement. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that there is a significant relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ moral disengagement. Furthermore, some empirical studies roughly support this mediating effect by showing that moral disengagement can significantly mediate the relationships between other family factors (e.g., parental attachment, rejecting parenting, and childhood maltreatment) and adolescents’ delinquency (Bao et al., 2015), antisocial behaviors (Hyde et al., 2010), bullying (Wang, Yang et al., 2017), and cyberbullying perpetration (Wang, Yang et al., 2019).

The Moderating Role of Online Disinhibition

While parental phubbing may have direct and indirect effects on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement, it is not possible that all adolescents are equally affected by this effect. Thus, we proposed online disinhibition as a potential moderating variable that can significantly exacerbate these direct and indirect effects. Online disinhibition refers to a belief about feeling less inhibited and concerned with the consequences of one’s actions in the online world (Suler, 2004; Wright et al., 2019). According to the online disinhibition effect, adolescents with high online disinhibition are more likely to engage in cyberbullying perpetration. Empirical research has supported this view by indicating that online disinhibition is positively related to cyberbullying perpetration (Görzig & Ólafsson, 2013). For instance, anonymity as the most commonly argued aspect of online disinhibition is significantly associated with cyberbullying perpetration (Lowry et al., 2016; Udris, 2014; Wright, 2014).

Online disinhibition may moderate the direct and indirect relationships between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. According to the online disinhibition effect, the online environment is characterized by lack of face-to-face contact, anonymity, and invisibility (Suler, 2004), and can decrease adolescents’ empathy and self-control (Wachs & Wright, 2019). Furthermore, punishment is less likely to occur as compared with the offline world and the online environment would promote rude language, harsh criticisms, and anger (Wachs & Wright, 2018). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the direct and indirect relationships between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement would be stronger for adolescents who have higher levels of online disinhibition.

Empirical research has roughly supported this hypothesis. For instance, online disinhibition significantly moderates the effects of uncaring (one dimension of callous–unemotional traits) on anonymous and non-anonymous cyberbullying perpetration, such that increases in uncaring are more associated with anonymous and non-anonymous cyberbullying perpetration for adolescents with high online disinhibition, but not for those with low online disinhibition (Wright et al., 2019). Likewise, online disinhibition can significantly exacerbate the deleterious effects of adolescents’ negative affect on cyberbullying perpetration, whereby high online disinhibition adolescents who experienced higher levels of negative affect were more likely to bully others online than low online disinhibition adolescents (Zhang et al., 2019). In addition, two empirical studies support this hypothesis by showing that online disinhibition significantly moderates the relationships between bystanders and perpetrators of online hate as well as cyberbullying perpetration and cyberhate perpetration (Wachs & Wright, 2018; Wachs et al., 2019). To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined whether online disinhibition as a risk factor can exacerbate the direct and indirect effects of parental phubbing on cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement.

The Current Study

The current study employed a complex moderated mediation model to fill the gap in understanding the effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. Specifically, we examined the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration and extended previous research by investigating the mediating effect of moral disengagement and the moderating effect of online disinhibition on this relationship. Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence that parental phubbing could significantly increase adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration, we hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. Furthermore, we derived our second hypothesis by basing on the evidence of moral disengagement as a potential mediator of the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration.

The third hypothesis is about examining whether online disinhibition would exacerbate the direct and indirect effects of parental phubbing on cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement. First, we hypothesized that adolescents’ online disinhibition would significantly moderate the direct relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration. Specifically, this relationship would be much stronger for adolescents with higher levels of online disinhibition. Second, we hypothesized that adolescents’ online disinhibition would significantly moderate the indirect relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement. Specifically, the relationship between parental phubbing and moral disengagement as well as moral disengagement and cyberbullying perpetration would be much stronger for adolescents with higher levels of online disinhibition.

