Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 275–281

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age,

gender and nationality affect this relationship?☆
Rosario Del Rey a,⁎, Lambros Lazuras b, José A. Casas c, Vassilis Barkoukis b,
Rosario Ortega-Ruiz c,d, Haralambos Tsorbatzoudis b
a
University of Sevilla, Spain
b
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
c
University of Cordoba, Spain
d
University of Greenwich, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objective: The present study set out to investigate which role empathy plays in traditional bullying and
Received 28 January 2015 cyberbullying in a sample of adolescents from Greece and Spain. Furthermore, the study aimed to assess invari-
Received in revised form 27 July 2015 ance of the relationship between empathy and (cyber) bullying across gender, age and nationality.
Accepted 27 November 2015 Method: The sample comprised 564 secondary education students attending grades 7 to 10 in typical coeduca-
tional schools in Spain and Greece. Participants completed structured anonymous questionnaires on traditional
Keywords:
bullying, cyberbullying and empathy. Responses were analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Empathy
Cyberbullying
Results: Both cognitive and affective empathy negatively predicted traditional bullying and cyberbullying perpe-
Traditional bullying tration. Mean differences were found for gender and age groups, with girls and older students scoring higher in
Adolescents empathy compared to boys and younger students. Also, older students scored higher in cyberbullying perpetra-
tion than younger ones. However, the effect of empathy on bullying and cyberbullying was invariant across gen-
der, age and nationality.
Conclusions: Cognitive and affective empathy are important correlates of both traditional bullying and
cyberbullying, independent of gender, age and nationality. Overall, the results provide valuable information for
the development of evidence-based interventions and educational campaigns against bullying and cyberbullying
in adolescence.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Bullying is defined as the aggressive intentional act by a person (or a
group of people) against another person (or a group of people) who
cannot easily defend themselves. It typically comprises face-to-face con-
frontations and physical assault, as well as indirect acts of aggression,
such as gossiping and the spreading of rumors (Olweus, 1993; Smith
et al., 2008). Cyberbullying is defined as bullying occurring online,
such as derogation, posting libelous comments, hacking an account, ex-
posing sensitive personal information without consent, harassment and
☆ This research study is part of three projects named “Sexting, ciberbullying y riesgos
emergentes en la red: claves para su comprensión y respuesta educativa” (EDU2013-
44627-P — National R&D), “School and juvenile violence: risks of violent dating, sexual
aggression and cyberbullying” (I + DPs-2010-17246 — National R&D) and
“Cyberbullying in adolescence: investigation and intervention in six European Countries”
(Daphne III) (JLS/2008/CFP1DAP12008). The authors would like to thank these agencies
for their funding.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: delrey@us.es (R. Del Rey), l.lazuras@sheffield.ac.uk (L. Lazuras),
jacasas@uco.es (J.A. Casas), bark@phed.auth.gr (V. Barkoukis), ed1orrur@uco.es
(R. Ortega-Ruiz), lambo@phed.auth.gr (H. Tsorbatzoudis).
sending threatening messages (Li, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
Tokunaga (2010) added to the definition of cyberbullying that it occurs
repeatedly over time and sets up an imbalance of power between the
aggressor and the victim.
Unlike traditional forms of bullying, cyberbullying can take place re-
gardless of time and space (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Victims can be
attacked without being aware of the attack, and cyberbullying can be
witnessed by larger audiences (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin,
2010; Menesini & Spiel, 2012). But as in traditional bullying,
cyberbullying victims suffer adverse psychological consequences, in-
cluding psychopathological symptoms, suicide thoughts and attempts,
social isolation, and problems in school (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Hoff
& Mitchell, 2009). Estimated prevalence of traditional bullying lies be-
tween 5 and 10% (Olweus, 2012; Solberg & Olweus, 2003; Smith,
2014). The estimates for cyberbullying have a wider range; results refer-
ring to cyber-aggression range from 5.3% to 31.5% (Gradinger,
Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009; Pornari & Wood, 2010; Wong, Chan, &
Cheng, 2014), while those referring to cyber-victimization vary be-
tween 2.2% to 56.2% (Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010).
