CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 14, Number 11, 2011

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0445

Are Cyberbullies Less Empathic?

Adolescents’ Cyberbullying Behavior
and Empathic Responsiveness

Georges Steffgen, Ph.D.,1 Andreas König, M.S.,1 Jan Pfetsch, Ph.D.,2 and André Melzer, Ph.D.1

Abstract

Meta-analyses confirm a negative relationship between aggressive behavior and empathy, that is, the ability to
understand and share the feelings of others. Based on theoretical considerations, it was, therefore, hypothesized
that a lack of empathic responsiveness may be characteristic for cyberbullies in particular. In the present study,
2.070 students of Luxembourg secondary schools completed an online survey that included a cyberbullying
questionnaire4 and a novel empathy short scale. According to the main hypothesis, analyses of variances
indicated that cyberbullies demonstrated less empathic responsiveness than non-cyberbullies. In addition, cy-
berbullies were also more afraid of becoming victims of cyberbullying. The findings confirm and substantially
extend the research on the relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior. From an educational point of
view, the present findings suggest that training of empathy skills might be an important tool to decrease
cyberbullying.

Introduction Irrespective of the differences just mentioned, the question

C yberbullying is a recent phenomenon resulting
from the advancement of new communication tech-
nologies. It has been described as the deliberate and re-
peated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell
phones, and other electronic devices,1 carried out as an ag-
gressive act by a group or individual, against a victim who
cannot easily defend himself.2 A great number of electronic
communication tools provide opportunities for cyberbully-
ing, including cell phones (e.g., text messages, pictures/
video clips) or the Internet (e.g., email, instant messaging,
and chat rooms).
Unlike traditional bullies, cyberbullies can benefit from
greater anonymity, and many victims may not have the
knowledge or administrator rights to identify the user of an
anonymous email account or a mobile phone card.1 In addi-
tion, cyberbullies have a stronger feeling of power and im-
perviousness to sanctions than traditional bullies. Altogether,
cyberbullying appears to be a more pervasive phenomenon,
which may occur anywhere and at any time.3 With regard to
current communication technologies, there is no place for
cybervictims to hide. In contrast, perpetrators benefit from
the breadth of the audience and a greater invisibility com-
pared with traditional forms.
emerges as to whether cyberbullying is a covert form of
psychological bullying.4 If so, then the same causal risk and
protection factors or psychosocial correlates of becoming the
target or the perpetrator of traditional bullying might also
apply to cyberbullying. In line with this notion, recent studies
suggested that students’ roles in traditional bullying pre-
dicted the same behavior in cyberbullying.4–7
Cyberbullying and empathy
Empathy can be defined as sharing another person’s
emotional state,8,9 for example, when observing another
person in distress. Hoffman10 sees empathy as a feeling that
fits someone else’s condition more than one’s own, but this
feeling does not have to match that of the other person ex-
actly. For example, empathic persons may observe an angry
friend and feel themselves angry or sad or compassionate,
depending on the situation and the reason that caused the
angry feeling of the friend.
Other approaches suggest that empathy involves both an
emotional and a cognitive dimension. Here, empathy is defined
as the ability to understand and share another person’s emo-
tional state or context.11 Although no consensus has yet been
reached among researchers, it is suggested to conceptualize

1
Research Unit INSIDE, University of Luxembourg, Walferdange, Luxembourg.
2
Berlin Institute of Technology, Institute of Education, Berlin, Germany.