Method

Participants

The data for the current study were collected as part of the first wave of an ongoing longitudinal study. Participants were recruited from seven middle schools in Taiyuan and Changzhi, China. They were 2,407 adolescents (boys: n = 1,191, girls: n = 1,202, and 14 participants who did not report gender). The mean age of the participants was 12.75 years (SD = .58, range = 11–16 years). The reason for choosing this age group is that the rate of cyberbullying perpetration peaks in early adolescence (Kowalski et al., 2014) and is much higher for adolescents aged 12 to 15 as Slonje and Smith (2008) asserted.

Measures

Parental phubbing

The nine-item Parental Phubbing Scale revised by Wang et al. (2020) was used to examine adolescents’ perceived parental phubbing. This scale was adapted from the Partner Phubbing Scale (Roberts & David, 2016; Wang, Xie et al., 2017). Adolescents rated each item (e.g., My parents glance at his/her cell phone when talking to me) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. Higher scores indicate higher levels of parental phubbing. The fit indices of CFA were: χ² = 580.27, df = 27; TLI = .89; CFI = .92; SRMR = .044; RMSEA = .092, 90%CI = [0.086, 0.099]. It showed that the model provided a good fit for the data. For the current study, Cronbach’s α was .82.

Cyberbullying perpetration

The nine-item Cyberbullying Scale developed by Wright et al. (2015) was used to measure adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. Items (e.g., How often do you spread bad rumors about another peer online or through text messages) were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = all the time, with higher scores indicating higher levels of cyberbullying perpetration. It has been used in Chinese adolescents and shows good validity and reliability (Wang et al., 2016; Wang, Yang et al., 2019). The fit indices of CFA were: χ² = 194.63, df = 27; TLI = .92; CFI = .94; SRMR = .036; RMSEA = .051, 90%CI = [.044, .058]. Cronbach’s α was .93 for the current study.

Moral disengagement

The Moral Disengagement Scale, which was developed by Bandura et al. (1996), was used to examine adolescents’ moral disengagement. This scale consists of 32 items (e.g., Children are not at fault for misbehaving if their parents force them too much). Adolescents rated each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Responses to all items were averaged with higher scores indicating higher levels of moral disengagement. This scale has been widely used in the Chinese population and shows good validity and reliability (Wang, Yang et al., 2019; Wang, Yang et al., 2017). For the current study, Cronbach’s α was .94.

Online disinhibition

Online disinhibition was measured by the Online Disinhibition Scale developed by Udris (2014). It consists of 11 items and examines the extent to which adolescents believe that they are less inhibited when interacting online. Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = definitely do not believe to 5 = definitely do believe. A representative item was: “It is easy to write insulting things online because there are no repercussions.” Higher scores indicate higher levels of online disinhibition. It has been used in Chinese samples and shows good validity and reliability (Zhang et al., 2019). The fit indices of CFA were: χ² = 701.945, df = 43; TLI = .94; CFI = .95; SRMR = .046; RMSEA = .080, 90%CI = [0.075, 0.086]. For the current study, Cronbach’s α was .84.

Procedures

This study was approved by the first author’s University Ethics Committee. We obtained parental consent and student assent from all participating students before data collection. All the participants filled out questionnaires in a quiet classroom and placed their names and student numbers on the measures, and the confidentiality of their responses was assured. They were free to withdraw from the study at any time. We checked all questionnaires for completeness when participants finished. It took about 40 minutes to complete all the questionnaires.

Data Analysis

All analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 17.0. We used the expectation-maximization (EM) estimation method to deal with the missing data. Before testing hypotheses, all variables were standardized. First, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the mediating effect of moral disengagement on the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. The bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method used to examine the indirect effect of this relationship produced 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effect. Mediation was deemed to be statistically significant if the CI did not include zero. Then, Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro (Model 59) was used to examine whether online disinhibition moderated this mediation process. Furthermore, we used bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method to examine the moderating effect of online disinhibition on the indirect effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement.

