Cyberbullying: Shaping the use of verbal aggression through normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy

Abstract

This study investigates the mediating effect of normative moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying incidents in the relationship between adolescents’ personal moral beliefs and the use of the content from verbal aggressions they witnessed in situations of cyberbullying. A total of 1607 students responded to an open-ended question regarding the content of verbal aggression they observed in cyberbullying situations, as well as questionnaires concerning personal and normative moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations. Through content analysis, findings revealed nine distinct categories of content, which are in line with verbal aggression in cyberbullying behavior. Normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs mediated the relationship between adolescents’ personal moral beliefs and using the content from verbal aggressions to communicate online. These results offer insights to develop authentic and interactive intervention programs that teach adolescents to communicate assertively, as a step toward preventing cyberbullying.

Keywords

Cyberbullying normative moral beliefs personal moral beliefs self-efficacy beliefs verbal aggression

Introduction

With the rapid growth of multimedia resources, adolescents have found new ways to establish social interaction (Bandura, 2005). As bystanders of cyberbullying, adolescents are in contact with verbal aggression to which they react to, by discarding it, by reporting it, or by using it to interact with others. The content used by adolescents in these contexts has been examined in many studies (e.g. Rafferty and Vander Ven, 2014); however, little is known about how they react to it (Livingstone and Smith, 2014). Some studies have investigated factors which influence bystanders’ reaction to incidents of cyberbullying in terms of what causes them to intervene or not (Bastiaensens et al., 2016). However, understanding whether they use the content they saw to communicate online and how this may be related to adolescents’ personal moral beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, and normative moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior have yet to be examined by research.

Bystander behavior in incidents of cyberbullying has been associated with the level of moral standards which may be influenced by self-efficacy beliefs (Barchia and Bussey, 2011). Individual beliefs, the social influence exerted by others and social norms may influence behavior and may be specifically related to verbal aggression among peers (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010; Rösner et al., 2016). Therefore, it is essential to understand how adolescents react to the verbal aggressions they witness in cyberbullying situations and whether their personal moral beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, and normative moral beliefs have an impact on these reactions within a socio-cognitive perspective. We proposed to investigate the mediating effect of normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs in the relationship between adolescents’ personal moral beliefs and whether they used the content from the verbal aggressions they witnessed in situations of cyberbullying in other occasions.

Cyberbullying is intentional and repeated cruel behavior toward others, usually among peers, through electronic media (Olweus, 2012; Wright, 2017). It is a phenomenon of social interaction (Souza et al., 2017) involving aggressive online content. We focus on verbal aggressions within cyberbullying, as language is a means to harm others in this context and therefore is a pertinent factor to analyze. Verbal aggression may be defined as behavior that resorts to words, as opposed to physical attacks to harm someone intentionally (Rösner et al., 2016).

Verbal aggression as a manifestation of cyberbullying

In cyberbullying contexts, aggressive content is used in a virtual context to harm others (Bauman, 2013). Malicious comments are often used to express anger, have fun, and resolve feelings of dissatisfaction (Lee and Kim, 2015). This type of verbal aggression is rooted in somewhat undetermined social and communicative norms linked to social media since the comments posted online are often ambiguous and may be interpreted either as humorous or as hostile (Livingstone and Smith, 2014). Thus, identifying the content that is used by adolescents online and understanding its effects on these individuals are crucial because the social and cultural implications may be very destructive, which is the case with cyberbullying (Rachoene and Oyedemi, 2017).

Studies examining the content from verbal aggressions used by adolescents in cyberbullying situations have provided invaluable information for researchers to understand the phenomenon. These studies have sought, in great majority, to detect offensive content in social media (e.g. Potha et al., 2016). Rachoene and Oyedemi (2017) identified verbal aggression associated with attacks on intelligence, attacks on physical appearance, insults, threats, and outing. Nonetheless, more research is needed regarding the aggressive content that is posted online in cyberbullying incidents and its effects since it has been considered as the most troubling online phenomenon by adolescents (Livingstone and Smith, 2014).

An important issue with online verbal aggression seems to be the absence of responsibility because of the possibility of maintaining an anonymous profile while posting offensive written content (Lee and Kim, 2015). The fact that individuals can mask their identity or operate anonymously seems to influence online disinhibition, which is the tendency to say things in cyberspace that would not be said or done in person (Vandebosch and Van Cleemput, 2009). Those with high levels of behavioral inhibition tend to be more affected by verbal aggression than those with low behavioral inhibition. Therefore, it is fundamental to identify the content used by adolescents in situations of cyberbullying, understand how they react to the verbal aggressions they witness, and whether their personal moral beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, and normative moral beliefs have an impact on these reactions.

Personal and normative moral beliefs in cyberbullying

From a socio-cognitive perspective, personal, behavioral, and environmental factors reciprocally contribute to individuals’ development with varying degrees in an interplay with their social and cultural context (Bandura, 2006). This perspective encloses an agentic approach regarding human development, implying self-directedness through self-regulation, which connects thought to action (Bandura, 2001). Personal agency refers to one’s intentional influence on one’s own functioning and life situations and incorporates several features, such as intentionality (i.e. intentional proactive plans of action and possible strategies), forethought (i.e. establishing goals and anticipating outcomes to guide and motivate one’s efforts), self-reactiveness (i.e. executing action plans and self-regulating one’s own behavior), and self-reflectiveness (self-examining one’s own functioning) (Bandura, 2006).