643
644
empathy as a multidimensional construct with cognitive and
emotional components12,13 that have to be taken into account to
understand empathy as a fundamental emotional ability or
personality trait that differs between individuals and develops
from the cradle on.10,14
Two meta-analyses confirmed the negative relationship
between antisocial behavior and empathy.13,15 Both cognitive
and emotional empathy were shown to mitigate aggressive
behavior.13 To date, however, research has mainly focused
on the link between empathy and aggression in general, and
few studies addressed the empathic skills of traditional
bullies. These studies revealed an inconsistent pattern. Some
studies reported a weak-to-moderate negative relationship
between empathy and bullying others.16–20 Other studies
found a significant difference between prosocial children and
bullies, but this difference disappeared when controlling
for sex.21 Also, a negative relationship between empathy
and bullying was observed either only for boys22 or only for
girls (for affective empathy).19 Further, differences in trait
empathy were found between bullies and non-bullies for
boys regarding violent bullying and for girls regarding in-
direct bullying.19
As just mentioned, cyberbullies can remain more anony-
mous and distant than traditional face-to-face bullies and,
hence, will less likely observe the immediate consequences of
their behavior. Therefore, cyberbullies may even experience
less empathy for their victims than traditional bullies.23 Al-
ternatively, cyberbullying may particularly attract persons
with low trait empathy. However, first research findings are
inconsistent. In one study, cyberbullies were not found to
have a lack of empathy in comparison to victims, bully vic-
tims, and non-involved persons,24 which is at odds with
findings on traditional bullying. In contrast, another study
found lower peer-estimated values of empathy for cyber-
bullies than for non-cyberbullies, although the sample size
was quite small (N = 71).25 A third study used self-reports to
measure empathy and cyberbullying and found a weak
negative relationship between the constructs for the overall
sample.26 In all three studies, empathy was understood as a
general personality trait and not directly related to a specific
ability to understand and share another person’s emotional
state in the context of current communication technologies.
In sum, the empirical basis is still sparse. Findings are in-
consistent and based on trait measures of general empathy.
Studies are also limited, in part, for reasons of sample size.
Therefore, no clear conclusion can be drawn about the rela-
tionship between empathy and cyberbullying. Nevertheless,
this question is especially interesting, because low empathy
can be considered a risk factor for aggressive or offending
behavior in general.13,15 If empathy turns out to be negatively
related to cyberbullying as well, prevention efforts should
include a training of empathy for cyber victims to diminish
cyberbullying.
Given the shortcomings in the literature, the aim of the
present study was to examine further the role of empathy
for cyberbullying. In particular, the hypothesis was tested
that cyberbullies show less empathy than non-cyberbullies
(see also ref.27). Drawing from the literature about tra-
ditional bullying and empathy, we hypothesized to find
a negative relationship not only between empathy and tra-
ditional bullying but also between empathy and cyber-
bullying. In addition, age and sex differences for this
STEFFGEN ET AL.
relationship were explored, along with potential influences
of the location of cyberbullying (inside or outside of school),
medium of cyberbullying (internet or mobile phone), and
bullying status (being a traditional and cyberbully simulta-
neously).
Method
Participants and procedure
The sample consisted of 2,070 students. A total of 941 (45.5
percent) boys and 1.127 (54.5 percent) girls who attended 7th to
13th grade classes in Luxembourg public secondary schools
(56.9 percent were 7th to 9th graders) participated (2 missing
values). A total of 73.3 percent (or 22 of 30) of all secondary
schools in Luxembourg participated. The mean age of the
sample was 15.9 years (SD = 2.3; range: 12–24). Participants
received school permission to participate before data were
collected using an anonymous online survey. Classes were
tested as a whole with students working on separate PCs in
computer science rooms. Students participated voluntarily and
without remuneration. They were assured that data would be
treated confidentially and were allowed to end the study
whenever they wanted. Only a few participants (1.1 percent)
had to be excluded from analyses because of missing data.
Of all the participants, 68.1 percent had Internet access at
school, 94.6 percent at home, 39.6 percent at a friend’s place,
and 7.2 percent at other places. 93.2 percent reported having
their own mobile phone. 54.1 percent indicated spending
‘‘more than 1 hour/day’’ on the internet; 34.3 percent, ‘‘sev-
eral hours a week’’; 7.9 percent, ‘‘several hours per month’’;
and 3.8 percent, ‘‘never or almost never.’’
Measures
Cyberbullying questionnaire. A German short version of
the cyberbullying questionnaire was used.2 Each of the 30
items used a 6-point ordinal scale (almost daily, several times
a week, about once a week, about once a month, 1–3 times a
year, never). Students indicated how often they had become
victims, perpetrators, or witnesses of traditional or cyber-
bullying, in the current school year (the study was conducted
at the end of the school year). Then, participants were asked
how often they had become victims of cyberbullying or ac-
tively cyberbullied others, both inside or outside school, and
for each of six media types (i.e., text message, picture/video
clip, phone call, email, websites/chat room, or instant mes-
saging). For the purpose of this study, students who indicated
having bullied others at least ‘‘about once a month’’ during
the previous year were categorized as ‘‘(cyber)bullies.’’
Empathy scale. A novel scale was designed for the
present study. Lack of empathy was measured with three
items specific to the context of cyberbullying. Students indi-
cated their agreement to statements on a 5-point Likert scale
(fully agree, slightly agree, partly agree/disagree, slightly
disagree, totally disagree; see Table 1).28
In addition, fear of cyber victimization and preference for
‘‘virtual’’ contacts were tested with three items each, using the
same Likert scale.
Demographic questionnaire. Students recorded their sex,
age, and overall years in school.
ADOLESCENTS’ CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIOR AND THE IMPACT OF EMPATHIC RESPONSIVENESS 645