Results

Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Analyses

Adolescents with a high level of parental phubbing were likely to have a high level of moral disengagement and a high level of cyberbullying perpetration. Adolescents with a low level of moral disengagement were likely to have a high level of cyberbullying perpetration. Online disinhibition was positively associated with parental phubbing, moral disengagement, and cyberbullying perpetration. See Table 1 for all descriptive and bivariate analyses.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Variables of Interest.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Parental phubbing	2.72	.83	1
2. Moral disengagement	1.70	.61	.15^***	1
3. Cyberbullying perpetration	1.21	.50	.06^**	.46^***	1
4. Online disinhibition	2.51	.74	.11^***	.27^***	.24^***	1
5. Age	12.75	.58	.02	.07^**	.10^***	.04	1
6. Gender	–	–	.001	–.12^***	–.11^***	–.09^***	–.07^**	1

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Gender was dummy coded such that 1 = girl and 0 = boy.

Testing for the Mediating Effect of Moral Disengagement

We expected that moral disengagement would mediate the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. To examine this hypothesis, we used SEM to examine the mediating effect of moral disengagement in this association. Results indicated that the direct path coefficient from parental phubbing to cyberbullying perpetration (γ = .06, p < .01) in the absence of the mediator was significant. A fully mediated model with moral disengagement as a mediator revealed a good fit to the data: χ² (74, N = 2,407) = 1045.46, p < .001; RMSEA = .074; GFI = .93; TLI = .95; and CFI = .96, AIC = 1107.46. Specifically, parental phubbing significantly and positively predicted moral disengagement. Moral disengagement was positively associated with cyberbullying perpetration. The residual direct effect was not significant. That is, moral disengagement fully mediated the association between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration.

In order to assess the size of the indirect effect and CI, a bootstrap procedure was applied. We generated 1,000 bootstrapping samples from the original data set (N = 2,407) by random sampling. The indirect effect of parental phubbing on cyberbullying perpetration mediated by moral disengagement was .077 (SE = .013, CI = [.054, .103], p = .001). Empirical 95% CI did not consist of zero, signifying parental phubbing exerted significant indirect effect on cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Note. Factor loading are standardized. P1–P3 = three parcels of parental phubbing; MD1–MD8 = eight indices of moral disengagement; C1–C3 = three parcels of cyberbullying perpetration.

Figure 2.

Interaction between parental phubbing and online disinhibition on adolescents’ moral disengagement.

Figure 3.

Interaction between moral disengagement and online disinhibition on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration.

Testing for the Moderating Effect of Online Disinhibition

We also expected that online disinhibition moderated the direct and indirect effects of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement. We used Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Model 59) to test these hypotheses (Hayes, 2013). Specifically, we examined whether online disinhibition moderated: (a) the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration, (b) the relationship between parental phubbing and moral disengagement, and (c) the relationship between moral disengagement and cyberbullying perpetration. Adolescents’ gender and age were controlled in each model.

As Table 2 shows, parental phubbing positively predicted moral disengagement and this relationship was moderated by online disinhibition. For descriptive purpose, we plotted predicted moral disengagement against parental phubbing, separately for low and high levels of online disinhibition. Simple slope tests indicated that, for adolescents who had high levels of online disinhibition, parental phubbing significantly positively predicted moral disengagement, b _simple = .19, p < .001. However, for adolescents who had low levels of online disinhibition, this relationship was still significant but much weaker, b _simple = .08, p = .003.

Table 2.

Testing the Moderating Effect of Online Disinhibition on the Relation between Parental Phubbing and Cyberbullying Perpetration.