One way of preventing cyberbullying is to identify the psychosocial
risk factors for cyberbullying behavior and develop educational

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.021
1041-6080/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
276 R. Del Rey et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 275–281
campaigns and intervention programs to address these (Menesini,
Nocentini, & Palladino, 2012; Ortega-Ruiz, Del Rey, & Casas, 2012;
Salmivalli & Poskiparta, 2012). Several studies have indeed investigated
the factors that add to the risk of cyberbullying, together with those that
offer protection and prevent this behavior (Slonje, Smith, & Frisén,
2013). In Greece, for example, it was shown that empathy, social
norms and moral disengagement were explanatory factors in the occur-
rence of cyberbullying (Lazuras, Barkoukis, Ourda, & Tsorbatzoudis,
2013). Empathy was also found in Spain to be one of the most important
elements in explaining bullying and cyberbullying, together with the
school climate, the level of control over personal information online,
and abusive internet use (Casas, Del Rey, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2013).
Empathy is a fundamental human personality trait and is thought to
facilitate social interactions and interpersonal communication in at least
two separate ways: first, affective empathy is spontaneous in nature and
allows individuals to assimilate and display compassion in response to
other people's emotional states; second, cognitive empathy requires
more conscious deliberation, enables understanding of people's emo-
tions and putting these into perspective, and may support strategic so-
cial interactions and communication (Decety & Jackson, 2004; Decety
& Lamm, 2006; Hakansson & Montgomery, 2003). Both self-reported
measures and neuroscientific evidence lend support to this distinction
(Harari, Shamay-Tsoory, Ravid, & Levkovitz, 2010; Jolliffe & Farrington,
2006; Nummenmaa, Hirvonen, Parkkola, & Hietanen, 2008).
Jolliffe and Farrington (2004, 2006) argued that empathy is an es-
sential component of pro-social behavior, such as helping and altruism,
and of moral development. As is typical in moral development, differ-
ences related to gender and age are to be expected (Murphy &
Gilligan, 1980). Girls generally show higher empathy levels than boys,
especially in self-reported evaluations (Christov-Moore et al., 2014).
Empathy has furthermore been shown to increase with age (Bosacki &
Wilde Astington, 1999), and to be related to a person's cultural back-
ground (Cassels, Chan, Chung, & Birch, 2010). Important for the current
study, research has also shown empathy to be inversely related to anti-
social behavior, aggression and bullying (Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoè,
2007; Chan & Wong, 2015; Endersen & Olweus, 2001; Smith &
Thompson, 1991; Warden & MacKinnon, 2003). Two studies on
cyberbullying showed that lower scores in empathy lead to higher
levels of cyberbullying behavior and victimization in adolescents
(Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2009; Steffgen, König, Pfetsch, &
Melzer, 2011). Separating affective and cognitive empathy, it was
found that for both traditional bullying (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004)
and cyberbullying (Renati, Berrone, & Zanetti, 2012) only affective em-
pathy predicted bullying behavior. However, Ang and Goh (2010) did
find both cognitive and affective empathy to be predictive of
cyberbullying, especially among male adolescents.
Empathy is not the only factor that has been associated with bully-
ing. Several studies have assessed the role of demographic factors
such as age, gender and nationality. Research into the effects of demo-
graphic factors has mainly looked at prevalence rates among different
groups, or in other words, at the mean differences in bullying between
these groups. With respect to gender, the evidence is mixed. In tradi-
tional bullying, boys more often take on the role of aggressor than
girls (Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015). However, with regard to
cyberbullying some studies have found few or no gender differences
in perpetration or victimization (Slonje & Smith, 2008), while others
suggest that cyberbullying is a “gendered phenomenon” (Li, 2007;
Rodkin & Berger, 2008). The evidence for age-related differences is
clear with respect to traditional bullying, in that the highest prevalence
is seen between the ages of 12 and 14 (Hasekiu, 2013). With respect to
cyberbullying the results are mixed. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) showed
that older adolescents were more likely to engage in cyberbullying than
younger ones. However, other studies did not find significant age differ-
ences (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). Significant mean differ-
ences have also been reported between countries for both traditional
and cyberbullying (Haddon & Livingstone, 2012; Zych, Ortega-Ruiz, &
Del Rey, 2015). Of interest for the current study, comparing findings
for Greece and Spain shows that Greek adolescent students reported
more cyberbullying incidents than their Spanish counterparts
(Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2015; Garaigordobil, 2011).