Table 1. Scales, Item Wordings, and Statistical Values
Item rit
Lack of empathy
I find websites that make fun of 0.46
other people funny/amusing.
Persons being harassed or threatened 0.57
via cell phone or internet deserve so.
Everyone should be allowed to spread 0.47
anything he wants via his
own website.
Preference for ‘‘virtual’’ contacts
I have more online friends 0.51
than normal friends.
It’s easier to make friends online than 0.46
in everyday life/real life.
I use my cell phone more often 0.51
to send others text messages than
to speak with them directly.
Fear of cyber victimization
I am afraid of being harassed 0.59
or threatened via cell phone
or internet.
I feel physically bad/sick, because 0.62
I’m being harassed or threatened
by cell phone or internet.
I often do not want to go 0.70
to school, because I’m being
harassed or threatened.
Results
Traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy
To test for overall mean differences in cyberbullying, a
series of 2 · 2 (bullies vs. non-bullies; boys vs. girls) analyses
of variances (ANOVAs) was performed, with empathy for
the cybervictim serving as the dependent variable. Cyber-
bullies showed a greater lack of empathy for others being
victimized than non-cyberbullies (F(1, 2,065) = 29.71; p < 0.001).
Conbach’s a However, no differences were found between victims and
0.69 non-victims of cyberbullying (F(1, 2,065) = 0.17; p = 0.68; see
Table 2 for group means). There was no significant effect for
sex (F(1, 2,065) = 1.84; p = 0.18) and no significant interaction (F(1,
2,065) = 1.91; p = 0.17).
With regard to traditional bullying, a similar pattern of
results was observed. A greater lack of empathy was found
for bullies than for non-bullies (F(1, 2,063) = 61.39; p < 0.001) and
for boys than for girls (F(1, 2,063) = 6.06; p < 0.05). The interac-
0.68 tion was not significant (F(1, 2,063) = 1.06; p = 0.30).
However, bullying behavior of both, boys (F(1, 937) = 28.57;
p < 0.001) and girls (F(1, 1125) = 33.25; p < 0.001), was signifi-
cantly associated with a greater lack of empathy. Again, no
differences were found between victims and non-victims of
bullying (see Table 3 for group means).
Of N = 103 cyberbullies, 82.5 percent were also traditional
bullies (N = 85). To test whether being both traditional
0.79
and cyberbully adds to the effect, a 2 · 2 ANOVA was per-
formed for the subsample of cyberbullies only. Results
showed a marginally significant main effect indicating a
greater lack of empathy for cyberbullies who were also
traditional bullies compared with nonbullies (F(1, 102) = 1.95;
p = 0.05). Both the main effect for sex (F(1, 102) = 1.81; p = 0.18)
and the interaction effect were not significant (F(1, 102) = 2.16;
p = 0.15).
No significant correlations were found between age and
lack of empathy (r = 0.03; p = 0.08, N = 2,052), or between age
and the intensity of cyberbullying (r = 0.02 [Kendall’s Tau];
p = 0.29, N = 2,047). Also, an ANOVA comparing different age
groups among cyberbullies yielded no significant differences
in their lack of empathy (F(4, 99) = 1.87; p = 0.12; see Table 4).
Compared with non-victims, victims of traditional bully-
ing were also more afraid of becoming cybervictims
(F(1, 2,062) = 9.14; p < 0.01, for the main effect, see Table 3 for
group means). This is especially true for the female sample

