Loving Your Parents and Treating Others Well: The Effect of Filial Piety on Cyberbullying Perpetration and Its Functional Mechanism Among Chinese Graduate Students

Abstract

Although a few studies have investigated the effect of family factors on cyberbullying perpetration, these studies have mainly focused on the roles of parents. Few studies have examined the roles of children. In traditional Chinese culture, the filial piety belief (FPB) refers to the viewpoint that considers the roles of children in a family context. We suggest that how children consider their roles in a family might also influence cyberbullying perpetration. Based on the dual filial piety model and social information processing model, this study examined the effect of FPB on cyberbullying perpetration and tested its mediation of hostile attribution bias. In total, 588 graduate students participated. The participants completed several questionnaires, including the FPB scale, the social information processing–attribution response questionnaire, and the cyberbullying scale. The results were as follows. First, reciprocal filial piety (RFP) was significantly negatively correlated with hostile attribution bias and cyberbullying perpetration, while authoritarian filial piety (AFP) was significantly positively correlated with hostile attribution bias and cyberbullying perpetration. Second, hostile attribution bias mediated the association between FPB (comprising AFP and RFP) and cyberbullying perpetration; RFP decreased hostile attribution bias, while AFP increased hostile attribution bias; and hostile attribution bias increased cyberbullying perpetration. The current study expands our understanding of the influential factors and formation mechanism of cyberbullying perpetration in Chinese culture.

Keywords

cyberbullying perpetration culture dual filial piety model filial piety hostile attribution bias

Introduction

The development of the internet not only introduced much convenience to everyday life in modern society but also exacerbated many social problems; for example, bullying transformed into cyberbullying. In recent years, cyberbullying, as a new form of aggressive behavior, has received widespread attention from both researchers and the public (Choi, 2008; Choi et al., 2019; Elsaesser et al., 2017; Jenaro et al., 2018; Kowalski et al., 2014). Cyberbullying is defined as intentionally attacking others (e.g., mocking, abusing, threatening, and spreading rumors) via the internet (e.g., e-mail, blogs, instant messages, and text messages; Kowalski et al., 2014). Cyberbullying perpetration is spreading worldwide, bringing victims significant harm (Geel et al., 2014; Selkie et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2013). Thus, fully examining the influential factors and functioning mechanism of cyberbullying is of great practical significance.

Previous studies have found that individual factors (e.g., gender, age, personality, and cognitive style) and environmental factors (family, school, and peer characteristics) impact cyberbullying perpetration (Jenaro et al., 2018; Kowalski et al., 2014). Among the family factors that influence cyberbullying perpetration, parenting factors have been the main focus of research (Isabel et al., 2019). However, previous studies only examined the roles of parents in the family. Few studies focused on the roles of children. In contrast to mainstream Western psychological theories, which emphasize the roles of parents in a family, traditional Chinese culture emphasizes the importance of children. The concept of filial piety belief (FPB) indicates how Chinese culture regards the roles of children with respect to parent–child interactions. Although filial piety is deeply rooted in Chinese Confucian belief and is widely practiced in the Chinese community, this concept also appears among the topmost ethical concepts emphasized in other East Asian countries, such as Korea and Malaysia (Ismail et al., 2009; Park, 2012; Tan et al., 2018).

In accordance with the FPB, children should follow strict moral norms during parent–child interactions (Bedford & Yeh, 2019). An upper component representing the aged (老) and a lower component representing the child (子) comprise the character xiao (孝). On the one hand, this character composition (parent on the top and child on the bottom) reflects the hierarchical structure in a Chinese family, indicating that children should obey their parents; on the other hand, this character composition indicates that children should support their parents. In traditional Chinese culture, children are expected to obey their parents unconditionally and take responsibility for eliminating parents’ annoyances and increasing their happiness (Bedford & Yeh, 2019).

The ancient Chinese believed that filial piety can not only contribute to family harmony but also promote public relations and result in social stability as noted in the ancient Chinese classic filial scripture “教民亲爱，莫善于孝” [This expression implies that teaching people to love each other is no better than promoting filial piety]. In addition, research has found that the FPB affects not only parent–child conflicts at the family level but also externalized behaviors (including aggression) at the social level (Yeh, 2006). However, to date, no research has examined the impact of FPB on cyberbullying perpetration.

Although many studies examined the factors affecting cyberbullying, two gaps exist. First, previous studies mostly emphasized the impacts of parental monitoring, support, and attitude toward their children (Cho & Rustu, 2020; Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Wang et al., 2009; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), while relatively ignoring the children’s role as active actors in the family; it seems that children are only passive accepters. However, filial piety emphasizes the responsibilities and obligations that children need to bear, well reflecting the role of children as active actors in the family.

Second, although some scholars noted considering cultural backgrounds when studying cyberbullying, most existing studies only examined different manifestations (e.g., frequency of cyberbullying) in different cultures (Barlett et al., 2014; Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al., 2018), and studies rarely investigated culturally different factors of cyberbullying. Filial piety, which emphasizes collectivity and hierarchy, is a distinctively cultural factor in Asia. Therefore, examining FPB considers both the role of children as active family actors and the particularity of the Asian culture. Associating FPB with cyberbullying can fill the gaps in the extant literature.

China is a useful setting to study the association between filial piety and cyberbullying perpetration. First, China is an example of Confucian culture, and filial piety is one of its core elements. From ancient times to the present, filial piety has penetrated all aspects of Chinese social life. Although the influence is becoming increasingly covert across time, we can barely assume that its importance has vanished (Bedford & Yeh, 2019). Second, with the rapid development of the internet in China, cyberbullying is becoming increasingly pronounced. Specifically, both cyberbullying perpetration (38.84%–58.72%) and cyberbullying victimization (56.88%–74.82%) frequently occur in China (Fan et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2013).

Literature Review

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying, different from traditional bullying, is a form of deviant behavior that occurs in cyberspace. This bullying behavior is greatly intensified with the prevalence of social media and mobile internet devices through which a person can realize an easiest and least-cost way to bully another person. Recent studies revealed that cyberbullying frequently took place among both children and adults, and 75% of school-age children that participated had experienced this type of aggression at least once in the year before the study was conducted (Kowalski et al., 2014). Many research has found that the experience of cyberbullying is associated with several negative outcomes, including anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, substance abuse, difficulty in sleeping, self-harm, increased physical symptoms, decreased performance in school, absenteeism and truancy, dropping out of school, offline delinquency, and suicide (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007, 2010, 2018; Kowalski et al., 2014; Lee & Chun, 2020; Maria et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020; Olweus, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). Considering its universality and harmfulness, cyberbullying has become both an academic and a public concern.