Moral agency is an integrated part of self-directedness, as moral reasoning is converted into action through self-regulatory processes, including the moral judgment of behavior with regard to personal standards and environmental occurrences (Bandura, 2001). This investigation is positioned within the social cognitive theory of moral agency (Bandura, 2002). In moral agency, individuals abstain from behaving in manners which breach their moral standards (Osofsky et al., 2005). The self-regulation of injurious behavior operates at a personal level and involves social aspects. In developing a moral self, individuals assume standards to guide their behavior. In this activated self-regulatory process, individuals engage in cognitive functions by monitoring their conduct and circumstances surrounding it, judging their behavior with regard to their moral standards and regulating it considering potential consequences in pursuit of self-satisfaction and self-worth, and withdrawal from self-censure. Therefore, moral conduct is motivated and regulated by the continuous practice of evaluative self-influence (Bandura, 2004).

Morality develops from early on in childhood, as children learn to disengage self-censorship from behavior involving a violation of moral or social boundaries (Bandura, 2004). In adolescence, individuals may differ in behavior, but this does not necessarily mean that they differ in moral values but rather in the degree to which they disengage morally in their specific social context. This moral disengagement interrupts behavioral regulation (Bandura, 2004).

How individuals interact online is different from how they behave face-to-face, especially because anonymity and pseudonymity enable a more disinhibited self (Bandura, 2004). Moreover, disguising one’s identity and detaching one’s self from the physical world are facilitated by the lack of personal and social sanctions for harmful behavior. Therefore, it becomes easier for individuals to feel a moral disconnection in engaging in hurtful behavior and more difficult to regulate their moral conduct.

In cyberbullying incidents, moral standards may determine how bystanders behave. Lower moral standards have been associated with higher levels of cyberbullying behavior (Perren and Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012). This may be explained by moral disengagement (Allison and Bussey, 2017; Barchia and Bussey, 2011). Evidence has shown how moral disengagement may predict adolescents’ aggressive behavior in cyberbullying (Pornari and Wood, 2010). In this study, we focus on bystanders’ personal moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior because these beliefs may condition adolescents’ own behavior (Barchia and Bussey, 2011). Adolescents may intervene aggressively or may not intervene if they are convinced that the actions of the aggressor are justifiable. Since cyberbullying is considered a major adolescent challenge in contemporary society (Francisco et al., 2015), the decision-making processes, and the ability to understand one’s own and others’ perspectives, must be considered (Pfeifer and Blakemore, 2012).

Behavior is strongly influenced by social experiences in the different contexts in which they unfold (Bandura, 2005). Moreover, how individuals interact with each other determines how their moral standards develop throughout time and, thus, guide their behavior (Bandura, 2005). This theoretical approach may shed light on how these social and individual processes occur in incidents of cyberbullying (Allison and Bussey, 2017).

Moral standards operate at an individual and social level, causing extensive harm if these standards are not in accordance with social boundaries (Bandura, 2003). Since morality is socially founded, individuals are not autonomous moral agents but rather behave morally according to cognitive, affective, and social influences (Bandura, 2008). Moreover, to fully understand how adolescents behave, it is necessary to understand how social influences function through psychological processes to yield behavioral effects (Bandura, 2005). Recent research has demonstrated how factors of the social context may have an effect on bystanders’ reinforcing bullying behavior if the normative social influence and social pressure are considered (Bastiaensens et al., 2016). Specifically, those who perceived that their friends (in-group) approved of cyberbullying (normative moral beliefs) were associated with a higher level of social pressure to join the bully to engage in cyberbullying. Therefore, we considered adolescents’ normative moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior. Moreover, we hypothesized the following:

H1. Adolescents’ personal moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior will be positively related to their normative moral beliefs and negatively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online.

H2. Adolescents’ normative moral beliefs will mediate the relationship between their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online.

Self-efficacy to solve cyberbullying situations

Among the features of personal agency, self-efficacy is the main mechanism as it refers to individuals’ beliefs in their capability to control their own functioning and environmental occurrences (Bandura, 2001). Therefore, in addition to personal moral beliefs, self-efficacy influences the relationship between moral standards and actions (Barchia and Bussey, 2011) and, in accordance with the social cognitive theory, is the most determining factor of individuals’ behavior (Allison and Bussey, 2017). Adolescents’ self-efficacy plays a key role in how they develop, behave, adapt, and change because it lays the foundation for motivation, well-being, and other determinants within an agentic perspective (Bandura, 2005). They are more likely to act and/or persevere when facing difficulties if they have high self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 2005). Self-efficacy influences one’s emotions and vulnerability to depression and stress and may determine the choices adolescents make in adverse situations. Thus, understanding the role of self-efficacy in the relationship between bystanders’ personal moral beliefs and their behavior is crucial. Perceived efficacy is the determining mechanism through which psychosocial influences produce their effects (Bandura, 2001). As a main concept of social cognitive theory, self-efficacy may be defined as individuals’ beliefs in their ability and approach to handle situations or tasks to attain personal goals and is influenced by the perception of others, as well as past experiences (Bandura, 2001). It emerges from external experiences and self-perception and has an impact on the end result of different events.