Predictors	Model 1(Moral disengagement)		Model 2(Cyberbullying perpetration)
Predictors	b	t	b	t
Gender	–.17^***	–4.32	–.07	–1.94
Age	.06^**	2.84	.06^***	3.48
Parental phubbing	.13^***	6.69	–.01	–.61
Online disinhibition	.24^***	11.57	.13^***	7.00
Parental phubbing × Online disinhibition	.05^**	2.76	–.02	–1.15
Moral disengagement			.38^***	18.63
Moral disengagement × Online disinhibition			.09^***	5.73
R²	.10^***		.24^***
F	48.91		102.25

Note. Gender was dummy coded such that 1 = Girl and 0 = Boy.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2 also shows that moral disengagement positively predicted cyberbullying perpetration and this relationship was moderated by online disinhibition. For descriptive purpose, we plotted predicted cyberbullying perpetration against moral disengagement, separately for low and high levels of online disinhibition. Simple slope tests indicated that for adolescents who had high levels of online disinhibition, moral disengagement significantly positively predicted cyberbullying perpetration, b_simple = .47, p < .001. However, for adolescents who had low levels of online disinhibition, this relationship was still significant but weaker, b_simple = .30, p < .001. Contrary to our hypothesis, parental phubbing did not significantly predict adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration after controlling for some individual variables and online disinhibition did not significantly moderate this relationship. That is, online disinhibition did not moderate the direct relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration. In addition, online disinhibition significantly and positively predicted adolescents’ moral disengagement and cyberbullying perpetration.

The bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method further was used to examine the moderating effect of online disinhibition on the indirect effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement. Results indicated that when adolescents experienced high levels of online disinhibition, the indirect effect of parental phubbing, through moral disengagement, on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration, was significant, b = .087, SE = .020, 95% CI = [.052 .132]. When adolescents experienced low levels of online disinhibition, this indirect effects were still significant but much weaker, b = .024, SE = .009, 95% CI = [.009 .045]. Thus, our results showed that online disinhibition moderated the indirect effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement.

Discussion

Parental phubbing recently becomes a common occurrence and its adverse effects have been focused on by growing studies (McDaniel, 2019; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018a, 2018b; Wang et al., 2020). However, it is less clear how and when parental phubbing can significantly increase adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. We extended the knowledge about this issue by examining the mediating effect of moral disengagement and the moderating effect of online disinhibition to confirm those factors that can help account for and alter this relationship. Results showed that adolescents who experienced higher levels of parental phubbing were more likely to bully others in cyberspace and this relationship was mediated by their moral disengagement. Furthermore, online disinhibition moderated the indirect relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement, but not the direct relationship. Specifically, the paths from parental phubbing to moral disengagement and from moral disengagement to cyberbullying perpetration both became strengthened when adolescents experienced high levels of online disinhibition.

The Mediating Effect of Moral Disengagement

In line with our hypothesis, parental phubbing significantly and positively predicted adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. This find is roughly consistent with Stockdale et al.’s (2018) study which confirms that parents’ technoference significantly increases adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. That is, adolescents experiencing higher levels of parental phubbing are more likely to bully others online. Parental phubbing, as an exclusion behavior, can send a “very clear message” to adolescents that parents view smartphones as more important than their children. For adolescents, they will have strong feelings of frustration when consistently facing parental phubbing. Thus, they are more likely to engage in displaced aggression such as bullying innocent victims online.

However, unlike the previous studies which ignored the potential mediating mechanisms (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018a, 2018b; Stockdale et al., 2018), we innovatively explored the mediating effect of moral disengagement on this relationship. As expected, moral disengagement fully mediated the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. This is a new finding that we are not aware of any existing study that has confirmed this mediating effect. It also goes beyond the previous studies by uncovering why parental phubbing can significantly increase adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. The adverse effect of parental phubbing on cyberbullying perpetration is explained by increased adolescents’ moral disengagement. That is, adolescents, who face high parental phubbing, are more likely to disengage from their moral standards to justify cyberbullying perpetration, which in turn leads them to more likely bully others online.