Some scholars argue that cyberbullying is a subclass of bullying behavior; therefore, it shares many similarities with traditional bullying (Olweus & Limber, 2018). For example, similar to traditional bullying, cyberbullying also has the attributes of imbalance of power and repetition. However, these attributes assume different forms in cyberbullying. Specifically, in traditional bullying, a perpetrator overpowers a victim due to the disparity of physical strength. However, the anonymity of cyber environment erases the visible differences; perpetrators gain control over victims mainly by mastering higher digital technologies (Olweus & Limber, 2018). Moreover, a negative message or image on the internet can be immeasurably repeated because online information remains and reproduces at any time (Olweus & Limber, 2018).

According to the general aggression model (GAM), individual factors and situational factors may influence cyberbullying perpetration (Kowalski et al., 2014). Empirical research has found that cyberbullying perpetration is associated with several individual factors, including gender, age, motives, personality, psychological states, socioeconomic status, form of devices, values and perceptions; in addition, situational factors include school climate and parenting (Lee et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2019; Kowalski et al., 2014). Regarding family factors, parenting style (Charalampous et al., 2018; Isabel et al., 2019), parental monitoring (Cho & Rustu, 2020; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), parental support (Wang et al., 2009), and parental attitudes toward cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013) are associated with children’s cyberbullying perpetration. Although many studies have examined the family factors of cyberbullying perpetration in terms of the roles of parents (e.g., parenting), very few examined it in view of the roles of children (e.g., filial piety).

Association Between the FPB and Cyberbullying Perpetration

China is an example of a collectivist country that commonly emphasizes the importance of family (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Talhelm et al., 2014). Confucian culture introduced several moral norms requiring children to obey their parents during parent–child interactions known as FPB. The ancient Chinese believed that the FPB is the basis of all other moralities; in modern society, the influence of FPB still exists (Bedford & Yeh, 2019). FPB is associated with the personality of Chinese people because personality is formed in the process of socialization, and filial piety is a socialization goal in China (Bedford & Yeh, 2019). According to the GAM, personality is an important factor influencing aggressive behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Therefore, we assume that FPB is associated with cyberbullying perpetration.

Previous researchers have constructed a dual filial piety (DFP) model by drawing upon Chinese history and philosophy (Bedford & Yeh, 2019; Yeh & Bedford, 2003). The DFP model emphasizes the following two attributes: reciprocity and authoritarianism. Reciprocal filial piety (RFP) emphasizes gratitude and care, whereas authoritarian filial piety (AFP) emphasizes hierarchy and obedience. The DFP model contends that RFP generates more positive effects, while AFP produces more negative outcomes.

RFP highlights gratitude and affection, implying that children should care, love, and show empathy toward their parents, help their parents when they are in trouble, and comfort their parents when they are in distress. Based on the principle of gratitude, children should give their parents material and emotional rewards because parents give their children life and take good care of them. AFP emphasizes hierarchy and obligation. AFP reflects the expectation that children should obey their parents unconditionally regardless of whether they like their parents’ orders or believe that they are incorrect. In ancient China, a hierarchical society was strongly emphasized and obedience to authority was the basic principle of action. The Confucian ideology that dominated ancient Chinese society clearly asserted that parents (particularly fathers) are the absolute authority in the family and that children should obey their parents unconditionally.

First, we believe that RFP may affect cyberbullying perpetration. Given that RFP is positively correlated with openness (Yeh & Bedford, 2003), and openness and cyberbullying perpetration are negatively correlated (Kokkinos et al., 2013), we assume that RFP may decrease cyberbullying perpetration by increasing openness. Specifically, the anonymity of the internet allows for a free and diversified presentation (Suler, 2004), making it easier for internet users to access different behaviors and opinions. When exposed to different behaviors and opinions, individuals with low openness may be dissatisfied; therefore, such individuals are likely to have conflicts with others and perpetrate cyberbullying. In contrast, individuals with high openness may accept the differences; therefore, such individuals are less likely to have conflicts with others and perpetrate cyberbullying. In addition, some indirect evidence supports the association between RFP and cyberbullying perpetration. RFP is positively correlated with perspective-taking ability and superior interpersonal skills (Bedford & Yeh, 2019; Yeh, 2009; Yeh & Bedford, 2003), which are negatively correlated with cyberbullying perpetration (Kowalski et al., 2014). Moreover, RFP is negatively correlated with traditional aggressive behavior (Yeh, 2006). Thus, we propose the following:

H1a: RFP is negatively correlated with cyberbullying perpetration.

Second, we assume that AFP may affect cyberbullying perpetration. Given that

AFP is positively correlated with authoritative personality (Yeh & Bedford, 2003), we assume that AFP may increase cyberbullying perpetration by increasing authoritative personality. Specifically, the anonymity of the internet relatively frees people from authoritative constraints (Suler, 2004); therefore, individuals on the internet may exhibit behaviors and express opinions that are inconsistent with those of authority or disciplines. Individuals with a high level of authoritative personality may feel hostile and resist these inconsistent behaviors and opinions, therefore leading to conflicts with the actors and cyberbullying perpetration. In addition, some indirect evidence supports the association between AFP and cyberbullying perpetration. AFP is negatively correlated with perspective-taking ability and superior interpersonal skills (Bedford & Yeh, 2019; Yeh, 2009; Yeh & Bedford, 2003), which are negatively correlated with cyberbullying perpetration (Kowalski et al., 2014). Moreover, AFP is positively correlated with traditional aggressive behavior (Yeh, 2006). Accordingly, we propose the following:

H1b: AFP is positively correlated with cyberbullying perpetration.