Self-efficacy beliefs generate effects through cognitive, affective, motivational, and selection processes; have an impact on the choices individuals make; and are thus linked to specific social behavior (Bandura, 2001; Pastorelli et al., 2001). Those with high self-efficacy beliefs seem to regulate the required amount of effort necessary to attain goals and prevail under adversities, such as threats. In challenging events, perceived self-efficacy is associated with individuals’ coping capabilities, as well as their ability to control stressful sequences of thought (Bandura, 2008). Consistently, determining one’s own behavior in adverse situations is somewhat influenced by judgments of self-efficacy since individuals will tackle challenges they feel capable of handling and avoid those they believe they cannot prosper.

Self-efficacy has been investigated with regard to bystander intervention behavior in incidents of cyberbullying (Anker and Feeley, 2011). DeSmet et al. (2014) for instance, found that self-efficacy to oppose the aggressor was higher if social support was accessible to bystanders. Since individuals reflect on their capability and regulate their behavior accordingly (Bandura, 2008), it seems appropriate to understand how it plays a role in bystander behavior in cyberbullying situations, especially because it is a predictor of behavior toward unknown threats. That is, bystanders witnessing a cyberbullying incident may not intervene because they believe that they will not be capable of helping and also fear retaliation from others (Allison and Bussey, 2017). Moreover, both self-efficacy and personal moral beliefs influence the relationship between moral standards and actions (Barchia and Bussey, 2011). Specifically, self-efficacy for defending the victim has been found to be associated with defending behavior (Barchia and Bussey, 2011). Therefore, we expect the following:

H3: Adolescents’ self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations will be positively related to their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and negatively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online.

Previous studies have indicated that the roles of self-efficacy beliefs and moral disengagement with regard to bystander behavior in cyberbullying situations need further attention (Barchia and Bussey, 2011). Individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities influence how much distress they experience, the events they choose to pursue, as well as the level of motivation they pursue them with (Bandura, 2005). Accordingly, those who are able to cope with difficult situations may not be troubled by them, whereas those who believe they are unable to manage these experiences become more upset. Therefore, believing in one’s own capabilities is a fundamental aspect in understanding how distressing situations affect individuals. Due to the distressful nature of cyberbullying incidents and the importance of bystander intervention in these events (Macháčková et al., 2013), investigating the specific role of self-efficacy in the relationship between personal moral beliefs and using the content observed online may clarify its predictive value in adolescents’ behavior. Thus, we hypothesized the following:

H4. Adolescents’ self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations will mediate the relationship between their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online.

Method

Participants

A convenience sample of 1607 adolescents from 10 different schools participated in this study in different phases. In each phase, participation depended on students’ volunteerism and on whether parents had granted them permission. In a first phase, we gathered data from 529 7th to 12th grade students (M_age = 14.27; standard deviation [SD] = 1.69; 53.7% were female) from a school in the center of Portugal to develop a categorization system of the content of the expressions reported by these participants (with the open-ended question on Identifying expressions of verbal aggression in cyberbullying) and for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the questionnaire for Using content from online verbal aggression in cyberbullying. In a second phase, we had the participation of 402 5th to 12th grade students (M_age = 13.12; SD = 2.19; 55.7% were female) from five schools in the Lisbon area to proceed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the questionnaire for Using content from online verbal aggression in cyberbullying and to compute EFA of the Personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior questionnaire, the Normative moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior questionnaire, and the Self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations questionnaires. The students in this second phase also responded to the open-ended question about the content observed online. In a third phase, we asked another 676 5th to 12th grade students (M_age = 14.10; SD = 2.74; 55.5% were male) from five schools (same schools as in the previous phase) in the center and four schools in the southern areas of Portugal to participate in this study by responding to the open-ended question about the content observed online and by answering all of the questionnaires in order to test our empirical model. The data from these 676 students were used to compute the CFA of the Personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior questionnaire, the Normative moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior questionnaire, and the Self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations questionnaire and to perform the remaining analyses.

Instruments

Since self-report measures provide information about subjective experiences (Graham et al., 2003), as is the case with observing, interpreting, and responding to incidents of cyberbullying, we used various questionnaires from the Inventory of Observed Incidents of Cyberbullying (IOIC; Veiga Simão et al., 2017). During initial development, we tested the facial and content validity of the questionnaires with three adolescents. This procedure included think-aloud sessions which allowed for spontaneous comments and suggestions from the students to remove possible ambiguities in the interpretation of the items.

Identifying expressions of verbal aggression in cyberbullying is an open-ended question which asks adolescents to think of the cyberbullying incident(s) they witnessed online, such as written messages in e-mails, Chat, Messenger, Skype, Facebook, YouTube, Blogs, WhatsApp, and online games, and write down the exact words, expressions, or sentences that they remember seeing written, even if they consider them to be less appropriate.

Personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior (α = .92) is a unidimensional 9-item questionnaire that asks adolescents (on a Likert-type scale of 1 = fair to 6 = unfair) whether they think specific cyberbullying behavior is fair or unfair (example item: “I think that someone being threatened online is fair/unfair.”). After EFA explaining 59% of the variance, CFA values were good according to the literature (Hooper et al., 2008), namely, χ²(22) = 26.55, p = .23, χ²/df = 1.21, comparative fit index (CFI) = .98, goodness of fit index (GFI) = .93, incremental fit index (IFI) = .98, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = .02, LO = .00, HI = .04, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .04, and Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 72.55.