Although these studies provide important information about the in-
fluence of demographic factors on cyberbullying and cyber-
victimization, it has been argued that a move beyond mean differences
is necessary, and that it is important to study how demographics relate
to psychosocial factors that predict cyberbullying (Underwood & Rosen,
2011). Some evidence in this area already exists. Jolliffe and Farrington
(2006) assessed the effects of gender on the relationship between em-
pathy and bullying among adolescents in the UK, and found that cogni-
tive empathy was associated with bullying behavior in neither males
nor female adolescents, while affective empathy did predict bullying be-
havior, among both males and females who engaged frequently (vs. oc-
casionally) in bullying acts. In a more recent study, the same authors
found that low affective empathy related to traditional bullying in
males, but not in females (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011). Ang and Goh
(2010) assessed the interactions between gender, cognitive and affec-
tive empathy, and cyberbullying among adolescents in Singapore.
They found that cognitive empathy consistently predicted
cyberbullying behavior in males, and only in females if the latter also
scored low in affective empathy. While some evidence already exists,
further research is clearly needed, not only to more fully understand
the effects of gender, but also to uncover the influence of other demo-
graphics, such as age and nationality, on the relationship between em-
pathy and traditional and cyberbullying. Past evidence has shown
mean differences, but so far there is no evidence about how these
other demographic factors affect the psychosocial factors that lead to
traditional bullying and cyberbullying behavior.
The present study sets out to address this gap in the literature, and
aims to assess the influence of demographic factors on the association
between empathy (cognitive and affective empathy) and bullying be-
havior, including both traditional bullying and cyberbullying. To study
the influence of nationality, an international sample of adolescents
from Greece and Spain was used. We expected to find mean differences
in empathy, bullying and cyberbullying among the different gender,
country and age (educational stage) divisions (hypothesis 1). Based
on previous studies, we further expected that higher scores in cognitive
empathy would be associated with lower self-reported cyberbullying
perpetration (Ang & Goh, 2010), and that affective empathy would cor-
relate negatively with both traditional bullying and cyberbullying per-
petration (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006, 2011) (hypothesis 2). Finally, the
relationships between empathy and both types of self-reported bullying
were expected to be invariant across gender, age and nationality (hy-
pothesis 3).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants
The sample comprised 564 students (49.5% girls) from Spain (N =
317) and Greece (N = 247), aged between 11 and 18 (M = 14.71;
SD = 1.65). The Spanish sample (Mage = 13.86; SD = 1.42; N = 317;
45.9% girls; 54.1% boys) was taken from grades 1 to 4 of the Spanish sec-
ondary education (compulsory), which is equivalent to grades 7
through 10 of the secondary education system in the U.S.A. Out of the
three Spanish schools in the sample, two were public (one of which lo-
cated in a disadvantaged socio-economic environment, as classified by
the educational authorities) and the other was private. The Greek sam-
ple (Mage = 15.86; SD = 1.17; N = 247; 51.8% girls; 48.2% boys) incor-
porated the equivalent grades; participants were recruited from three
schools, two junior high schools (equivalent to American grades 7–9)
and a senior high school (equivalent to American grade 10). All Greek
schools were typical coeducational schools located in mid-level socio-
economic areas (as identified by the educational authorities). The
 R. Del Rey et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 275–281
sample was selected by incidental design, including those schools that
voluntarily accepted to participate in the study.
2.2. Instruments
– The European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire
(ECIPQ) (Del Rey et al., 2015) was used to assess cyberbullying be-
havior. This measure includes the base question “Have you partici-
pated in the following behavior either online or through mobile
phones in the last 2 months?” followed by 11 items, e.g., I hacked
into someone's account and stole personal information or I altered pic-
tures or videos of another person that had been posted online. Students
answered on a 5 point scale (0 = no; 1 = yes, one or two times; 2 =
yes, once or twice a month; 3 = yes, about once a week; 4 = yes, more
than once a week). The internal consistency reliability of the measure
was high (Cronbach's α = .88).
– The European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ)
(Brighi et al., 2012) was used to measure traditional (face-to-face)
bullying behavior. This measure includes the base question “Have
you participated in the following behavior in the last 2 months?”
followed by 7 items, e.g., I hit, kicked, or pushed someone, or I excluded
or ignored someone. Responses were recorded on a 5 point scale
(0 = no; 1 = yes, one or two times; 2 = yes, once or twice a month;
3 = yes, about once a week; 4 = yes, more than once a week). The
measure had a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's α =
.77). Both instruments have been psychometrically tested in six
European countries (Spain, Poland, Italy, Germany, the UK and
Greece; Del Rey et al., 2015) and were found to be valid and reliable
instruments both for the assessment of bullying/cyberbullying prev-
alence rates and related psychosocial risk factors, and for the evalu-
ation of interventions against bullying/cyberbullying in schools
(Berne et al., 2013; Lazuras et al., 2013; Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2012).
