See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331791150

Effects of aggressive traits on cyberbullying: Mediated moderation or

moderated mediation?

Article  in  Computers in Human Behavior · August 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.015

CITATIONS READS

10 700

6 authors, including:

Shen Liu Lin Zhang

University of Science and Technology of China Ningbo University
51 PUBLICATIONS   139 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shen Liu on 25 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Full length article

Effects of aggressive traits on cyberbullying: Mediated moderation or T

moderated mediation?
Minghua Songa,b,1, Zhuan Zhua,1, Shen Liuc,∗,1, Hang Fana, Tingting Zhua, Lin Zhanga,∗∗
a
Department and Institute of Psychology, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China
b
Mental Health Education Guidance Center, Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China
c
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To explore the process of cyberbullying, the current study investigated the relationships among aggressive traits,
Chinese college students beliefs about aggression, network public opinion, and cyberbullying. A questionnaire survey was conducted
Aggressive traits among 693 Chinese college students. Based on the findings, we constructed two competing models (mediated
Cyberbullying moderation and moderated mediation). The results revealed the following: (1) Aggressive traits and beliefs about
Network public opinion
aggression were all positively correlated with cyberbullying, aggressive traits were positively correlated with
Beliefs about aggression
beliefs about aggression, and aggressive traits were negatively correlated with network public opinion. (2) The
Mediated moderation model
effect of aggressive traits on beliefs about aggression and cyberbullying was moderated by network public
opinion. When network public opinion included irrational comments, aggressive traits directly and indirectly
affected cyberbullying. When network public opinion included rational comments, aggressive traits only directly
affected cyberbullying. Finally, (3) the effect of aggressive traits on cyberbullying was moderated by network
public opinion and the moderating effect of network public opinion was partly realized through the mediating
effect of beliefs about aggression. The findings contribute to our understanding of when and how aggressive
traits affect cyberbullying. We found support for the mediated moderation model, and the results have im-
plications for prevention and intervention in cyberbullying.

1. Introduction the consideration of the comprehensive mechanism of cyberbullying

Cyberbullying refers to applying information and communication
technology to engage in deliberate, repetitive, or hostile behaviors to-
wards others (Jenaro, Flores, & Frías, 2017; Kowalski, Giumetti,
Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). Cyberbullying not only severely affects
the normative order of the network platform but also is closely related
to a variety of adverse consequences such as low self-esteem, depres-
sion, and even suicidal ideation and behavior (Gini & Espelage, 2014;
Holt et al., 2015; Reed, Cooper, Nugent, & Russell, 2016; Savage &
Tokunaga, 2017; Selkie, Kota, Chan, & Moreno, 2015). Although ex-
isting studies have paid close attention to the mechanism of cyberbul-
lying, such as the effects on cyberbullying of narcissistic, normative
belief in aggressive behaviors; empathy; and gender differences (Li, Li,
& Zhang, 2016; Rey et al., 2016; Topcu & Erdurbaker, 2012), these
studies were all conducted from a certain perspective. Thus, they lack
from individual and environmental factors based on the in-
dividual–environmental interaction model (Zheng et al., 2017). In ad-
dition, previous studies showed that people's views, attitudes, and
opinions about an event on the Internet platform can influence cyber-
bullying (Li, 2006; Çetin, Yaman, & Peker, 2011). However, no study
has yet investigated the effect of Internet public opinion on cyberbul-
lying. Based on the individual–environment interaction model, the
current study comprehensively investigated the effects of individual
(aggressive traits and beliefs about aggression) and environmental
factors (network public opinion) on cyberbullying to provide targeted
suggestions for effective prevention and reduction of cyberbullying.
1.1. The effect of aggressive traits on cyberbullying
Cyberbullying is defined as certain aggressive behaviors that occur