Table 2. Mean Preference for ‘‘Virtual’’ Contacts,

Lack of Empathy, and Fear of Cyber Victimization Table 3. Mean Preference for ‘‘Virtual’’ Contacts,
for Cyberbullies and Non-Cyberbullies Lack of Empathy, and Fear of Cyber Victimization
for Bullies, Non-Bullies, Victims, and Non-Victims
Non-cyberbullies Cyberbullies F p
Non-bullies Bullies F p
Preference 2.47 (1.05) 2.83 (1.12) 10.90 < 0.01
for ’’virtual’’ Preference 2.60 (1.02) 2.65 (0.96) 1.21 n.s.
contacts for’’virtual’’
Lack of empathy 2.31 (1.04) 2.72 (1.06) 29.71 < 0.001 contacts
Fear of cyber 1.96 (1.11) 2.39 (1.36) 14.44 < 0.001 Lack of empathy 2.28 (1.03) 2.84 (1.05) 61.39 < 0.001
victimization Anxiousness about 1.99 (1.13) 1.98 (1.13) 0.03 n.s.
being cyberbullied
Non-victim of Victim of
cyberbullying cyberbullying Non-victim of Victim of
bullying bullying
Cyberbullying
Preference 2.61 (1.02) 2.67 (0.95) 1.27 n.s. Preference 2.59 (1.01) 2.68 (0.97) 3.13 n.s.
for ‘‘virtual’’ for ‘‘virtual’’
contacts contacts
Lack of empathy 2.37 (1.06) 2.28 (1.00) 0.17 n.s. Lack of empathy 2.42 (0.99) 2.46 (0.96) 0.44 n.s.
Fear of cyber 1.96 (1.14) 2.11 (1.03) 4.13 < 0.05 Anxiousness about 1.93 (1.13) 2.11 (1.11) 9.14 < 0.01
victimization being cyberbullied