– The Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) was used to
measure cognitive and affective empathy. The scale comprises 20
items; 9 items for cognitive empathy, e.g., I can understand my
friend's happiness when she/he does well at something or When some-
one is feeling ‘down’, I can usually understand how they feel, and 11
items for affective empathy, e.g., I don't become sad when I see other
people cry. The scale had high overall and partial reliability coeffi-
cients (Cronbach's α total scale = .85; α cognitive subscale = .84;
α affective subscale = .85).
2.3. Procedure and data analysis
Upon selecting the schools, the appropriate permissions required by
the educational authorities in both countries were requested for the
study. Data were collected following the general principles and ethical
research standards of the A.P.A. Each teaching team was informed
about the study's objectives. The data were gathered by trained research
assistants. Prior to administering the questionnaire, students were in-
formed that the questionnaire was anonymous, that participation in
the study was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time with-
out any consequences. They were also guaranteed that the data would
be used solely for research purposes. All students chose to participate
and there were no mid-way withdrawals.
The analysis comprised several stages. First, Mann–Whitney U tests
were performed to check for rank differences by gender, age and coun-
try. Subsequently, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
for the subscales of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. A structural
equation model was then used to investigate the predictive ability of
empathy on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Next, multigroup
analysis was used to test for gender, age and country invariance. The
analyses were run in EQS 6.1 software (Bentler, 1995). As the data
were ordinal, the Robust Maximum Likelihood (RML) method was
277
used (Flora & Curran, 2004). Also, polychoric correlation was used, as
it is a more appropriate measure of the relationship between two
Likert-type items than Pearson correlation (Flora & Curran, 2004;
Jöreskog, 1994; Olsson, 1979). To examine model fit, we used the
Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square (χ2 S-B), the standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR), the root mean squared error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the non-normed
fit index (NNFI). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the combined
cut-off values of .09 for SRMR and .06 for RMSEA indicate a good
model fit. For CFI and NNFI, values greater than .90 indicate acceptable
fit, and values greater than .95 excellent model fit (Kline, 2011). In the
multigroup analysis, we followed the guidelines described by Byrne
(2006) and used the “Excel Macro” tool provided by Satorra. This tool
was used because it provides the robust index (i.e., χ2 S-B) and the cor-
rections needed to compute the difference between various models
specified by Bryant and Satorra (2012).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics and mean differences
Table 1 shows the mean scores, standard deviations and normality
statistics of the study's variables, as well as the frequencies of each of
the traditional bullying and cyberbullying response options.
Table 2 presents the mean rank scores for cyberbullying, bullying,
and the two facets of empathy for boys and girls. The only significant
differences were found for empathy, with girls scoring higher in both af-
fective and cognitive empathy.
Table 3 presents the mean rank scores for countries, for which no
significant differences were observed.
Table 4 presents differences in cyberbullying, bullying and empathy
between the two age groups. The older students in education cycle 2
scored significantly higher in cyberbullying behavior, and in cognitive
and affective empathy.
3.2. Factorial validity of the bullying and cyberbullying measures
The confirmatory factor analysis employed to test the factorial valid-
ity of the bullying measures showed excellent fit indices for both the
cyberbullying (χ2 S-B = 94.51, p = .00; CFI = .99; NNFI = .99;
RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .03), and traditional bullying measure (χ2 S-
B = 57.61, p = .00; CFI = .98; NNFI = .97; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .05).
3.3. Predictive ability of empathy on bullying behavior
Structural equation modeling was used to test the predictive power
of the cognitive and affective empathy variables on traditional bullying
and cyberbullying (see Fig. 1). In the model, the total sample of partici-
pants was used. In Table 5, the polychoric correlations of the included
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for cyberbullying and traditional bullying perpetration, and empathy.
Cyberbullying Traditional bullying
M (SD) .17 (.50) .35 (.59)
Skewness/kurtosis 5.12/30.17 3.25/13.45
No 91.7% 79.8%
Yes, one or two times 5.1% 14.9%
Yes, once or twice a month 1.8% 3.9%
Yes, about once a week .7% .5%
Yes, more than once a week .7% .9%
Cognitive empathy Affective empathy
M (SD) 3.51 (.58) 3.04 (.73)
Skewness/kurtosis −.46/1.33 .28/-.66
278 R. Del Rey et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 275–281

Table 2 Table 4
Gender differences in cyberbullying, traditional bullying and empathy. Differences in cyberbullying, traditional bullying and empathy by age (education cycle).