Mediation of Hostile Attribution Bias

Among the many theories explaining aggressive behavior, the social information processing (SIP) model, which emphasizes cognition, has increasingly attracted researchers’ attention (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; Smeijers et al., 2020; Tuente et al., 2019). According to this model, a cognitive process precedes any aggressive behavior that a person subsequently exhibits. This process includes six stages, specifically, the encoding of cues, interpretation of cues, clarification of goals, response access or construction, response decision, and behavioral enactment. Each stage may affect an individual’s aggressive behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994, 1996). Hostile attribution is the interpretation of contextual cues and plays a key role in generating aggressive behavior. Indeed, cyberbullying perpetration is a typical aggressive behavior in the digital age. Based on the SIP model, we believe that hostile attribution bias could be a mediating variable worthy of consideration.

On the one hand, we assume that the FPB may affect hostile attribution bias as follows: RFP reduces while AFP increases hostile attribution bias. Although the original SIP model possessed strong explanatory power for aggressive behavior, it ignored the importance of emotion. Therefore, some researchers have incorporated emotion into an integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in the SIP model (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). According to the functional theory of emotion, individuals’ emotional experiences imply an important source of event information. Individuals experiencing negative emotions may also seek and explain social cues that match their current emotional state, thereby promoting hostile interpretations (Chen et al., 2002; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Specifically, empirical research indicates that a positive association exists between anxiety and hostile attribution bias (Banks et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2016).

Furthermore, previous studies have found that the FPB is correlated with anxiety and depression as follows: RFP can positively predict anxiety and depression, while AFP can negatively predict anxiety and depression (Yeh, 2006). Individuals who show a higher level of RFP develop better interpersonal abilities and achieve more satisfactory social relationships, resulting in reduced anxiety. However, individuals who exhibit a higher level of AFP must often suppress their needs and obey their parents’ wishes. Coupled with their weaker interpersonal skills, such individuals experience even more difficulty in meeting their social needs, resulting in anxiety. In summary, given that RFP reduces while AFP increases anxiety and that anxiety increases hostile attribution bias, RFP may decrease and AFP may increase hostile attribution bias.

On the other hand, hostile attribution bias may positively affect cyberbullying perpetration. Hostile attribution bias refers to the inclination to regard others’ ambiguous behaviors as having a hostile intention. The SIP model contends that hostile attribution bias plays an important cognitive role in the formation and development of aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Specifically, when a person interprets another person’s intention as hostile, the perception of threat and hostility from the opposite person urges the individual to justify his or her infuriation and aggressive retaliation (Dodge & Coie, 1987).

Many studies have found a positive association between hostile attribution bias and different forms of aggression (e.g., physical aggression and relational aggression) at different developmental stages ranging from childhood to adulthood (Heidgerken et al., 2005; Martinelli et al., 2018). In online social interactions, visual cues (such as facial expressions and body gestures) and auditory cues (such as speed and tone) are often lacking (Wilson et al., 2012); therefore, individuals encounter many vague social scenes. Individuals who exhibit hostile attribution bias may negatively interpret these social cues, thus increasing the frequency of cyberbullying perpetration. A recent empirical study also found a positive correlation between hostile attribution bias and cyberbullying perpetration (Yoo & Park, 2019).

Therefore, we propose the following:

H2: The FPB affects cyberbullying perpetration by mediating hostile attribution bias.

RFP is negatively correlated with hostile attribution bias, whereas AFP is positively correlated with hostile attribution bias; and hostile attribution bias is positively correlated with cyberbullying perpetration.

Study Rationale

Although studies have examined the influence of parents’ role on cyberbullying participation, the role of children has not been examined. Moreover, previous studies have rarely considered the effect of specific cultural factors on cyberbullying participation. Therefore, to reflect the role of children and cultural particularity, this study examines the influence of FPB on cyberbullying perpetration. In addition, to explain the influential mechanism, we examine the mediating role of hostile attribution bias. In the current study, SPSS (version 18) and Amos (version 21) were used to analyze the data of the study. First, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the associations of all variables. Second, the hypothesized mediating effect was tested using Hayes’s (2013) SPSS macro PROCESS. Third, we use SEM techniques (the use of latent variables also enables the estimation and, if necessary, control for the effects of common method variance) to test the mediating effect involving all variables using AMOS 21.

Methods

Participants

Using convenient sampling, graduate students (n = 588) were recruited from three colleges in a city in central China during the fall semester of 2019. Among the participants, 338 (57.5%) participants were male and 250 (42.5%) participants were female; M_age = 22.53 years, SD = 1.17. A total of 176 (29.9%) participants were art students, 412 (70.1%) participants were science students; the students are from the departments of grammar, foreign languages, maxism, automobile, civil engineering, electromechanical, automation, and materialogy.

Procedures

Prior to the questionnaire investigation, we received permission to conduct this survey by the Ethical Committee for Scientific Research in our institution and we sought consent from the participants. The survey was conducted via the internet. In the classroom, we presented an online link and asked the participants to answer the questionnaires. The students answered the questions in the link using their mobile phones. The completion of the questionnaire was anonymous without collection of the participants’ names and their student numbers. Subsequently, the participants completed a questionnaire that measured their demographic characteristics, RFP, AFP, hostile attribution bias, and cyberbullying perpetration experiences in the past six months. The survey was conducted in Mandarin Chinese.

Measures

Cyberbullying perpetration. The participants completed the cyberbullying perpetration inventory, which consists of six items corresponding to six forms of cyberbullying perpetration behaviors, such as “tease someone using” and “threaten someone” (Lam & Li, 2013). This measure is rated on a scale from 0 (0 times of cyberbullying perpetration in the past six months) to 6 (6 times). The mean scores range from 0 to 6, and higher values represent higher incidence rates of cyberbullying perpetration. The cyberbullying perpetration inventory has been shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies involving a Chinese sample (Hu et al., 2013). In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .98.

Filial piety belief. We adopted the FPB Scale, which was developed based on the DFP model (Yeh & Bedford, 2003), to evaluate the participants’ FPB. We translated the Chinese items and responses into English referring to the English questionnaires (see the Appendix) in a previously published international journal (Chen, 2014). The questionnaire has 10 items, and the answers are provided on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally not agree, 5 = totally agree). The higher the score, the stronger the FPB the participant holds. The questionnaire consists of the following two parts: five items represent AFP and the remaining items represent RFP. Examples of the items measuring RFP include “When parents are unhappy, children should talk to their parents and understand and comfort them,” and the authoritarian items include “No matter what parents do, children should do it immediately.” The FPB scale has been shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies involving an Asian sample (Jin et al., 2019; Leung, 2020; Tan et al., 2018; Yeh, 2006; Yeh & Bedford, 2003). The analysis of the internal consistency resulted in Cronbach coefficients of .95 for AFP and .89 for RFP.