In addition to the overall mediation result, the relationship between parental phubbing and moral disengagement is noteworthy. This study, to our knowledge, is the first to confirm that parental phubbing is significantly associated with adolescent’s moral disengagement. Consistent with our hypothesis, adolescents who experience high parental phubbing are more likely to develop a high level of moral disengagement. This provides new evidence to support Bandura et al.’s (1996) view that adolescents’ moral disengagement develops from the increasing interplay between them and the external social context in which they operate. Our finding is also consistent with previous studies which indicate adolescents’ moral disengagement is affected by the family environment factors such as parental attachment and childhood maltreatment (Bao et al., 2015; Hyde et al., 2010; Wang, Yang et al., 2019; Wang, Yang et al., 2017). Unlike these studies, we extend the existing research by confirming that parental phubbing as a new family factor that can significantly increase adolescents’ moral disengagement. This highlights the importance of parental phubbing in shaping adolescents’ moral disengagement and indicates that parental phubbing is a new risk factor for adolescents’ moralization.

Taken together, the findings of this study contribute to the existing research and highlights the importance of parental phubbing in shaping adolescents’ moral disengagement and indicates that parental phubbing is a new risk factor for adolescents’ moralization. Furthermore, our findings have particular meanings in Chinese culture. China is a collectivist society that emphasizes family relationships (Wang et al., 2020) and the parent–child relationship is considered more important than other relationships (Miller et al., 2013). Thus, the adverse effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ moralization and behavior socialization may be stronger in China than in other countries. In sum, we extend previous studies by confirming the mediating effect of moral disengagement on the relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration.

The Moderating Effect of Online Disinhibition

To further explore the condition under which the direct and indirect effects of parental phubbing on cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement may vary, we examined whether online disinhibition as a moderator could exacerbate the direct and indirect effects. Our findings showed that online disinhibition significantly exacerbated the indirect effect of parental phubbing on cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement, but not the direct effect. Although previous empirical research has confirmed that online disinhibition significantly predicts adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration (Kurek et al., 2019; Udris, 2014; Wachs et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019), the current study is the first, to our knowledge, to indicate that online disinhibition as a moderator significantly exacerbates the indirect effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement. This goes beyond the existing literature by uncovering when this indirect effect becomes strong. Specifically, when adolescents have high levels of online disinhibition, the indirect effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement is significant. However, this indirect effect becomes much weaker when adolescents have low levels of online disinhibition.

These findings can be explained by the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004). Based on this effect, the online environment is characterized by lack of face-to-face contact, anonymity, and invisibility (Suler, 2004). This can decrease adolescents’ empathy and self-control (Wachs & Wright, 2019) and promote rude language, harsh criticisms, and anger (Wachs & Wright, 2018). When adolescents have a strong belief about feeling less inhibited and less concerned with the consequences of one’s actions in the online world (Suler, 2004; Wright et al., 2019), they are more likely to bully other peers online. Thus, the indirect effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement becomes much stronger for adolescents who have higher levels of online disinhibition. This identification of the moderating effect of online disinhibition will help determine which adolescents are more likely to bully other peers online when facing parental phubbing. Although we extend the existing literature by confirming the moderating effect of online disinhibition on the indirect relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration via moral disengagement, it is clear that further exploration of the online disinhibition effect is needed.

In addition, we also found some unexpected findings. First, contrary to our expectations, online disinhibition did not moderate the direct relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration. One possible explanation is that moral disengagement fully mediates the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration and the residual direct effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration becomes nonsignificant. Second, online disinhibition surprisingly significantly predicted adolescents’ moral disengagement and moderated the relationship between parental phubbing and moral disengagement. These findings suggest that adolescents’ belief about feeling less inhibited and less concern with the consequences of one’s actions in the online world not only affects adolescents’ behaviors in cyberspace such as cyberbullying perpetration (Kurek et al., 2019; Udris, 2014; Wachs et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019), but also the moral disengagement in real life. Furthermore, online disinhibition can exacerbate the adverse effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ moral disengagement. One possible explanation is that nowadays, the internet has been a communicative way of modern people and people cannot live without the Internet. For instance, individuals are nearly inseparable from their smartphones and smartphones are becoming an integral part of the lives (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Accordingly, when adolescents have a strong belief about feeling less inhibited and less concern with the consequences of one’s actions in the online world (Suler, 2004; Wright et al., 2019), they are more likely to develop high moral disengagement and the adverse effect of parental phubbing on moral disengagement also would become stronger. These findings suggest that online disinhibition is a risk factor for adolescents’ moralization and no study to our knowledge has noticed this issue. Thus, the adverse effect of online disinhibition on adolescents’ moralization should be examined in future studies.