Gender N Mean rank U p d Education N Mean U p d

cycle rank
Cyberbullying perpetration Boys 285 283.87 39,366.50 .80 .07
Girls 279 281.10 Cyberbullying perpetration 1st 344 251.53 27,186.50 .00 .23
Traditional bullying Boys 285 283.71 39,413.50 .85 .06 2nd 188 293.89
perpetration Girls 279 281.27 Traditional bullying perpetration 1st 344 262.08 30,815.00 .35 .05
Cognitive empathy Boys 285 264.44 34,609.50 .00 .12 2nd 188 274.59
Girls 279 300.95 Cognitive empathy 1st 344 236.90 22,152.50 .00 .49
Affective empathy Boys 285 247.97 29,915.50 .00 .38 2nd 188 320.67
Girls 279 317.78 Affective empathy 1st 344 231.46 20,281.00 .00 .59
2nd 188 330.62

latent variables are presented. Due to past evidence on the inter-

relation between the two dimensions of empathy (cognitive and affec- Finally, the same procedure was used to test for invariance between
tive), and between the two dimensions of bullying (traditional and younger (χ2 S-B = 6.34, p = .00; CFI = .96; NNFI = .97; RMSEA = .06;
cyber) they were allowed to freely correlate (Gini et al., 2007). SRMR = .05), and older students (χ2 S-B = 2.34, p = .00; CFI = .95;
The model had excellent fit indices: χ2 S-B = 8.86, p = .00; CFI = NNFI = .95; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .06). Again, the differences between
.99; NNFI = .99; RMSEA = .02; SRMR = .05. Cognitive and affective em- the unrestricted model and the restricted structural model were not sta-
pathy accounted for 46% of the variance in cyberbullying and 39% of the tistically significant (Δχ2 S-B (22) = 9.16, p N .05), suggesting invari-
variance in traditional bullying. As shown in Fig. 1, Cognitive empathy ance with relation to age.
had greater predictive power for both cyberbullying (β = − 8.56;
p b .001) and traditional bullying (β = −4.16; p b .001) than affective 4. Discussion
empathy (β = − 4.20; p b .001 for cyberbullying; and β = − 2.05;
p b .001 for traditional bullying). Previous studies have shown that empathy can predict bullying be-
havior in children and adolescents. The present study assessed the asso-
ciation between cognitive/affective empathy and self-reported
3.4. Measurement model for gender, cross-national, and age differences traditional bullying and cyberbullying in adolescence, and whether
this association was influenced by the demographic factors gender,
To test for gender, country and age invariance, three multigroup age, and nationality (Spain and Greece). The results showed that higher
analyses were performed. With respect to gender invariance, the results scores in both cognitive and affective empathy negatively predicted
showed an excellent model fit for both girls (χ2 S-B = 4.34, p = .00; self-reported traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Although mean dif-
CFI = .98; NNFI = .97; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .06) and boys (χ2 S- ferences were found between gender and age groups, the relationship
B = 5.74, p = .00; CFI = .99; NNFI = .98; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = between empathy and bullying behavior was invariant across all three
.05). Second, an unrestricted model was employed in which all factor demographic factors.
loadings and structural relationships were freely estimated for both The results partially support our second hypothesis. Both cognitive
boys and girls. This was then compared to a model in which the factor and affective empathy were negatively related to traditional bullying
loadings of the indicators were set equal for both groups (boys and and cyberbullying perpetration. These findings contradict past evidence
girls). This restriction did not significantly increase the chi-square which suggested that only affective empathy predicted traditional bul-
value relative to the unrestricted model (Δχ2 S-B (8) = 7.88, p N .05). lying (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) and cyberbullying behavior (Renati
After confirming that there were no gender differences in the measure- et al., 2012). They are in line, however, with the general contention
ment model, the structural model was estimated in which the relation- that lower scores in empathy (in general) form a significant risk factor
ships between the latent variables were fixed to be equal for the two for traditional bullying (Endersen & Olweus, 2001; Smith &
groups (girls and boys). The differences between the unrestricted Thompson, 1991; Steffgen et al., 2011; Warden & Mackinnon, 2003)
model and the restricted structural model were not statistically signifi- and cyberbullying (Chan & Wong, 2015).