Hostile attribution bias. The participants completed a Chinese version of the social information processing–attribution response questionnaire (SIP–AQ), which contains five vignettes in which a character has ambiguous intentions toward conflicts (Coccaro et al., 2009; Li et al., 2020). We translated the Chinese items and responses into English referring to the English questionnaire (see the Appendix) in a previously published international journal (Li et al., 2020). In each vignette, the participants were asked to interpret the character’s abhorrent behavior by responding on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all likely) to 3 (very likely) to hold hostile attribution bias. For example, one vignette read “Imagine that you go to the first meeting of a club you want to join. You would like to make friends with the other people in the club. You walk up to some of the other club members and say, ‘Hi!’ but they don’t say anything back.” Four choices were given, and two choices concerning hostile attribution bias (e.g., “The club members wanted to ignore me” and “the club members wanted me to feel unimportant”) were adopted in the current study. The average score of each type of attribution is obtained by combining the scores of each vignette. The SIP–AQ has been shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies involving a Chinese sample (Li et al., 2020). For the purposes of this study, only data from the hostile attribution results were used. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency to make a hostile attribution. In this study, the single-factor model fit the data of hostile attribution bias satisfactorily, as follows: χ²/df = 3.72, comparative fit index (CFI) = .995, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .992, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .983, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .068. In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .90. The results show that this scale has good reliability and validity.

Statistical Analyses

First, we conducted descriptive analyses using SPSS 18.0 to understand the general condition of the variables in this study. Pearson’s correlation analyses were used to examine the potential associations among the independent (RFP and AFP), mediator (hostile attribution), and dependent (cyberbullying perpetration) variables.

Second, we tested the hypothesized mediation models by using the procedure suggested by (Hayes, 2013). The bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (CI) derived from 5,000 bootstrap resamples was used to test the significance of the indirect path. If the CI values do not cross zero, the indirect effect is considered significant. Model 4 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS was chosen to conduct the mediation analyses (Hayes, 2013). To reduce multicollinearity, all variables were first standardized (Dearing & Hamilton, 2006). The Z-score of the research variables was employed to test the mediation effects and the standardized coefficient (β) of each regression equation is also reported.

Third, we used AMOS 21 to construct a structural equation model that includes all variables of interest to test the mediation. The model fit was also evaluated using χ²/df, the CFI, the GFI, the TLI, and the RMSEA.

Results

Descriptive and Correlational Analyses

In our current sample, 28.23% (n = 166) of the participants reported that they had bullied someone online in the past six months. The correlations among RFP, AFP, hostile attribution bias, and cyberbullying perpetration were examined (see Table 1). RFP was negatively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (r = –.33, p < .01), and AFP was positively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (r = .19, p < .01), which is consistent with H1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations for the Main Variables (N = 588).

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Reciprocal filial piety	4.15	.87	—
2. Authoritarian filial piety	2.81	.98	.19^**	—
3. Hostile Attribution	2.15	.64	–.10^*	.18^**	—
4. Cyberbullying Perpetration	1.61	1.30	–.33^**	.20^**	.17^**	—

Note. ^*p < .05. ^**p < .01.

Mediation Analyses

To understand the mediation effect of FPB on cyberbullying perpetration, hostile attribution was introduced as a potential mediator between FPB and cyberbullying perpetration. Gender and age were also controlled throughout the process of the mediation analyses. The multiple regression equations used are displayed in Table 2 and Table 3. Model 4 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS was chosen to directly test the mediated effect (Hayes, 2013). The outputs of the regression equations in Model 4 show the effect size of the path coefficients corresponding to the strength of the variable associations.

First, we report the mediation effect of hostile attribution on the relationship between RFP and cyberbullying perpetration. As shown in Table 2, RFP was negatively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (β = –.32, p < .01 [Equation 1]) and negatively associated with hostile attribution bias (β = –.09, p < .01 [Equation 2]). When hostile attribution bias was considered a mediator, RFP was negatively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (β = –.31, p < .01), and hostile attribution bias was positively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (β= .13, p < .01 [Equation 3]). A nonparameter bootstrapping simulation was used to test the indirect effects. The mediating effect was –0.01, SE = 0.01, Boot CI [–0.0284,–0.0007]. These results indicate that hostile attribution bias was a mediator in the association between RFP and cyberbullying perpetration, which is consistent with H2.

Table 2.

Regressions Testing Hostile Attribution as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Reciprocal Filial Piety and Cyberbullying Perpetration.

Predictors	Equation 1 (criterion = cyberbullying perpetration)		Equation 2 (criterion = hostile attribution bias)		Equation 3 (criterion = cyberbullying perpetration)
Predictors	β	t	β	t	β	t
Gender	–.28	–3.51^**	–.14	–1.63	–.26	–3.31^**
Age	.04	1.32	–.02	0.66	.05	1.42
RFP	–.32	–8.19^**	–.09	2.21^**	–.31	7.92^**
HA					.13	3.42^**
R ²	.13		.02		.15
F	29.47^**		2.94^**		25.44^**

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

Second, we report the mediation effect of hostile attribution on the relationship between AFP and cyberbullying perpetration. As shown in Table 3, AFP was positively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (β = .17, p < .01 [Equation 1]) and positively associated with hostile attribution (β = .17, p < .01 [Equation 2]). When hostile attribution was added as a mediator, AFP was positively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (β = .14, p < .01), and hostile attribution bias was positively associated with cyberbullying perpetration (β = .14, p < .01 [Equation 3]). A nonparameter bootstrapping simulation was used to test the indirect effects. The mediating effect was 0.02, SE = 0.01, Boot CI [0.0052, 0.0491]. These results indicate that hostile attribution bias was a mediator in the association between AFP and cyberbullying perpetration, which is consistent with H2.

Table 3.