Normative moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior (α = .94) is a unidimensional 9-item questionnaire that asks adolescents (on a Likert-type scale of 1 = fair to 6 = unfair) what they think their peers would think if they engaged in specific cyberbullying behavior (example item: “My friends think that if I threatened someone online that it’s fair/unfair.”). After EFA explaining 65% of the variance, CFA values were good according to the literature (Hooper et al., 2008), namely, χ²(18) = 34.91, p < .05, χ²/df = 1.94, CFI = .92, GFI = .92, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .04, LO = .02, HI = .06, SRMR = .05, and AIC = 88.91.

The adolescent self-efficacy questionnaire to solve cyberbullying situations (α = .98) is a unidimensional 9-item questionnaire that asks adolescents (on a Likert-type scale of 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree) whether they would be able to resolve specific situations of cyberbullying (example item: “I think I am able to resolve the situation if I see someone being threatened.”). After EFA explaining 87% of the variance, CFA values were good according to the literature (Hooper et al., 2008), namely, χ²(25) = 59.82, p < .00, χ²/df = 2.39, CFI = .95, GFI = .94, IFI = .95, RMSEA = .05, LO = .03, HI = .06, SRMR = .05, and AIC = 99.82.

Using content from online verbal aggression in cyberbullying is a two-dimensional questionnaire (using content with four items, α = .94, and not using content with five items, α = .82) that asks adolescents (on a Likert-type scale of 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree) about whether they used the expressions they saw in the cyberbullying incidents to communicate in other situations (example item: “I used the content to play around with my friends.”). After EFA explaining 60% of the variance, CFA values were good according to the literature (Hooper et al., 2008), namely, χ²(23) = 111.79, p < .00, χ²/df = 4.86, CFI = .94, GFI = .95, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .06, LO = .05, HI = .07, SRMR = .07, and AIC = 155.79. The full report of the EFA and CFA performed on all questionnaires may be obtained by contacting the authors of this study. We tested for common method variance and Hartman effect by computing all of the questionnaires in one CFA, which revealed poor values.

Procedure

The Ministry of Education of Portugal, the Portuguese National Commission of Data Protection, the Deontology Committee of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon, the schools’ boards of directors, the teachers, the parents, and the adolescents themselves granted us authorization for the participants to participate in this study. The researchers of this study administered the questionnaires to adolescents in a classroom context with computers with Internet access in their own schools. We informed all of the students that they could have psychological assistance (i.e. with a professional psychologist) available to them if they needed to talk to someone during or after filling in the inventory. Moreover, we informed all students that they could quit the inventory any time they wished to. All of the students chose to participate.

Data analysis

Content analysis

We performed content analysis on the responses given to the open-ended question, which were transcribed verbatim (Smith, 2000), with QSR International’s NVivo 11 software. We also transformed qualitative information into quantitative information, such as categories and frequencies (Smith, 2000). Moreover, we performed content analysis with a mixed approach (both deductive and inductive categorizations) of the data from the open-ended question from the IOIC regarding the expressions used. The theoretical orientation of the interpretations in this study was considered important to guide our analysis, and we took into account the nine types of cyberbullying behavior proposed by Francisco et al. (2015).

We performed an initial phase (with 529 students), a re-checking phase, and a trial phase to review the coding schemes and guidelines. The coding units we established were children’s and adolescent’s written propositions with meaning (Amado et al., 2014). Two independent raters rated the data pertaining to adolescents’ expressions. Inter-rater reliability was good with an intraclass correlation (ICC) (2.2) = .85, as mentioned in the literature (McGraw and Wong, 1996). Later, the context unit of the content analysis was 1078 students (from the second and third phase of this study) from 5th to 12th grade. From this sample, a total of 1625 propositions with meaning were analyzed.

Structural equation modeling

Before performing structural equation modeling, we computed Pearson’s correlations to ether confirm or refute hypotheses 1 and 2. We tested how the relationship between personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and using/not using content from online verbal aggression in cyberbullying could be mediated by both normative moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations. In a second phase, we tested the control variables age and gender to understand whether there were any significant effects. We evaluated the significance of the regression coefficients with AMOS (v. 23, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) after estimating the parameters through the asymptotically distribution-free method due to the non-normal distribution of the data, which is characteristic of data regarding one’s involvement in cyberbullying. The normality of the variables was evaluated with the univariate and multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis. In a later phase, we tested the control variables age and gender to understand whether there were any significant effects. We assessed the significance of the total, direct, and indirect effects with χ² tests (Marôco, 2010). We considered effects p < .05 significant. Finally, we used the bootstrapping method (2000 samples, 90% confidence interval [CI]) to test for mediation effects (Preacher and Hayes, 2008).

Results

Content of the verbal aggressions in cyberbullying situations

Nine main categories of repeated verbal aggression in cyberbullying contexts were identified in the second phase of the content analysis we performed:

Making threats: written expressions intimidating someone (subcategories include direct physical and psychological threats, overpowering the victim, and non-specific);

Harassing someone with sexual content: written expressions with sexual content (subcategories include sexual harassment or inappropriate contact, asking for photos, pick-up lines, and attempts to approach the victim);

Making fun of someone: written expressions to ridicule someone (subcategories include sexual nature, general personal aspects, health issues, and how one performs in online gaming);

Pretending to be someone else: written expressions with impersonation;

Revealing information about someone’s private life: written expressions revealing data about someone’s private life with the purpose of hurting someone’s reputation and/or friendships;

Demonstrating one has information about someone’s life that may affect that individual’s psychological well-being: written expressions affirming or insinuating the possession of information about someone’s private life which may be disclosed (subcategories include possession of images without authorization and possession of written information);

Using someone’s image without authorization: written expressions mentioning that someone’s image was used without authorization;

Devaluating someone’s life: written expressions referring to the devaluation of someone’s personal or social life by wishing them harm or suggesting that they end their life;

Insulting someone: written expressions to insult/offend/disrespect someone (subcategories include intelligence-related, sexual orientation, personal characteristics, the self, race, ethnicity and culture, vulgar content, and affronts).