Standard deviations are given in parentheses. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
n.s., not significant. n.s., not significant.
646
Table 4. Mean Lack of Empathy for Different
Age Groups of Cyberbullies
Age M n
12–13 2.88 (1.40)
14–15 2.51 (1.13)
16–17 2.98 (0.96)
18–19 3.19 (1.07)
20–24 3.39 (1.24)
Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
(F(1, 1127) = 22.32; p < 0.001). Also, cyberbullies were more
afraid of being cyber-victimized themselves (F(1, 2,063) = 14.44;
p < 0.001; see Table 2). Although in the 2 · 2 (cyberbullies vs.
noncyberbullies; boys vs. girls) ANOVA, the main effect for
sex (F(1, 2,063) = 2.89; p = .095) and the interaction effect
(F(1, 2,063) = 3.20; p = .074) were only marginally significant, a
test of the simple main effects showed that this was only true
for female (F(1, 1126) = 17.35; p < 0.001), but not for male cy-
berbullies (F(1, 936) = 1.81; p = .18).
Empathy and cyberbullying via mobile
phone or Internet
Two 2 · 2 (cyberbullies vs. non-cyberbullies; boys vs. girls)
ANOVAs were performed to further explore the differences in
empathy depending on the specific media used for perpetra-
tion. A group variable for ‘‘Internet bullies’’ was computed by
combining bullying behavior using chat rooms, email, and
instant messengers. In contrast, ‘‘mobile phone bullies’’ com-
prised bullying via mobile phone calls, sending pictures
or short messages to the victim. Both mobile phone bullies
(F(1, 2,065) = 44.20; p < 0.001, for the main effect) and Internet
bullies (F(1, 2,065) = 31.61; p < 0.001, for the main effect) showed a
greater lack of empathy than did non-cyberbullies. Ad-
ditionally, the ANOVA comparing Internet bullies to non-
bullies indicated a significant sex difference with men showing
a greater lack of empathy than women (F(1, 2,064) = 9.86;
p < 0.01).
Empathy and cyberbullying inside or outside of school
An equivalent grouping variable was computed for cy-
berbullies perpetrating from inside versus outside school.
Again, two 2 · 2 ANOVA indicated that cyberbullies both
within school (F(1, 2,060) = 48.27; p < 0.001, for the main effect)
and outside school (F(1, 2,064) = 46.45; p < 0.001, for the main
effect) showed a greater lack of empathy than non-
cyberbullies. In addition, and with regard to cyberbullies
outside school, boys showed a significantly greater lack of
empathy than girls (F(1, 2,064) = 7.88; p < 0.01).
Table 5. Mean Lack of Empathy for the Different Roles in Cyberbullying
Role of cyberbullies and victims
Non-involved Cybervictim only
Lack of empathy 2.33 (1.04) 2.36 (1.08)
N 1901 61
Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
STEFFGEN ET AL.
Empathy and cyberbullying: being both bully and victim
It has been argued that differences in empathy between
bullies and non-bullies may result from the inclusion of per-
sons who are both cyberbullies and victims of cyberbully-
17 ing.24 This was tested by splitting the sample into four
36 groups, taking into account their status both as victims and
15
perpetrators. The resulting four groups (neither cyberbully
21
11 nor victim: ‘‘non-involved,’’ cybervictim-only, cyberbully-
only, and ‘‘cyberbully and victim’’) were compared in a 4 · 2
ANOVA with sex as second independent variable. Results
show a significant main effect on lack of empathy for the
created grouping variable regarding the perpetrator/victim
status (F(3, 2,056) = 10.87; p < 0.001, see Table 5 for group
means), but not for sex (F(1, 2,056) = 2.79; p = .10; F(3, 2,056) = 1.05;
p = .37, for the interaction).
A post hoc analysis (Scheffé test) revealed significant dif-
ferences for the cyberbully-only group compared with the
‘‘not-involved’’ group (mean difference = 0.71, p < 0.001) and
the cybervictim-only group (mean difference = 0.69, p < 0.01),
and a tendency compared with the ‘‘cyberbully and victim’’
group (mean difference = 0.60, p = .07).
Discussion
In the present study, cyberbullies showed less empathy for
others being victimized than non-cyberbullies, those who
have become both cyberbullies and victims, and those who
were not at all involved in cyberbullying. The present results
are, therefore, in line with studies documenting a negative
relationship between empathy and cyberbullying25,26 and in
contrast to results stating no lack of empathy of cyberbul-
lies,24 perhaps due to the use of a different instrument to
measure empathy.24
In contrast to other studies, empathy was tested using
items that focused on the cyber context exclusively. We be-
lieve that it is important to account for the greater anonymity
of the cyberbully (compared to the traditional bully) and the
lack of immediate feedback from the victim. However, future
research should include both general and context-specific
measures of empathy to further examine differences between
empathy in online and offline situations.
In addition, only few sex effects were observed. Type of
media (Internet versus cell phone) or location of perpetration
(inside versus outside school) did not matter at all. Alto-