Regressions Testing Hostile Attribution as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Authoritarian Filial Piety and Cyberbullying Perpetration.

Predictors	Equation 1 (criterion = cyberbullying perpetration)		Equation 2 (criterion = hostile attribution bias)		Equation 3 (criterion = cyberbullying perpetration)
Predictors	β	t	β	t	β	t
Gender	–.29	–3.46^**	–.09	–1.13	–.27	–3.33^**
Age	.03	.89	–.03	.04	.03	1.01
AFP	.17	4.46^**	.17	4.19^**	.14	3.51^**
HA					.14	3.34^**
R ²	.06		.10		.08
F	12.19^**		31.61^**		12.08^**

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

Structural Equation Model Testing

We tested our theoretical model using structural equation modelling (Figure 1). The results were as follows. RFP directly negatively predicted cyberbullying perpetration and AFP directly positively predicted cyberbullying perpetration. These results are consistent with H1. RFP and AFP impacted cyberbullying perpetration through the mediating effect of hostile attribution bias. RFP is negatively correlated with hostile attribution bias, whereas AFP is positively correlated with hostile attribution bias, and hostile attribution bias is positively correlated with cyberbullying perpetration, which is consistent with H2. The fit indices of the mediational model were good, as follows: χ²/df = 3.72, CFI = .995, GFI = .992, TLI = .983, and RMSEA = .068.

Figure 1.

Mediation effects of hostile attribution on the relationships among RFP, AFP, and cyberbullying perpetration.

Discussion

Effect of the FPB on Cyberbullying Perpetration

First, this study demonstrated that RFP negatively predicts cyberbullying perpetration and AFP positively predicts cyberbullying perpetration, which is consistent with H1. Although previous studies have used Chinese samples to examine the influential factors of cyberbullying perpetration (Fan et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2013; Wang, Jiang, et al., 2019; Wang, Yang, et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018), these studies paid more attention to general variables (e.g., narcissism, childhood maltreatment, interparental conflict, and exposure to violent video games). These variables are important but do not account for the specific characteristics of traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, the current study investigated the effect of the FPB on cyberbullying perpetration. Filial piety is a core component of traditional Chinese culture and has widely influenced not only individuals in mainland China but also East Asians and Chinese people worldwide (Bedford & Yeh, 2019; Chappell & Kusch, 2007; Tan et al., 2018). Furthermore, given that previous studies concerning aggression have produced similar results, namely, RFP negatively predicts aggression and AFP positively predicts aggression among Chinese samples (Yeh, 2006), examining the effect of the FPB on bullying in the context of the development of the internet is timely and significant. The results of our research indicate the relevance of examining the effects of traditional Chinese concepts (e.g., Zhongyong, Yinyang) on cyberbullying perpetration.

An important theoretical innovation of our study is that this study is the first to examine the roles of children in the family, which have been widely demonstrated to impact cyberbullying perpetration. Parents and children are both important components of a family, but previous research concerning cyberbullying perpetration has focused more on the roles of parents in the family. For example, previous research has found that cyberbullying perpetration can be affected by the parenting style (Charalampous et al., 2018; Isabel et al., 2019), parental monitoring (Cho & Rustu, 2020; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), parental support (Wang et al., 2009), and parental attitudes toward cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). Our study reveals that how children consider their roles in a family can also influence cyberbullying perpetration.

Regarding the members’ role in the parent–child relationship, traditional Chinese culture and modern Western psychological theories hold different views. The latter, such as attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), emphasizes parents’ role, which manifests as “parental-centralism.” However, traditional Chinese culture emphasizes the roles of children, which manifests as “children-centralism.” In ancient China, children bore the inescapable responsibility for establishing harmonious parent–child relationships, even if their parents abused them (Bedford & Yeh, 2019; Yeh, 2009). The ancient Chinese deemed that parents love their children because of human nature, and therefore, there is no need to emphasize this fact; however, it is not necessarily natural for children to love their parents; thus, children loving their parents is an outcome of nurture (Yeh, 2009).

Although this research is based on traditional Chinese culture, it nevertheless has certain implications for the study of cyberbullying in other cultures. For example, FPB plays an important role in the daily life of people from East Asian cultures (Ismail et al., 2009; Park, 2012; Tan et al., 2018) in which cyberbullying can also be highly related to FPB. In addition, even though the concept of filial piety does not exist in Western cultures, regardless of where they originate, children have their own views concerning their own roles in parent–child relationships. Research has found that individual differences exist in adolescents’ beliefs regarding their obligation to obey parental authority (Darling et al., 2008). In addition to the similarities, beliefs of obligation to obey parental authority differ from AFP. Although both emphasize obedience to parental authority, the beliefs of obligation to obey parental authority imply obeying the rules imposed by parents, whereas AFP implies obeying parents’ wishes. Indeed, researchers can further investigate whether an association exists between beliefs of obligation to obey parental authority and cyberbullying perpetration.

Another theoretical innovation of our study is that this study demonstrates and expands the DFP model. Before the DFP model was proposed, filial piety was considered a single structure, but research conclusions were inconsistent. Research concerning both the positive and negative effects of filial piety is supported by empirical data (Ho & Lee, 1974; Ishii-Kuntz, 1997). To help clarify the ambiguity of the findings, some researchers have proposed the DFP model, which distinguishes the FPB based on family emotions (reciprocity) and family norms (authoritarian). These researchers highlight that the positive effects of the FPB are mainly derived from the former, whereas the negative effects result from the latter (Bedford & Yeh, 2019; Yeh & Bedford, 2003). Consistent with the DFP model, the results of our study show that RFP decreases (positive effect) while AFP increases (negative effect) cyberbullying perpetration.