More than 50% of these propositions referred to insults. Figure 1 shows the frequencies of the categories and subcategories with examples of the verbal aggressions.

Figure 1.

Frequency of categories and subcategories.

How personal and normative moral beliefs, and self-efficacy beliefs may affect the use of verbal aggression

We expected that adolescents’ personal moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior would be positively related to their normative moral beliefs and negatively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to engage in diverse behavior (H1). We also predicted that their self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations would be positively related to their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and negatively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to engage in diverse behavior (H3).

Table 1 shows the correlations between the variables in our hypotheses. Personal moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior were positively related to their normative moral beliefs and negatively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online, thereby confirming hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations were positively related to personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and positively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online, therefore partially confirming hypothesis 3.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of the variables.

Variables	Mean (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6
Age	14.10 (2.74)
Gender		.10**
Self-efficacy	2.43 (1.13)	.05	−.10*
Personal moral beliefs	5.51 (0.76)	−.16**	−.21**	.08*
Normative moral beliefs	5.26 (1.06)	−.12**	−.16**	.03	.70**
Using observed language	1.98 (1.18)	.13**	.13**	.14**	−.23**	−.24**
Not using observed language	2.22 (1.41)	.08*	−.05	.19**	−.08*	−.10**	.71**

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

We had also anticipated that adolescents’ normative moral beliefs (H2) and self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations (H4) would mediate the relationship between their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online. The adjusted model (χ²(1) = .84, p > .05, χ²/df = .84, CFI = 1.00, GFI = .99, IFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, LO = .00, HI = .09, SRMR = .00, and AIC = 18.83) presented 9% of the variance relating to using the content from the verbal aggressions observed in cyberbullying incidents to engage in diverse behavior. All of the trajectories were statistically significant.

The standardized total effect of personal moral beliefs on normative moral beliefs was .71 (90% CI: LO = .64, HI = .77), .08 (90% CI: LO = .03, HI = .14) on self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations, and –.23 (90% CI, LO = –.32, HI = –.17) on using content from online verbal aggressions in cyberbullying. The standardized total effect of self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations was .16 (90% CI: LO = .09, HI = .21) on using content from online verbal aggressions in cyberbullying. The standardized total effect of normative moral beliefs was –.16 (90% CI: LO = –.26, HI = –.03) on using content from online verbal aggressions in cyberbullying. The standardized direct effect of personal moral beliefs on normative moral beliefs was .71 (90% CI: LO = .65, HI = .77), .08 (90% CI: LO = .03, HI = .14) on self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations, and –.13 (90% CI, LO = –.27, HI = –.03) on using content from online verbal aggressions in cyberbullying. The standardized direct effect of self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations was .16 (90% CI: LO = .09, HI = .21) on using content from online verbal aggressions in cyberbullying. The standardized direct effect of normative moral beliefs was –.16 (90% CI: LO = –.26, HI = –.03) on using content from online verbal aggressions in cyberbullying. The standardized indirect effect of personal moral beliefs (mediated by normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations) was –.10 (90% CI: LO = –.18, HI = –.02) on using content from online verbal aggressions in cyberbullying. All of the effects were statistically significant according to the bootstrap sampling method (p < .05). We tested the model with not using behavior and the model revealed inadequate fit values. We also tested for possible effects of age and gender by controlling these variables because, as mentioned in the literature (Patterson et al., 2017), they may affect cyberbullying behavior. The causal model with the age and gender variable revealed inadequate fit values. Figure 2 shows the conceptual model proposed in this study.

Figure 2.

Normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations as mediators of the relationship between personal moral beliefs of cyberbullying behavior and using observed language from verbal aggression.

Discussion

The focus of this study was to examine how adolescents react to the verbal aggressions they witness in cyberbullying situations and whether their personal moral beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, and normative moral beliefs have an impact on these reactions within a socio-cognitive approach. Accordingly, we proposed to investigate the mediating effect of normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs in the relationship between adolescents’ personal moral beliefs and whether they used the content from the verbal aggressions they witnessed in situations of cyberbullying to communicate online. We examined this relationship within a social cognitive theoretical framework, as previous studies have recommended (Allison and Bussey, 2017).

As we mentioned, in order to reach the objectives of this study and to better understand the verbal aggressions that were witnessed by adolescents in situations of cyberbullying, we first identified the types of expressions that were reported as being used in these situations. Our categorization and frequencies were in accordance with previous studies that also found verbal aggression in the expressions used in cyberbullying situations, namely with regard to insults, threats, making fun of someone, and harassing someone with sexual content (e.g. Rachoene and Oyedemi, 2017).