Limitations and Future Directions

It is important to note several limitations when considering its implications. First, the findings of the current study are based solely on adolescents’ self-reports, which may lead to the findings being influenced by shared method variance. Therefore, multiple measures should be employed in order to gain further insight into the relationship between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration. For instance, future studies should include peer-reports or parent reports. Second, this is a cross-sectional study in design. Thus, the current study cannot ascertain causal relationships. Although the cross-sectional study based on theory is valuable, more studies should use longitudinal or experimental designs to further confirm the adverse effect of parental phubbing on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration. For instance, future studies could set up adolescent–parent interactions in a lab and randomly assign parents to use their phones different amounts and examine these relationships. Third, we focused on the role of adolescents’ perceptions of parental phubbing only and did not measure parental reports of their phubbing. It is possible that adolescents’ perceptions of parental phubbing and parental reports of their phubbing may have different effects on adolescents’ moralization and behavior socialization. Thus, future studies can use the polynomial regression approach with response surface analysis to test the congruent and incongruent effects of adolescents’ perceptions and parental reports of parental phubbing. Fourth, the present study is based on Chinese adolescents, limiting its generalizability. Thus, it must be cautious about generalizing the findings of our study to other cultures. In fact, China as a collectivist society emphasizes family relationships (Wang et al., 2020). Thus, future studies should include adolescents from different cultural groups and examine whether similar findings can be obtained in countries with an individualistic culture. Finally, future studies should expand the scope of factors that may serve as mediators or moderators. In fact, the frustration–aggression hypothesis is criticized by many prominent aggression researchers such as Bandura and Zillmann; and they both argue that frustrations lead to emotional arousal, not directly to aggression (Gilbert & Bushman, 2017). Thus, future studies should examine whether the emotional variables (e.g., anger and anger rumination) can significantly mediate the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration.

To sum up, this study made some contributions, despite the aforementioned limitations, this study is the first to confirm that parental phubbing has an indirect effect on adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration through moral disengagement and this indirect relationship is moderated by their online disinhibition. This will contribute to the understanding of how parental phubbing increases adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration and when this relationship becomes most potent. Compared to previous studies, this study uses a large sample to examine the direct and indirect relationships between parental phubbing and cyberbullying perpetration, which can provide enough statistical power to authenticate our results.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The present study was supported by Program for the Innovative Talents of Higher Education Institutions of Shanxi (PTIT) and the Ministry of education of Humanities and Social Science project (20YJC190021).

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 iDs

Xingchao Wang

Pengcheng Wang

Author Biographies

Xingchao Wang, PhD, is a professor in the School of Educational Science, Shanxi University, China. His research interests are in adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration, aggression, bullying, moral disengagement, and parental phubbing.

Wei Wang, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Psychology, Datong University, China. His research interests are social networking sites addiction and adolescent development.

Yuran Qiao is a postgraduate student in the School of Educational Science, Shanxi University, China. Her research interests are in adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration and parental phubbing.

Ling Gao, Master, is an associate professor in the School of Educational Science, Shanxi University, China. Her research interests are in adolescents’ aggression, bullying, and moral disengagement.

Jiping Yang, Bachelor, is a professor in the School of Educational Science, Shanxi University, China. His research interests are in adolescents’ aggression, bullying, and moral disengagement.