cant (Δχ2 S-B (20) = 7.14, p N .05), thus showing that the specified In terms of the demographic characteristics, we investigated both
structural model is invariant for gender. mean differences and model invariance across gender, age and national-
Similarly, for cross-national differences we calculated the Spanish ity. We found significant mean differences between boys and girls in
model (χ2 S-B = 4.69, p = .00; CFI = .97; NNFI = .96; RMSEA = .06; empathy, and between younger and older students in empathy and
SRMR = .07) and the Greek model (χ2 S-B = 3.34, p = .00; CFI = .99; cyberbullying. As expected, girls and older students had higher scores
NNFI = .99; RMSEA = .02; SRMR = .03). The differences between the in the tested variables than boys and younger students. No significant
unrestricted model and the restricted structural model were not statis- mean differences were found between Spanish and Greek pupils. With
tically significant (Δχ2 S-B (18) = 7.16, p N .05), implying cross-national respect to gender, our findings support those studies suggesting that
invariance. girls are more mature emotionally (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, &
Van Hulle, 2006). Importantly, the results showed that higher scores
in both cognitive and affective empathy negatively influenced self-
Table 3
reported bullying perpetration among both gender groups. These find-
Cross-country differences in cyberbullying, traditional bullying and empathy. ings contradict past research which claimed that empathy predicts bul-
lying differently for boys and girls (Ang & Goh, 2010; Jolliffe &
Country N Mean rank U p D
Farrington, 2004). While our results have added information to the dis-
Cyberbullying perpetration Spain 317 253.73 39,455.50 .60 .16 cussion about the role of gender in bullying, the contradictory evidence
Greece 247 260.42
in the literature suggests more research is necessary to work out exactly
Traditional bullying Spain 317 286.43 37,902.50 .50 .14
perpetration Greece 247 277.45 how and when gender comes into play.
Cognitive empathy Spain 317 195.07 40,609.50 .80 .11 Similarly, existing evidence is inconclusive about age differences in
Greece 247 394.71 self-reported cyberbullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Monks & Smith,
Affective empathy Spain 317 397.41 39,915.50 .70 .12 2006). In our study, significant differences in empathy and
Greece 247 407.37
cyberbullying perpetration were found: older students were more
 R. Del Rey et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 275–281 279

Fig. 1. Model with the latent factors affective empathy, cognitive empathy, cyberbullying perpetration and traditional bullying perpetration.
280 R. Del Rey et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 275–281
Table 5
Polychoric correlations among latent variables: cyberbullying and traditional bullying per-
petration, and cognitive and affective empathy.
1. 2. 3.
1. Cyberbullying perpetration 1 References
2. Traditional bullying perpetration .74 1
3. Cognitive empathy −.97 −.43 1 Ang, R.P., & Goh, D.H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and
4. Affective empathy −.22 −.68 .68
able to appreciate other pupils' feelings, but at the same time engaged in
more cyberbullying. The more interesting finding of our study, and
where it fills a gap in the literature, is with regard to the influence of
age on the relationship between empathy and bullying. We showed
that both cognitive and affective empathy predicted traditional bullying
and cyberbullying invariably for both age groups.
With regard to nationality, past research has shown that traditional
bullying and cyberbullying rates can differ considerably between coun-
tries (Slonje & Smith, 2008). We neither found mean differences in
country perpetration levels, nor did we find a country-effect in the rela-
tionship between empathy and bullying; lower empathy was similarly
associated with higher bullying (both traditional and cyberbullying)
perpetration rates in both countries. Mean differences were found
when comparing earlier findings for Greece and Spain (Antoniadou &
Kokkinos, 2015; Garaigordobil, 2011). Considering the discrepancy be-
tween results of our and previous studies, future research on country
differences and their effect on the relationship between empathy and
bullying would be beneficial.
Overall, our findings speak to the importance of empathy in the dis-
position to display aggression, expressed as face-to-face bullying and
cyberbullying, in adolescence. Although this behavior may differ across
age groups, countries and between males and females, empathy seems
to be a crucial component in explaining bullying behavior, independent
of these demographic variables. Practically, this means that preventive
interventions to reduce traditional bullying and cyberbullying in schools
may benefit from targeting empathy development at different ages and
for both boys and girls. Moreover, it seems that such an approach should
be beneficial in different countries. The suggestion to add a focus on em-
pathy to prevention programs is not an entirely new one, and certain
programs already include such a focus (Menesini et al., 2012;
Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2012; Salmivalli & Poskiparta, 2012). Examples of
how to address empathy include presenting case studies, newspaper ar-
ticles, and real or fictional videos of victims, and letting students analyze
victims' feelings and motives for acting the way they do, in order to
make them understand the thoughts and feelings of not only the victims
but also of the aggressors.