In terms of adolescents’ personal moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior, we found that they were positively related to their normative moral beliefs and negatively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online, thus confirming hypothesis 1. This finding complements previous studies which found that adolescents’ moral standards may influence how bystanders of cyberbullying behave (Perren and Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012). Specifically, those who believed cyberbullying behavior was unfair also perceived that their friends believed that this type of behavior was unfair. In addition, those who perceived this type of behavior as being unfair were less likely to use the content from the verbal aggressions they read in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online. This result also reinforces the socio-cognitive approach regarding moral agency within cyberbullying contexts and how it is an integrated part of self-directedness, as moral reasoning is changed into action through self-regulatory processes (Bandura, 2001).

Adolescents’ normative moral beliefs mediated the relationship between their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online, thus confirming hypothesis 2. This result complements other findings, considering that understanding one’s own and other’s perspective may condition how adolescents interact in their social environment (Pfeifer and Blakemore, 2012). In fact, normative moral beliefs have an effect on how adolescents respond to cyberbullying (Pabian and Vandebosch, 2014). This may be explained by the fact that moral beliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior may operate at an individual and social level (Bandura, 2003), thus determining whether adolescents decide to use content they have seen online to communicate with others. In fact, if those adolescents perceived that their peers morally justified this type of behavior, then it is likely that this influenced their behavior, similar to what other studies have found (Bastiaensens et al., 2016). Our results showed that the indirect effect through normative moral beliefs was greater than the direct effect of personal moral beliefs alone on using observed verbal aggression in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online, thus reinforcing the fact that social interaction may determine how moral standards guide behavior (Allison and Bussey, 2017; Bandura, 2005) and operate both at an individual and social level (Bandura, 2003). Moreover, when in cyberbullying contexts, if these standards are not in accordance with social boundaries, behavior may be guided toward aggression, rather than pro-sociality causing extensive harm. Our results bring to light the importance of both personal and normative moral beliefs because individuals behave morally according to cognitive, affective, and social influences (Bandura, 2008).

With regard to adolescents’ self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations, we found that they were positively related to their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and negatively related to using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online, thus partially confirming hypothesis 3. We also found that self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations mediated the relationship between their personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior and using the content from the verbal aggressions they observed in cyberbullying incidents to communicate online, thus confirming hypothesis 4.

These findings are consistent with the previous literature that has indicated that self-efficacy appears to influence the relationship between moral standards and actions (Barchia and Bussey, 2011). That is, bystanders witnessing a cyberbullying incident may consider this type of behavior unfair and, therefore, are less likely to use the verbal aggression they have witnessed in incidents of cyberbullying to communicate with others. However, if they have high self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations, they may use this verbal aggression to communicate with the aggressors. On the other hand, they may reconsider intervening with verbal aggression if they think they will not be capable of helping (Allison and Bussey, 2017). In light of this, self-efficacy to solve cyberbullying situations seems to determine the relationship between personal moral beliefs of cyberbullying behavior and bystanders’ actions (Barchia and Bussey, 2011).

Self-efficacy beliefs helped explain the relationship between adolescents’ personal moral beliefs and their propensity to use the content they observed online because these beliefs are predictors of behavior even under situations of distress (Bandura, 2005). Moreover, a greater use of the content adolescents observed in verbal aggressions to communicate online, and higher personal moral beliefs for cyberbullying behavior, may be due to self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations. This result may hold because if adolescents have higher personal moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior, they may not use the content from the verbal aggression to communicate online. However, higher self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations may lead them to use expressions of verbal aggression to communicate to the aggressor. That is, adolescents may not refrain from using the content from verbal aggression to communicate online if they believe they will resolve the cyberbullying incident. This may reveal adolescents’ difficulty in using assertiveness to communicate or in their ability to use assertive communication to solve cyberbullying incidents. Another issue worth mentioning could be that adolescents may have been overconfident in reporting their ability to solve cyberbullying situations with the use of the verbal aggression they witnessed online, therefore hindering the use of assertive language use (Gonida and Leondari, 2011). Thus, self-efficacy in this study was a determining factor of individuals’ behavior, as in other studies (Allison and Bussey, 2017). In fact, and in accordance with the social cognitive theory, self-efficacy in our study appeared as a feature of personal agency linked to adolescents’ decision to use the content they observed online and use it to engage in specific social behavior (Bandura, 2001; Pastorelli et al., 2001).

Limitations and future directions

This study presents some limitations which must be addressed. The number of participants, as well as the number of expressions obtained, could be extended and gathered through other resources, such as social networks. Future studies may resort to larger set of expressions from online platforms to understand whether the types of expressions found in verbal aggression are found in other groups. Moreover, this study is cross-sectional in nature; therefore, it would be interesting for future studies to investigate the role of personal moral beliefs, normative moral beliefs, and self-efficacy beliefs in bystanders’ use of verbal aggression expressions through experimental designs including objective data. Also, this study only examined self-efficacy beliefs. It would be interesting to understand the role of group efficacy to solve cyberbullying situations in the context of verbal aggression online. Furthermore, although we believe that this research presents important contributions, there is a need for greater attention on the part of the investigators with respect to the new behavior of cyberbullying that has arisen (e.g. Whittaker and Kowalski, 2015). Finally, since self-efficacy is the main mechanism of personal agency, referring to individuals’ beliefs in their capability to control their own functioning and environmental occurrences, it would be interesting for future studies to examine adolescents’ perceived behavioral control (Bandura, 2001). Perceived behavioral control has also been shown to be a strong predictor of cyberbullying perpetration (Pabian and Vandebosch, 2014). Thus, considering various determinants of cyberbullying behavior might have an important contribution for future cyberbullying interventions.