Pengcheng Wang, PhD, is a lecturer in the School of Education, Renmin University of China, China. His research interests are cyberpsychology and adolescent development.

References

Ante-Contreras

(2016). Distracted parenting: How social media affects parent-child attachment [Unpublished master’s thesis]. California State University.

Bandura

, Barbaranelli

, Caprara

G. V.

, & Pastorelli

(1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71(2), 364–374.

Bao

, Zhang

, Lai

, Sun

, & Wang

(2015). Parental attachment and Chinese adolescents’ delinquency: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of Adolescence , 44, 37–47.

Berkowitz

(1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin , 106, 59–73.

Bogenschneider

, Small

S. A.

, & Tsay

J. C.

(1997). Child, parent, and contextual influences on perceived parenting competence among parents of adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 59(2), 345–362.

Bussey

, Fitzpatrick

, & Raman

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

Chen

, Ho

S. S.

, & Lwin

M. O.

(2017). A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media effects approach. New Media and Society , 19(8), 1194–1213.

China Internet Network Information Center. (2019). The 43th statistic report of China internet network development state. Author. https://cnnic.com.cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/201911/P020191112538996067898.pdf

Chotpitayasunondh

, & Douglas

K. M.

(2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior , 63, 9–18.

10.

David

M. E.

, & Roberts

J. A.

(2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing, social exclusion, and attachment to social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research , 2(2), 155–163.

11.

Elsaesser

, Russell

, Ohannessian

M. C.

, & Patton

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

12.

Gilbert

M. A.

, & Bushman

B. J.

(2017). Frustration-aggression hypothesis. In Zeigler-Hill

Virgil

& Shackelford

Todd K.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–3). Springer.

13.

Gini

, Pozzoli

, & Hymel

(2014). Moral disengagement among children and youth: A meta-analytic review of links to aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior , 40(1), 56–68.

14.

Goodman-Deane

, Mieczakowski

, Johnson

, Goldhaber

, & Clarkson

P. J.

(2016). The impact of communication technologies on life and relationship satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior , 57, 219–229.

15.

Görzig

, & Ólafsson

(2013). What makes a bully a cyberbully? Unravelling the characteristics of cyberbullies across twenty-five European countries. Journal of Children and Media , 7(1), 9–27.

16.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . Guilford Press.

17.

Hyde

L. W.

, Shaw

D. S.

, & Moilanen

K. L.

(2010). Developmental precursors of moral disengagement and the role of moral disengagement in the development of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 38(2), 197–209.

18.

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(4), 1073–1137.

19.

Kurek

, Jose

P. E.

, & Stuart

(2019). “I did it for the LULZ”: How the dark personality predicts online disinhibition and aggressive online behavior in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior , 98, 31–40.

20.

Lepp

, Li

, Barkley

J. E.

, & Salehi-Esfahani

(2015). Exploring the relationships between college students’ cell phone use, personality and leisure. Computers in Human Behavior , 43, 210–219.

21.

Lowry

P. B.

, Zhang

, Wang

, & Siponen

(2016). Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Information Systems Research , 27(4), 962–986.

22.

McDaniel

B. T.

(2019). Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes: A review of the emerging research. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies , 1(2), 72–80.

23.

McDaniel

B. T.

, & Coyne

S. M.

(2016). Technology interference in the parenting of young children: Implications for mothers’ perceptions of coparenting. The Social Science Journal , 53(4), 435–443.

24.

McDaniel

B. T.

, & Radesky

J. S.

(2018a). Technoference: Longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research , 84(2), 210–218.

25.

McDaniel

B. T.

, & Radesky

J. S.

(2018b). Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development , 89(1), 100–109.

26.

McDaniel

B. T.

, Galovan

A. M.

, Cravens

J. D.

, & Drouin

(2018). “Technoference” and implications for mothers’ and fathers’ couple and coparenting relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior , 80, 303–313.

27.