Mediation of Hostile Attribution Bias

Second, we revealed that hostile attribution bias is a mediator that explains the effects of RFP and AFP on cyberbullying perpetration, which is consistent with H2. This finding highlights our third theoretical innovation as follows: we elucidated the functional mechanism of the relationship between the FPB and cyberbullying perpetration and the influential mechanism of the DFP model of cyberbullying perpetration. Although the DFP model differentiates the positive and negative facets of the FPB, it does not resolve the influential mechanism. Thus, the results of the mediation analysis of our study explain that whether the effects of the FPB are positive or negative is partially determined by hostile attribution bias. Specifically, we adopted the SIP model to explain the effect of the FPB on cyberbullying perpetration. The SIP model emphasizes the importance of hostile attribution bias as a key risk factor in adolescents’ cyberbullying (Yoo & Park, 2019). In accordance with the SIP model, the results of our study indicate that individuals who scored high on RFP had less hostile attribution bias and therefore a lower likelihood to participate in cyberbullying perpetration; in contrast, individuals who scored high on AFP exhibited greater hostile attribution bias and therefore had a higher probability to participate in cyberbullying perpetration. To further test the universality of the results of this study, future research should examine whether hostile attribution bias mediates the association between the FPB and other forms of aggression, such as traditional bullying.

Similar to the results of this study, previous studies have also found that hostile attribution can play a mediating role in the relationship between family factors and aggressive behavior. For example, a study by Crouch et al. (2017) found that parents’ hostile attribution bias mediates parents’ authoritarian beliefs and harsh parenting. A study by Zhu et al. (2020) found that children’s hostile attribution bias plays a mediating role in childhood maltreatment and aggression. These results suggest that previous studies mainly focused on hostile attribution bias mediating the associations between family factors related to parents’ role and aggressive behavior. However, the current research examines the mediating role of hostile attribution bias by focusing on children’s role. The results of this study expand our understanding of the mechanism of family factors affecting aggressive behavior.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite this study’s innovations, certain limitations remain. First, the data were collected using a self-reported method and may be affected by self-response bias. We addressed this possibility by adopting several measures, such as asking the participants to independently complete the questionnaire, stressing that their answers were confidential, emphasizing that there were no wrong or right answers to the questions, using different scale formats, and confirming that the answers would remain anonymous.

Second, the current study only recruited participants from mainland China and limited the pool to graduate students; therefore, the generalization of the findings might be limited. The levels of the FPB may vary by age group and region, and thus might have different impacts on cyberbullying perpetration. Therefore, future research can conduct comparative studies from a cross-regional perspective and expand the age range of the participants. Given that FPB widely exists and has spread to other cultures (Bedford & Yeh, 2019), future studies should replicate our study using other East Asian samples or samples of immigrant East Asian families living outside of China, such as Asian Americans.

Third, the results of the current study may be unreliable due to the cross-sectional study design. Thus, our study makes a significant but preliminary contribution to the literature concerning this topic. The effects of the FPB on cyberbullying perpetration should be further examined using a longitudinal or an experimental design.

Fourth, the effect size of hostile attribution bias as a mediator in the relationship between FPB and cyberbullying perpetration is small. Although the small effect size might be a limitation, the current study is still meaningful. Previous researchers suggested that small effects should not be automatically dismissed (Funder & Ozer, 2019) because small effects can be meaningful in the following contexts (Ellis, 2010): (a) Small effects can be important if they lead to serious outcomes. Cyberbullying perpetration can cause great harm to the victims, including anxiety, depression, self-injury, and suicide (Kowalski et al., 2014). If paying attention to hostile attribution bias can decrease cyberbullying perpetration in daily life, even if the decrease is very small, our study can help victims avoid harm, which could be significant. Indeed, some scholars argue that research should not only care about effect sizes in statistics but also pay attention to the long-term effect of the research (Funder & Ozer, 2019). (b) Small effects can be important as they could accumulate to larger effects. Given that FPB and hostile attribution bias may involve a wide population range, even a small effect size can become large with the accumulation of the affected population. In addition, the influences of FPB and hostile attribution bias can affect individuals throughout their childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Therefore, a small effect size can become large over time. (c) Small effects can be important if they help deeply understand the studied theory. In this study, testing the mediation of hostile attribution bias integrated the following two important theories: the DFP model and SIP model. According to the DFP model, RFP impacts individuals positively and AFP impacts individuals negatively. No previous studies have examined the DFP model in relation to the SIP model. The current study explains the associations between two different FPBs and cyberbullying perpetration by introducing hostile attribution bias as an influential mechanism. Specifically, individuals who score higher on RFP have less hostile attribution bias and are less likely to perpetrate cyberbullying than individuals who score lower on RFP, and individuals who score higher on AFP have more hostile attribution bias and are more likely to perpetrate cyberbullying than individuals who score lower on AFP.

The small effect size suggests that future investigation can examine other mediators. According to the hot/cool-system model of self-regulation, anxiety may activate a “hot” system in people, rendering them impulsive and weakening their self-regulation capacity (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). This process might produce aggressive behavior. Empirical evidence further suggests that FPB is linked to anxiety (Yeh, 2006) and that anxiety is associated with cyberbullying perpetration (Chu et al., 2019). Therefore, we assume that anxiety might be a mediator in the relationship between FPB and cyberbullying perpetration. Another potential mediator could be risky online lifestyles (e.g., sharing most life events and expressing opinions and feelings through SNS). According to Cyber-Routine Activities Theory, individuals’ online lifestyles have an impact on cyberbullying perpetration. Online sharing and expressing opinions and feelings through SNS are associated with negative emotions (Wang et al., 2018; Ybarra et al., 2005). Given that FPB is associated with negative emotions (Yeh, 2006), we assume that risky online lifestyles can mediate the association between FPB and cyberbullying perpetration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71702134) and the Nanhu Scholars Program for Young Scholars of Xinyang Normal University.

ORCID iD

Meiting Liu

Appendix

Author Biographies

Hua Wei, PhD, is a vice professor in the School of Educational Sciences, Xinyang Normal University. His research interests focus on cyber psychology, especially cyberbullying, and internet addiction.

Meiting Liu, MSSc, is a lecturer in the School of Sociology and Law, Xinyang Normal University. Her research interests mainly focus on parenting and adolescent development.

References

Anderson

C. A.

, & Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology , 53(19), 27–51.

Banks

D. M.

, Scott

B. G.

, & Weems

C. F.

(2018). Anxiety, hostile attributions, and differences in heart rate response to ambiguous situational vignettes in adolescents. Emotion , 18(2), 248–259.

Barlett

C. P.

, Gentile

D. A.

, Anderson

C. A.

, Suzuki

, Sakamoto

, Yamaoka

, & Katsura

(2014). Cross-cultural differences in cyberbullying behavior: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 45(2), 300–313.