Further insights and implications for practice

Considering the current relevance of online communication and that cyberbullying specifically represents a phenomenon of social interaction (Souza et al., 2017), this study highlights the types of expressions used in verbal aggression cyberbullying situations to contextualize the main analyses regarding personal moral beliefs, normative moral beliefs, and self-efficacy beliefs to use these expressions. Results from this study showed how adolescents are capable of using that content to communicate online if they believe they will resolve the cyberbullying incident (high self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations). Furthermore, as these results may shed light on adolescents’ difficulty in believing they are able to use assertive communication to solve cyberbullying incidents, it would be interesting to implement educational programs that focus on helping these individuals communicate assertively through training. Moreover, investigating whether adolescents’ self-efficacy beliefs are precise, according to what they are really able to do in these situations as bystanders, would be an important contribution to the field. In addition, these results suggest the intentional and conscious character of the use of verbal aggression to communicate, since adolescents’ personal moral beliefs predict this use (Bakhtin, 2010). Accordingly, studying this intentional and conscious use of content to communicate with others online, with regard to self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations, offers prospects of an enriched psychological understanding of how the cyberbullying phenomenon unfolds through specific written verbalizations.

In light of this, the relevance of this study stands for the ecological validity it may provide in developing intervention programs to find authentic and effective ways to prevent cyberbullying situations (Francisco et al., 2015; Souza et al., 2017). This study offers an understanding of the content used by adolescents to verbally attack others in contexts of cyberbullying. This is relevant for intervention programs and when developing technological resources (i.e. application, online games) that aim to promote pro-social behavior, social-emotional skills, and resolution strategies among adolescents because it socially characterizes the verbal aggression of adolescents. Moreover, this study provides key insights because understanding the role of personal moral beliefs, normative moral beliefs about cyberbullying behavior, and self-efficacy to solve cyberbullying situations may lead to more interactive and integrative programs and technological resources, as opposed to individual assessments and interventions with little or no real-life social interaction.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This investigation was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (PTDC/MHCPED/3297/2014; SFRH/BPD/110695/2015).

ORCID iDs

Ana Margarida Vieira da Veiga Simão

Paula Ferreira

Supplemental material

The authors state that any underlying research materials related to our paper (e.g. anonymous data, samples, or models) can be accessed upon request.

Author biographies

Ana Margarida Vieira da Veiga Simão is a full professor at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She is also the coordinator of the Interuniversity Doctoral Program in Psychology, specializing in Educational Psychology of the Universities of Lisbon and Coimbra. She is the coordinator of the Research Group entitled Educational and Vocational Psychology of the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She is the coordinator of the Program for the Study of Self-regulated Learning (PEAAR). Her main research interests are the processes of self-regulation of learning, professional development of teachers teaching in Higher Education, violence in an educational context, and bullying and cyberbullying.

Paula Ferreira is a researcher in Educational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She has a PhD in Educational Psychology and a Master’s Degree in Science Education. She is currently responsible for the Cyberbullying Line of Investigation of the Research Group entitled Educational and Vocational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She is also a researcher at the Institute of Systems and Computer Engineering, Research and Development (INESC-ID) at the Instituto Superior Técnico de Lisboa, Lisbon. Her main research interests focus on cyberbullying, the bystander effect, self-regulation of learning and behavior, as well as technology to promote learning and pro-social behavior.

Sofia Mateus Francisco is a PhD student in Educational Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon and has a Master’s Degree in Psychology Specialization in Educational Psychology (Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Portugal). She is a researcher in Educational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She is currently Member Researcher for the Cyberbullying Line of Investigation of the Research Group entitled Educational and Vocational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. Her main research interests include peer violence/promoting coexistence and student well-being, and bullying and cyberbullying; cross-cultural studies in the field of school violence in different educational levels; and promotion of socio-emotional competencies essential to deal with bullying/cyberbullying situations, in different actors.

Paula Paulino is an assistant professor at the School of Psychology and Life Sciences of the Lusófona University of Humanities and Technologies, Lisbon. She has a PhD in Educational Psychology and a Master’s Degree in Psychology Specialization in Educational Psychology (Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Portugal). She is a researcher in Educational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. Currently, she is Member Researcher for the Cyberbullying Line of Investigation of the Research Group entitled Educational and Vocational Psychology and of the Program for the Study of Self-regulated Learning (PEAAR) at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. Her main research interests focus on motivation and self-regulated learning more specifically, on self-regulation of motivation from early adolescence through academic contexts. Also, her research interests focus on violence in an educational context and bullying and cyberbullying.

Sidclay Bezerra de Souza is a researcher in Educational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. He has a PhD in Educational Psychology (Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Portugal) and a Master’s Degree in Psychology Specialization in Educational Psychology (Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Portugal). His degree is in Clinical Psychology (Faculty of Humanities ESUDA, Recife–PE, Brazil). He is currently a Member Researcher for the Cyberbullying Line of Investigation of the Research Group entitled Educational and Vocational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. His research interests include peer violence/promoting coexistence and student well-being, and bullying and cyberbullying; cross-cultural studies in the field of school violence in different educational levels; and coping metacognitive strategies in cases of bullying/cyberbullying.