Meter

D. J.

, & Bauman

(2018). Moral disengagement about cyberbullying and parental monitoring: Effects on traditional bullying and victimization via cyberbullying involvement. The Journal of Early Adolescence , 38(3), 303–326.

28.

Miller

R. B.

, Mason

T. M.

, Canlas

J. M.

, Wang

, Nelson

D. A.

, & Hart

C. H.

(2013). Marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms in China. Journal of Family Psychology , 27(4), 677–682.

29.

Oduor

, Neustaedter

, Odom

, Tang

, Moallem

, & Tory

, & Irani

(2016, June 04–08). The frustrations and benefits of mobile device usage in the home when co-present with family members [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Brisbane, Australia.

30.

Orue

, & Calvete

(2016). Psychopathic traits and moral disengagement interact to predict bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516660302

31.

Roberts

J. A.

, & David

M. E.

(2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior , 54, 134–141.

32.

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.

33.

Slonje

, & Smith

P. K.

(2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 49(2), 147–154.

34.

Stockdale

L. A.

, Coyne

S. M.

, & Padilla-Walker

L. M.

(2018). Parent and child technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes: A nationally representative study of 10- to 20-year-old adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior , 88, 219–226.

35.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior , 7(3), 321–326.

36.

Udris

(2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and validation of the online disinhibition scale. Computers in Human Behavior , 41, 253–261.

37.

Wachs

, & Wright

M. F.

(2018). Associations between bystanders and perpetrators of online hate: The moderating role of toxic online disinhibition. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15092030

38.

Wachs

, & Wright

M. F.

(2019). The moderation of online disinhibition and sex on the relationship between online hate victimization and perpetration. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 22(5), 300–306.

39.

Wachs

, Wright

M. F.

, & Vazsonyi

A. T.

(2019). Understanding the overlap between cyberbullying and cyberhate perpetration: Moderating effects of toxic online disinhibition. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health , 29(3), 179–188.

40.

Wang

, Gao

, Yang

, Zhao

, & Wang

(2020). Parental phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: Self-esteem and perceived social support as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-10019-01185-x

41.

Wang

, Lei

, Liu

, & Hu

(2016). Moderating effects of moral reasoning and gender on the relation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences , 98, 244–249.

42.

Wang

, Xie

, Wang

, & Lei

(2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences , 110, 12–17.

43.

Wang

, Yang

, Wang

, & Lei

(2019). Childhood maltreatment, moral disengagement, and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration: Fathers’ and mothers’ moral disengagement as moderators. Computers in Human Behavior , 95, 48–57.

44.

Wang

, Yang

, Gao

, Yang

, Lei

, & Wang

(2017). Childhood maltreatment and Chinese adolescents’ bullying and defending: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Child Abuse & Neglect , 69, 134–144.

45.

Wang

, Zhao

, Yang

, & Lei

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

46.

Wright

M. F.

(2014). Predictors of anonymous cyber aggression: The role of adolescents’ beliefs about anonymity, aggression, and the permanency of digital content. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 17(7), 431–438.

47.

Wright

M. F.

, Aoyama

, Kamble

, Li

, Soudi

, & Lei

, & Shu

(2015). Peer attachment and cyber aggression involvement among Chinese, Indian, and Japanese adolescents. Societies , 5(2), 339–353.

48.

Wright

M. F.

, Harper

B. D.

, & Wachs

(2019). The associations between cyberbullying and callous-unemotional traits among adolescents: The moderating effect of online disinhibition. Personality and Individual Differences , 140, 41–45.

49.

Yang

, Wang

, Huan

, & Liu

(2018). Cyberbullying among Chinese adolescents: The role of interparental conflict, moral disengagement, and moral identity. Children and Youth Services Review , 86, 256–263.

50.

Zhang

, Chu

, & Fang

(2019). Peer victimization and cyberbullying: A mediating moderation model. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology , 27(1), 148–152.