This study was not free of limitations. First, the sample size was rel-
ative small. This is of importance when studying behavior that does not
occur on a daily basis. Larger samples will include a higher number of
bullies and bully-victims, and thereby allow a more thorough investiga-
tion of the processes underpinning their behavior. However, structural
equation modeling works well even with medium size samples, which
gives us faith that the uncovered relationships between empathy and
bullying behavior reflects reality. Second, in the present study we lacked
information about (mobile) phone use. Higher (mobile) phone use has
been shown to increase the risk of being involved in cyberbullying
(Arsène & Raynaud, 2014). In future studies (mobile) phone use should
be controlled for when investigating the effect of psychosocial factors on
cyberbullying. Finally, the nature of the study does not allow causal in-
ferences, for which an experimental and/or longitudinal design would
have been necessary. Addressing these limitations in future studies
may provide further insights into the ways that demographic factors in-
fluence the relationships between known psychosocial risk factors, such
as empathy and moral disengagement, and traditional bullying and
cyberbullying in adolescents. Nevertheless, we feel that, even with its
limitations, by being among the first to test the relationship between
empathy and bullying with respect to several demographic factors and
by moving beyond mean differences, the present study makes a signif-
icant contribution to the literature.
4.
cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(4),
1
387–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3.
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C.M. (2015). A review of research on cyber-bullying in
Greece. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 20, 185–201. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/02673843.2013.778207.
Arsène, M., & Raynaud, J.P. (2014). Cyberbullying (ou cyber harcèlement) et
psychopathologie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent: état actuel des connaissances.
Neuropsychiatrie de l'Enfance et de l'Adolescence, 62(4), 249–256.
Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMPD Statis-
tical Software.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/
8YQM-B04H-PG4D-BLLH.
Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., ...
Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 320–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.
2012.11.022.
Bosacki, S., & Wilde Astington, J. (1999). Theory of mind in preadolescence: Relations be-
tween social understanding and social competence. Social Development, 8(2),
237–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00093.
Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Pyzalski, J., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P.K., Tsormpatzoudis, C.,
Barkoukis, V., et al. (2012). European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire
(EBIPQ). University of Bologna Unpublished Manuscript.
Bryant, F.B., & Satorra, A. (2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square
testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 372–398.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687671.
Byrne, B.M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Routledge.
Casas, J.A., Del Rey, R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent
and divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 580–587.
Cassels, T.G., Chan, S., Chung, W., & Birch, S.A.J. (2010). The role of culture in affective em-
pathy: Cultural and bicultural differences. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(3–4),
309–326. http://doi.org/10.1163/156853710X531203.
Chan, H.C.O., & Wong, D.S. (2015). The overlap between school bullying perpetration and
victimization: Assessing the psychological, familial, and school factors of Chinese ad-
olescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1-11.
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E.A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P.F.
(2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(P4), 604–627. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.
001.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P.L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1534582304267187.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience.
TheScientificWorldJOURNAL, 6, 1146–1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.221.
Del Rey, R., Casas, J.A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P., ...
Plichta, P. (2015). Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European
Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
141–147.
Else-Quest, N.M., Hyde, J.S., Goldsmith, H.H., & Van Hulle, C.A. (2006). Gender differences
in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 33–72.
Endersen, I.M., & Olweus, D. (2001). Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents:
Sex differences, age trends, and relationship to bullying. In A.C. Bohart, C. Arthur, &
D.J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive & destructive behavior: Implications for family, school,
& society (pp. 147–165). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Flora, D.B., & Curran, P.J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of esti-
mation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods,
9(4), 466–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466.
Garaigordobil, M. (2011). Prevalencia y consecuencias del cyberbullying: una revisión.
International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11(2), 233–254.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents'
bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33(5), 467–476. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/
Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205–213. http://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.205.
Haddon, L., & Livingstone, S. (2012). EU kids online: National perspectives. London: EU Kids
Online Network.
Hakansson, J., & Montgomery, H. (2003). Empathy as an interpersonal phenomenon.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(3), 267–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0265407503020003001.
Harari, H., Shamay-Tsoory, S.G., Ravid, M., & Levkovitz, Y. (2010). Double dissociation be-
tween cognitive and affective empathy in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry
Research, 175(3), 277–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2009.03.002.
Hasekiu, C.F. (2013). Age's differences at bullying's acts in school age. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 4(9), 220–222. http://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n9p220.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard : Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
 R. Del Rey et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 275–281
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide
Research, 14(3), 206–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133.