gether, these findings are in line with studies showing a
negative relationship between empathy and aggression.15
It is important to note that the literature on the relation of
empathy and bullying is not entirely clear cut. However,
mixed results are likely to reflect differences in methodology:
most studies that found an overall negative relationship be-
tween empathy and bullying used self-reported bullying
Cyberbully only Cyberbully and victim F p
3.04 (1.15) 2.44 (1.09) 10.87 < 0.001
74 29
ADOLESCENTS’ CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIOR AND THE IMPACT OF EMPATHIC RESPONSIVENESS
scales, including the present study.16–20 In contrast, studies
that yielded mixed or sex-moderated effects used peer reports
of bullying behavior.21,22 Since self-report measures of em-
pathy can focus on mental states (e.g., affective and cognitive
processes) and peer-report measures heavily rely on visible,
behavioral expressions of empathy (e.g., verbal statements or
helping behavior in favor of a victim), future research should
compare both measurement types directly.
The present study further suggests that a lack of empathy
might be a risk factor for cyberbullying behavior. Therefore,
our findings have important implications for prevention and
intervention. With regard to the development of new anti-
cyberbullying trainings, improving empathy skills might be
promising in decreasing both, traditional bullying and cy-
berbullying. Understanding and sharing the emotions of
others seems to be a prerequisite of preventing such un-
wanted behavior.
However, the present study also has some limitations. For
example, data were collected online, which might constrain
generalization of findings. Further, the measurement of em-
pathy may have contributed to the results. Although the
observed reliability of the novel instrument (i.e., empathy
short scale) was acceptable, its measurement characteristics
have to be confirmed in further studies. In addition, only a
global measure for empathy was used. It has been suggested
that affective and cognitive components contribute to empa-
thy separately.12,13 Also, the used empathy scale is domain
specific for the area of media use (Internet and cell phones).
Results may, therefore, not hold for empathy at large.
Since the focus of the study was cyberbullying in general,
future research should also take into account different modes
and roles in cyberbullying (e.g., direct versus indirect ag-
gression).13
One might argue that classifying students as (cyber)bullies
on the basis of (cyber)bullying behavior ‘‘about once a
month’’ is an overly liberal interpretation of the criterion of
repetition. However, even a single act of cyber aggression
might meet the criterion, because it may entail wide circula-
tion, the chance to be copied by others, and the persistent
accessibility on a website for many people. Also, even a single
aggressive threat can cause emotional damage and concern
about the future.29
Finally, although the present study tested a large sample
(almost 75 percent of all secondary schools in Luxembourg
participated), the study is based on a cross-sectional design,
which does not permit the interpretation of causal effects.
Experimental and/or longitudinal study designs should de-
termine whether a lack of empathy causes aggressive online
behavior, or whether cyberbullying decreases empathy, or a
reciprocal influence or third variable leads to the negative
relationship.
In sum, the study highlights the role of empathy in cyber-
bullying. Cyberbullies were found to show less empathy for
others than non-cyberbullies. The present findings indicate
that prevention programs should be aware that empathy plays
an important role in the context of online aggression. With
regard to prevention, skills training for adolescents may,
therefore, include specific components to train empathic re-
sponsiveness in the context of media use. This may be
achieved, for example, by showing the consequences for the
victim of cyberbullying. Recently, it has been demonstrated
that viewers of media violence showed strong empathic re-
647
sponses when the consequences of a violent act were high-
lighted.30
Acknowledgment
We thank Luc Bredemus for data collecting.
Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. (2009) Bullying. Beyond the schoolyard.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
2. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Tippett N. (2006) An
investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact,
and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying.
London: Unit for School and Family Studies, Goldsmiths
College, University of London.
3. Willard N. (2006) Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: responding to
the challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and distress.
Champaign, IL: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet
Use.
4. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tip-