References

Allison

Bussey

(2017) Individual and collective moral influences on intervention in cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior 74: 7–15.

Amado

Costa

Crusoé

(2014) A Técnica de Análise de Conteúdo [The Content Analysis Technique]. In: Amado

(ed.) Manual de investigação qualitativa em educação. 2nd ed. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press, pp. 301–348.

Anker

Feeley

(2011) Are non-participants in prosocial behavior merely innocent bystanders? Health Communication 26(1): 13–24.

Bakhtin

(2010) Para uma filosofia do Ato Responsável [For a Philosophy of the Responsible Act]. São Carlos: Pedro and João Editores.

Bandura

(2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 1–26.

Bandura

(2002) Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education 31(2): 101–119.

Bandura

(2003) Role of mechanisms of selective moral disengagement in terrorism and counterterrorism. In: Mogahaddam

Marsella

(eds) Understanding Terrorism. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 121–150.

Bandura

(2004) Selective exercise of moral agency. In: Thorkildsen

Walberg

(eds) Nurturing Morality. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. pp. 35–57.

Bandura

(2005) Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In: Pajares

Urdan

(eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 1–43.

10.

Bandura

(2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1(2): 164–180.

11.

Bandura

(2008) An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In: Lopez

(ed.) Praeger Perspectives. Positive Psychology: Exploring the Best in People: Discovering Human Strengths, vol. 1. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood, pp. 167–196.

12.

Barchia

Bussey

(2011) Predictors of student defenders of peer aggression victims: empathy and social cognitive factors. International Journal of Behavioral Development 35(4): 289–297.

13.

Bastiaensens

Pabian

Vandebosch

et al . (2016) From normative influence to social pressure: how relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development 25(1): 193–211.

14.

Bauman

(2013) Cyberbullying: what does research tell us? Theory into Practice 52(4): 249–256.

15.

DeSmet

Veldeman

Poels

et al . (2014) Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in cyberbullying incidents among adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 17(4): 207–215.

16.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.

17.

Francisco

Veiga Simão

AMV

Ferreira

et al . (2015) Cyberbullying: the hidden side of college students. Computers in Human Behavior 43: 167–182.

18.

Gonida

Leondari

(2011) Patterns of motivation among adolescents with biased and accurate self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research 50(4): 209–220.

19.

Graham

Bellmore

Juvonen

(2003) Peer victimization in middle school: when self- and peer views diverge. Journal of Applied School Psychology 19(2): 117–138.

20.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

(2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6(1): 53–60.

21.

Lee

Kim

(2015) Why people post benevolent and malicious comments online. Communications of the ACM 58(11): 74–79.

22.

Livingstone

Smith

(2014) Annual research review: harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 55(6): 635–654.

23.

McGraw

Wong

(1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1(1): 30–46.

24.

Macháčková

Dedkova

Sevcikova

et al . (2013) Bystanders’ support of cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 23(1): 25–36.

25.

Marôco

(2010) Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, Software and Aplicações [Structural Equation Analyses: Theoretical Foundations, Software and Applications]. Sintra: ReportNumber, Lda.

26.

Olweus

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

27.

Osofsky

Bandura

Zimbardo

(2005) The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior 29(4): 371–393.

28.

Pabian

Vandebosch

(2014) Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand cyberbullying: the importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 11(4): 463–477.

29.

Pastorelli

Caprara

Barbaranelli

et al . (2001) The structure of children’s perceived self-efficacy: a cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 17(2): 87–97.

30.

Patterson

Allan

Cross

(2017) Adolescent perceptions of bystanders’ responses to cyberbullying. New Media & Society 19(3): 366–383.

31.

Perren

Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger

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

32.

Pfeifer

Blakemore

(2012) Adolescent social cognitive and affective neuroscience: past, present, and future. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7(1): 1–10.

33.

Pornari

Wood

(2010) Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior 36(2): 81–94.

34.

Potha

Maragoudakis

Lyras

(2016) A biology-inspired, data mining framework for extracting patterns in sexual cyberbullying data. Knowledge-Based Systems 96: 134–155.

35.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

36.

Rachoene

Oyedemi

(2017) From self-expression to social aggression: cyberbullying culture among South African youth on Facebook. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research 41(3): 302–319.

37.

Rafferty

Vander Ven

(2014) “I hate everything about you”: a qualitative examination of cyberbullying and on-line aggression in a college sample. Deviant Behavior 35(5): 364–377.

38.

Rösner

Winter

Krämer

(2016) Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 58: 461–470.

39.

Smith

(2000) Content analysis and narrative analysis. In: Reis

Judd

(eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–335.

40.

Souza

Veiga Simão

Ferreira

et al . (2017) University students’ perceptions of campus climate, cyberbullying and cultural issues: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 31 March. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1307818.

41.

Vandebosch

Van Cleemput

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

42.

Veiga Simão

Paulino

Ferreira

et al . (2017) Family and school: perspectives on the use of technology and security. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación 5: 143–148.

43.

Whittaker

Kowalski

(2015) Cyberbullying via social media. Journal of School Violence 14(1): 11–29.

44.

Wright

(2017) The role of technologies, behaviors, gender, and gender stereotype traits in adolescents’ cyber aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Epub ahead of print 22 March. DOI: 10.1177/0886260517696858.