Hoff, D.L., & Mitchell, S.N. (2009). Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of
Educational Administration, 47(5), 652–665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
09578230910981107.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 441–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.avb.2003.03.001.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy
and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 540–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.
20154.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2011). Is low empathy related to bullying after controlling
for individual and social background variables? Journal of Adolescence, 34(1), 59–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.001.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1994). On the estimation of polychoric correlations and their asymptotic
covariance matrix. Psychometrika, 59(3), 381–389. http://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02296131.
Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., Ourda, D., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2013). A process model of
cyberbullying in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 881–887. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.015.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers
in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1777–1791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005.
Menesini, E., & Spiel, C. (2012). Introduction: Cyberbullying: Development, consequences,
risk and protective factors. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2),
163–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.652833.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Palladino, B.E. (2012). Empowering students against bullying
and cyberbullying: Evaluation of an Italian peer-led model. International Journal of
Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 314–321.
Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behav-
ior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 61–72. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007.
Monks, C.P., & Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understand-
ing of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 24(4), 801–821. http://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X82352.
Murphy, J.M., & Gilligan, C. (1980). Moral development in late adolescence and
adulthood: A critique and reconstruction of Kohlberg's theory. Human Development,
23(2), 77–104.
Nummenmaa, L., Hirvonen, J., Parkkola, R., & Hietanen, J.K. (2008). Is emotional contagion
special? An fMRI study on neural systems for affective and cognitive empathy.
NeuroImage, 43(3), 571–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.014.
Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation
coefficient. Psychometrika, 44(4), 443–460. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296207.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school : What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK;
Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? The European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520–538. http://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.
682358.
Ortega-Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R., & Casas, J.A. (2012). Knowing, building and living together on
internet and social networks: The ConRed cyberbullying prevention program.
International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 303–313.
Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary
look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286288.
Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace:
Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4, 28. http://doi.org/10.1186/1753-
2000-4-28.
Pornari, C.D., & Wood, J. (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. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20336.
Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zanetti, M.A. (2012). Morally disengaged and unempathic: Do
cyberbullies fit these definitions? An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
and Social Networking, 15(8), 391–398.
Rodkin, P.C., & Berger, C. (2008). Who bullies whom? Social status asymmetries by victim
gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 473–485. http://doi.
org/10.1177/0165025408093667.
281
Salmivalli, C., & Poskiparta, E. (2012). KiVa antibullying program: Overview of evaluation
studies based on a randomized controlled trial and national rollout in Finland.
International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 294–302.
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2009). Social-behavioral correlates of
cyberbullying in a German student sample. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of
Psychology, 217(4), 224–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.224.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-9450.2007.00611.x.
Slonje, R., Smith, P.K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for
prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2012.05.024.
Smith, P.K. (2014). Understanding school bullying: Its nature & prevention strategies (1st
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Smith, P.K., & Thompson, D. (1991). Practical approaches to bullying. London: Fulton.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.
2007.01846.x.
Solberg, M.E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239–268. http://doi.
org/10.1002/ab.10047.
Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic? Ad-
olescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 14(11), 643–648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0445.
Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
277–287. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Underwood, M.K., & Rosen, L.H. (2011). Gender and bullying: Moving beyond mean dif-
ferences to consider conceptions of bullying, processes by which bullying unfolds,
and cyber bullying. In D.L. Espelage, & S.M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North
American Schools (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Warden, D., & MacKinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investiga-
tion of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367–385. http://doi.org/10.1348/
026151003322277757.
Wong, D.S., Chan, H.C.O., & Cheng, C.H. (2014). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimiza-
tion among adolescents in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review, 36,
133–140.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00328.x.
Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and
cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 24, 188–198. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.015.
Rosario Del Rey is an Associate Professor in the Department of Developmental and Educa-
tional Psychology of the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Sevilla (Spain).
Lambros Lazuras is a Lecturer at the International Faculty of the University of Sheffield,
and a Research Associate in the Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aris-
totle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
José A. Casas is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology of the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Cordoba (Spain).
Vassilis Barkoukis is a Lecturer in the Department of Physical Education and Sport Sci-
ence, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Rosario Ortega-Ruiz is a Full Professor in the Department of Psychology of the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Cordoba (Spain) and a Visiting Professor at De-
partment of Psychology and Counselling, University of Greenwich (United Kingdom).
Haralambos Tsorbatzoudis is a Full Professor in the Department of Physical Education
and Sport Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.