pett N. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary
school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
2008; 49:376–379.
5. Juvonen J, Gross EF. Extending the school grounds? Bullying
experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health 2008;
78:496–499.
6. Kowalski RM, Limber SP. Electronic bullying among middle
school students. Journal of Adolescents Health 2007; 41:
22–28.
7. Slonje R, Smith PK. Cyberbullying: another main type
of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2008; 49:
147–147.
8. Eisenberg N, Strayer J. (1987) Empathy and its development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Eisenberg N, Guthrie IK, Cumberland A, Murphy BC, She-
pard SA, Zhou Q, Carlo G. Prosocial development in early
adulthood: a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 2002; 82:993–913.
10. Hoffman ML. (2001) Toward a comprehensive empathy-
based theory of prosocial moral development. In Bohart A,
Stipek D, eds. Constructive and destructive behavior. Implica-
tions for family, school and society. New York: American Psy-
chological Association, pp. 61–86.
11. Cohen D, Strayer J. Empathy in conduct disordered and
comparison youth. Developmental Psychology 1996; 32:988–
910.
12. Davis MH. (1994) Empathy: a social psychological approach.
Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Communications.
13. Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. Empathy and offending. A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior 2004; 9:441–435.
14. Batson CD, Duncan BD, Ackerman P, Buckley T, Birch K. Is
empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 1981; 4:290–212.
15. Miller PA, Eisenberg N. The relationship of empathy to ag-
gressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin 1988; 103:324–320.
16. Correia I, Dalbert C. School bullying. Belief in a personal just
world of bullies, victims, and defenders. European Psy-
chologist 2008; 13:248–246.
648
17. Endresen JM, Olweus D. (2001) Self-reported empathy in
Norwegian adolescents: sex differences, age trends, and re-
lationship to bullying. In Bohart A, Stipek D, eds. Con-
structive and destructive behavior. Implications for family, school
and society. New York: American Psychological Association,
pp. 147–165.
18. Espelage DL, Mebane SE, Adams RS. (2004) Empathy, car-
ing, and bullying: toward an understanding of complex as-
sociations. In Espelage DL, Swearer SM, eds. Bullying in
American schools: a social-ecological perspective on prevention
and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 37–61.
19. Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. Examining the role between low
empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior 2006; 32:540–
510.
20. Nickerson AB, Mele D, Princiotta D. Attachment and em-
pathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in
bullying interactions. Journal of School Psychology 2008;
46:687–716.
21. Warden D, Mackinnon, S. Prosocial children, bullies and
victims: an investigation of their sociometric status, empathy
and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology 2003; 21:367–418.
22. Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Altoe G. Does empathy predict
adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive
Behavior 2007; 33:467–469.
23. Pornari C, Wood J. Peer and cyber aggression in secondary
school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile
attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Be-
havior 2010; 36:81–113.
24. Almeida A, Marinho S, Esteves C, Gomes S, Correia I. Vir-
tual but not less real: a study of cyber bullying and its re-
lations with moral disengagement and empathy. Abstracts
book 20th Biennial ISSBD Meeting. Würzburg, Germany,
2008.
STEFFGEN ET AL.
25. Schultze-Krumbholtz A, Scheithauer H. Social-behavioral
correlates of cyberbullying in a German student sample.
Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology 2009;
217:224–232.
26. Ang RP, Goh DH. Cyberbullying among adolescents: the
role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development 2010; 41:387–310.
27. Steffgen G, König A, Pfetsch J, Melzer A. The role of em-
pathy for adolescents’ cyberbullying behaviour. Kwartalnik
Pedagogiczny, 2011 (in press).
28. König A, Steffgen G. Do victims of bullying tend to be cyber
bullies? Abstracts book 13th Workshop Aggression. Pots-
dam, Germany, 2008.
29. Dzuka J, Dalbert C. Aggression at school: belief in a personal
just world and well-being of victims and aggressors. Studia
Psychologica 2007; 49:313–317.
30. Konijn EA, Nije Bijvank M, Van der Heijden Y, Walma Van
Der Molen J, Hoorn J. (2008) Babies against bullets: empathy
as an intervention technique in violent video game play. In
International Communication Association, Annual Meeting,
Montreal, Quebec. May 22–26, 2008.
Address correspondence to:
Prof. Georges Steffgen
Research Unit INSIDE
University of Luxembourg
Campus Walferdange
Route de Diekirch
Walferdange L-7201
Luxembourg
E-mail: georges.steffgen@uni.lu