Bedford

, & Yeh

K. H.

(2019). The history and the future of the psychology of filial piety: Chinese norms to contextualized personality construct. Frontiers in Psychology , 10, 1–11.

Bowlby

(Ed.). (1969). Attachment: Attachment and loss . Basic Books.

Chappell

N. L.

, & Kusch

(2007). The gendered nature of filial piety – a study among Chinese canadians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology , 22(1), 29–45.

Charalampous

, Demetriou

, Tricha

, Ioannou

, & Stavrinides

(2018). The effect of parental style on bullying and cyber bullying behaviors and the mediating role of peer attachment relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence , 64, 109–123.

Chen

W. W.

(2014). The relationship between perceived parenting style, filial piety, and life satisfaction in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Psychology , 28(3), 308–314.

Chen

, Coccaro

E. F.

, & Jacobson

K. C.

(2002). Hostile attributional bias, negative emotional responding, and aggression in adults: Moderating effects of gender and impulsivity. Aggressive Behavior , 38(1), 47–63.

10.

Cho

, & Rustu

(2020). Examining the impacts of low self-control and online lifestyles on cyberbullying perpetration among korean adolescents: Using parallel process latent growth curve modeling. Children and Youth Services Review , 117, 105288.

11.

Choi

K. S.

(2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology , 2(1), 308–333.

12.

Choi

K. S.

, Cho

, & Lee

J. R.

(2019). Impacts of online risky behaviors and cybersecurity management on cyberbullying and traditional bullying victimization among Korean youth: Application of cyber-routine activities theory with latent class analysis. Computers in Human Behavior , 100, 1–10.

13.

Chu

X. W.

, Fan

C. Y.

, Lian

S. L.

, & Zhou

Z. K.

(2019). Does bullying victimization really influence adolescents’ psychosocial problems? A three-wave longitudinal study in China. Journal of Affective Disorders , 246, 603–610.

14.

Coccaro

E. F.

, Noblett

K. L.

, & McCloskey

M. S.

(2009). Attributional and emotional responses to socially ambiguous cues: Validation of a new assessment of social/emotional information processing in healthy adults and impulsive aggressive patients. Journal of Psychiatric Research , 43(10), 915–925.

15.

Crick

N. R.

, & Dodge

K. A.

(1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin , 115(1), 74–101.

16.

Crick

N. R.

, & Dodge

K. A.

(1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development , 67(3), 993–1002.

17.

Crouch

J. L.

, Irwin

L. M.

, Milner

J. S.

, Skowronski

J. J.

, Rutledge

, & Davila

A. L.

(2017). Do hostile attributions and negative affect explain the association between authoritarian beliefs and harsh parenting? Child Abuse & Neglect , 67, 13–21.

18.

Darling

, Cumsille

, & Martínez

L. M.

(2008). Individual differences in adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority and their own obligation to obey: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development , 79(4), 1103–1118.

19.

Dearing

, & Hamilton

L. C.

(2006). Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 71(3), 88–104.

20.

Dodge

K. A.

, & Coie

J. D.

(1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53(6), 1146–1158.

21.

Ellis

P. D.

(2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results . Cambridge University Press.

22.

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.

23.

Fan

C. Y.

, Chu

X. W.

, Meng

, & Zhou

Z. K.

(2019). Are narcissists more likely to be involved in cyberbullying? Examining the mediating role of self-esteem. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 34(15), 3127–3150.

24.

Funder

D. C.

, & Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , 2(2), 156–168.

25.

Geel

M. V.

, Vedder

, & Tanilon

(2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents a meta-analysis. Jama Pediatrics , 168(5), 435–442.

26.

Hayes

A. F.

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

27.

Heidgerken

A. D.

, Hughes

J. N.

, Cavell

T. A.

, & Willson

V. L.

(2005). Direct and indirect effects of parenting and children’s goals on child aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 33(4), 684–693.

28.

Hinduja

, & Patchin

J. W.

(2007). Offline consequences of online victimization. Journal of School Violence , 6(3), 89–112.

29.

Hinduja

, & Patchin

J. W.

(2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research , 14(3), 206–221.

30.

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.

31.

Hinduja

, & Patchin

J. W.

(2018). Connecting adolescent suicide to the severity of bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence , 18(3), 333–346. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/15388220.2018.1492417

32.

D. Y. F.

, & Lee

L. Y.

(1974). Authoritarianism and attitude toward filial piety in chinese teachers. The Journal of Social Psychology , 92(2), 305–306.

33.

Hong

J. S.

, Kim

D. H.

, Thornberg

, Kang

J. H.

, & Morgan

J. T.

(2018). Correlates of direct and indirect forms of cyberbullying victimization involving South Korean adolescents: An ecological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior , 87, 327–336.

34.

, Fan

C. Y.

, Zhang

F. J.

, & Zhou

(2013). Behavioral characteristics of different roles in cyberbullying and relation to depression in junior students. Chinese Mental Health Journal , 27(12), 913–917.

35.

Huang

C. L.

, Yang

S. C.

, & Hsieh

L. S.

(2019). The cyberbullying behavior of Taiwanese adolescents in an online gaming environment. Children and Youth Services Review , 106, 104461.

36.

Isabel

, Sergio

, Oscar

G. F.

, & Fernando

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

37.

Ishii-Kuntz

(1997). Intergenerational relationships among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans. Family Relations , 46(1), 23–32.

38.

Ismail

, Tan

J. P.

, & Ibrahim

(2009). The relationship between parental belief on filial piety and child psychosocial adjustment among Malay families. Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanity , 17(2), 283–292.

39.

Jenaro

, Flores

, & Frías

C. P.

(2018). Systematic review of empirical studies on cyberbullying in adults: What we know and what we should investigate. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 38, 113–122.

40.

Jin

C. C.

, Zhao

B. B.

, & Zou

(2019). Chinese delinquent and non-delinquent juveniles: An exploration of the relations among interparental intimacy, interparental conflict, filial piety and interpersonal adjustment. Children and Youth Services Review , 103, 148–155.

41.

Kokkinos

C. M.

, Antoniadou

, Dalara

, Koufogazou

, & Papatziki

(2013). Cyber-bullying, personality and coping among pre-adolescents. International Journal of Cyber Behavior Psychology & Learning , 3(4), 55–69.

42.

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.

43.

Lam

L. T.

, & Li

(2013). The validation of the E-Victimisation Scale (E-VS) and the E-Bullying Scale (E-BS) for adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior , 29, 3–7.

44.

Lam

L. T.

, Cheng

, & Liu

(2013). Violent online games exposure and cyberbullying/victimization among adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking , 16(3), 159–165.

45.

Lee

, Patchin

J. W.

, Hinduja

, & Dischinger

(2020). Bullying and delinquency: The impact of anger and frustration. Violence and Victims , 35(4), 503–523.

46.

Lee

, & Chun

J. S.

(2020). Conceptualizing the impacts of cyberbullying victimization among Korean male adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review , 117, 105275.

47.

Lemerise

E. A.

, & Arsenio

W. F.

(2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development , 71(1), 107–118.

48.

Leung

J. T. Y.

(2020). Perceived parental sacrifice, filial piety and hopelessness among Chinese adolescents: A cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Adolescence , 81, 39–51.

49.

, Li

, Lu

, Jin

, Xue

, & Che

(2020). The relationship between alexithymia, hostile attribution bias, and aggression. Personality and Individual Differences , 159, 109869.

50.

Maria

, Martin

, & Maria

(2019). Associations between self-injury and involvement in cyberbullying among mentally distressed adolescents in Scania, Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health , 47, 190–198.

51.

Markus

H. R.

, & Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review , 98(2), 224–253.

52.

Martinelli

, Ackermann

, Bernhard

, Freitag

C. M.

, & Schwenck

(2018). Hostile attribution bias and aggression in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review on the influence of aggression subtype and gender. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 39, 25–32.

53.

Metcalfe

, & Mischel

(1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review , 106(1), 3–19.

54.

Nguyen

H. T. L.

, Nakamura

, Seino

, & Vo

V. T.

(2020). Relationships among cyberbullying, parental attitudes, self-harm and suicidal behavior among adolescents: Results from a school-based survey in Vietnam. BMC Public Health , 20, 476.

55.

Olweus

(2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 9(5), 520–538.

56.

Olweus

, & Limber

S. P.

(2018). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in Psychology , 19, 139–143.

57.

Park

(2012). Filial piety and parental responsibility: An interpretive phenomenological study of family caregiving for a person with mental illness among korean immigrants. BMC Nursing , 11, 28.

58.

Patchin

J. W.

, & Hinduja

(2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health , 80(12), 614–621.

59.

Rodríguez-Hidalgo

A. J.

, Eva

, & Juan

(2018). Psychological predictors of cyberbullying according to ethnic-cultural origin in adolescents: A national study in spain. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 49, 1506–1522.

60.

Selkie

E. M.

, Fales

J. L.

, & Moreno

M. A.

(2016). Cyberbullying prevalence among us middle and high school–aged adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. Journal of Adolescent Health , 58(2), 125–133.

61.

Smeijers

, Benbouriche

, & Garofalo

(2020). The association between emotion, social information processing, and aggressive behavior: A systematic review. European Psychologist , 25(2), 81–91.

62.

Smith

H. L.

, Summers

B. J.

, Dillon

K. H.

, Macatee

R. J.

, & Cougle

J. R.

(2016). Hostile interpretation bias in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders , 203, 9–13.

63.

Suler

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

64.

Talhelm

, Zhang

, Oishi

, Shimin

, Duan

, Lan

, & Kitayama

(2014). Large-scale psychological differences within china explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science , 344(6184), 603–608.

65.

Tan

S. A.

, Nainee

, & Tan

C. S.

(2018). The mediating role of reciprocal filial piety in the relationship between parental autonomy support and life satisfaction among adolescents in malaysia. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0004-7

66.

Tuente

S. K.

, Bogaerts

, & Veling

(2019). Hostile attribution bias and aggression in adults - a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 46, 66–81.

67.

Wang

G. F.

, Jiang

, Wang

L. H.

, Hu

G. Y.

, Fang

, Yuan

S. S.

, Wand

X. -X.

, & Su

P. Y.

(2019). Examining childhood maltreatment and school bullying among adolescents: A cross-sectional study from anhui province in china. Journal Interpersonal Violence , 34(5), 980–999.

68.

Wang

, Zhang

, Chen

, & Zeng

(2018). How is negative affect associated with life satisfaction? The moderating role of online self-disclosure in China’s context. Personality and Individual Differences , 135, 60–66.

69.

Wang

, Iannotti

R. J.

, & Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among adolescents in the united states: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health , 45(4), 368–375.

70.

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.

71.

Wilson

R. E.

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Graham

L. T.

(2012). A review of facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science , 7(3), 203–220.

72.

Yang

X. H.

, Wang

Z. H.

, Chen

, & Liu

D. N.

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

73.

Ybarra

M. L.

, & Mitchell

K. J.

(2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 45(7), 1308–1316.

74.

Ybarra

M. L.

, Alexander

, & Mitchell

K. J.

(2005). Depressive symptomatology, youth Internet use, and online interactions: A national survey. Journal of Adolescent Health , 36(1), 9–18.

75.

Yeh

K. H.

(2006). The impact of filial piety on the problem behaviours of culturally Chinese adolescents. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies , 7(2), 237–257.

76.

Yeh

K. H.

(2009). The dual filial piety model in chinese culture: Retrospect and prospects. Indigenous Psychological Research , 32, 101–148.

77.

Yeh

K. H.

, & Bedford

(2003). A test of the dual filial piety model. Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 6(3), 215–228.

78.

Yoo

, & Park

J. H.

(2019). Influence of hostile attribution bias on cyberbullying perpetration in middle school students and the multiple additive moderating effect of justice sensitivity. Korean Journal Child Study , 40(4), 79–93.

79.

Zhou

, Tang

, Tian

, Wei

, & Morrison

C. M.

(2013). Cyberbullying and its risk factors among Chinese high school students. School Psychology International , 34(6), 630–647.

80.

Zhu

, Chen

, & Xia

L. X.

(2020). Childhood maltreatment and aggression: The mediating roles of hostile attribution bias and anger rumination. Personality and Individual Differences , 162, 110007.