∗∗
Corresponding author. Department and Institute of Psychology, Ningbo University, No. 616 Fenghua Road, Jiangbei District, Ningbo, Zhejiang, 315211, China.
∗
Corresponding author. School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Science and Technology of China, No. 96 Jinzhai Road, Shushan District, Hefei,
Anhui, 230022, China.
E-mail addresses: liushenpsy@ustc.edu.cn (S. Liu), zhanglin1@nbu.edu.cn (L. Zhang).
1
Minghua Song, Zhuan Zhu and Shen Liu Contributed equally to this study and share the first authorships.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.015
Received 14 November 2018; Received in revised form 10 March 2019; Accepted 15 March 2019
Available online 20 March 2019
0747-5632/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M. Song, et al.
in cyberspace, specifically malicious, repetitive, and hostile behavior
towards others by means of electronic information media, such as
spreading rumors, backstabbing, spreading personal information, and
so on (Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2015). Cyberbullying is a derivative
form of traditional bullying and a new form of aggression with the
development of the Internet (Baroncelli & Ciucci, 2014; Hutson, 2016).
In traditional bullying, the bully deliberately causes physical and psy-
chological harm to the other party directly or indirectly. It is a con-
scious act usually manifested as verbal provocation (such as insult,
defamation, exclusion, intimidation) and physical harm (Li et al.,
2016). Bullying generally consists of three elements, including inten-
tional harmful acts, repeated occurrences over time, and imbalance of
power between the two sides (Kowalski et al., 2014). However, cy-
berbullying has subverted these traditional elements of bullying and
makes it unnecessary for both sides to meet face to face. Therefore,
bullying no longer requires the “power principle” (Li et al., 2016). With
the help of new technologies, cyberbullying permits anonymity and fast
communication, and has no space- or time-based constraints. Compared
to traditional bullying, the forms of cyberbullying are diverse. They can
be divided into emotional flaming, online harassment, online hate,
cyberstalking, denigration, masquerade, outing, and online exclusion
(Athanasiades, Baldry, Kamariotis, Kostouli, & Psalti, 2016; Keipi et al.,
2016). According to the general aggression model, individual and en-
vironmental factors affect individuals' internal cognitive process, sub-
sequent evaluation, and decision-making process to further influence
the occurrence of aggression (Montuoro & Mainhard, 2017). Individual
factors include individual personality traits, beliefs, and gender. For
example, Liu, Jiang, Ren, Li, and Xu (2015) found that trait anger, as an
input variable, activated the intrinsic level of hostility cognition to in-
crease the possibility of aggression. Zheng et al. (2017) found that in-
dividual normative beliefs about aggression affected moral disengage-
ment and Internet morality to indirectly influence cyberbullying. Topcu
and Erdurbaker (2012) found that differences in gender affected in-
dividual emotional and cognitive empathy to indirectly influence cyber-
and traditional bullying. Aggressive traits, as stable personality traits
characterized by hostile cognition, anger, and readiness, play an im-
portant role in violent and problematic behaviors (Geel, Goemans,
Toprak, & Vedder, 2017; Molapour, Lindström, & Olsson, 2016). For
example, individuals with aggressive traits are more likely to make
hostile attributions, which increases the likelihood of anger and ag-
gressive behaviors (Gagnon et al., 2017). Smith et al. (2011) found that
individuals high in aggressive traits were less sensitive to aggressive
behaviors than were those low in aggressive traits and were more likely
to regard a certain behavior as non-aggressive, leading to more ag-
gressive behaviors among individuals high in aggressive traits (Gagnon
et al., 2017). In addition, both proactive and reactive aggression are
positively correlated with cyberbullying (Ang, Huan, & Florell, 2014;
Savage & Tokunaga, 2017). Compared to individuals low in aggressive
traits, individuals high in aggressive traits were more likely to interpret
others’ behaviors as hostile or malicious and tended to have hostile
cognitive bias towards others, resulting in increased hostility and ag-
gression. By virtue of the anonymity and convenience of the network,
they arbitrarily released the negative emotions that could not be dis-
pelled in real life to other individuals in the network environment and
then engaged in cyberbullying (Tremblay & Belchevski, 2004). Studies
have shown that general bullying can predict cyberbullying, and most
cyberbullies are also more likely to attack others in real life (Hemphill
et al., 2012; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Thus, individuals with aggressive
traits in real life may also show more aggression on the network plat-
form, causing them to bully others online. In other words, cyberbul-
lying is a displacement of individuals with aggressive traits in cyber-
space to express aggressive behaviors in real life. Therefore, we
proposed the following Hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Aggressive traits will be positively correlated with
cyberbullying.
168
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
1.2. The mediated moderation model
According to the trait activation theory, whether traits (aggressive
traits) can predict behavior depends on whether trait-related cues are
provided in the context. If there is a trait-related cue, the trait is acti-
vated by the situation, and individuals are more influenced by the trait
to maintain the trait-related behaviors. On the contrary, if there is no
trait-related cue, the trait cannot be activated by the situation, and the
individuals' behaviors are more affected by the situation (Tett &
Burnett, 2003). That is, the effects of aggressive traits on cyberbullying
are moderated by situational factors. The occurrence of cyberbullying
cannot be separated from the main carrier of the Internet. As a new
mass medium, the convenience, anonymity, and interactivity of the
network platform makes it popular among netizens. When netizens are
willing to use the network platform to express their views, opinions,
and comments, the network public opinion comes into being (Jiang &
Liu, 2011). Network public opinion, as a new form of public opinion
extended by traditional public opinion in the network, refers to the
opinion or speech about which the public (especially netizens) shows a
certain influence, a tendency of opinion or speech regarding some
public events through network language or other means, taking the
network as the platform (Hu, 2016). Although the Internet provides
netizens with convenience, there are many irrational and rational ele-
ments involved in the network public opinion (Jiang & Liu, 2011). The
irrational expression of network public opinion refers to the fact that
netizens can easily make judgments on a given event without rigorous
consideration and only based on their subjective judgment and pre-
ference, which is often characterized by emotionality, extremes, and
negative tropism (Zhang & Yan, 2016). Previous studies have shown
that the irrational expression atmosphere of network public opinion
could lead to “human flesh search,” spreading rumors, abuse, and
malicious defamation of others (Liu, 2014a, 2014b; Çetin et al., 2011).
Näsi et al. found that there was a significant association between ex-
posure to websites relating to eating disorders and online harassment.
Hawdon et al. (2016) found that there is a considerable amount of hate
material online, but the degree to which individuals from different
countries are exposed to these materials varies, and thus there can be
country-wide differences in degree of online hate. In contrast, the ra-
tional expression of network public opinion can lead individuals to
correctly view problems as well as events and hold appropriate atti-
tudes as well as beliefs about the problem or event, thus causing less
cyberbullying (Xing, 2015). In addition, the individual–environment
interaction model also points out that individuals' behaviors are formed
and developed in the interaction between individuals and environment.
Individuals’ own factors also interact with the environmental factors to
influence individual development (Peter & Petermann, 2018). In-
dividuals carry out aggressive behaviors under the influence of en-
vironmental factors, and different network atmospheres of public opi-
nion expression can moderate the relationship between aggressive traits
and cyberbullying. For example, the irrational expression of online
public opinion is the result of group comments, and the individuals with
aggressive traits in this situation will show more cyberbullying due to
the spread of responsibility (Long, 2014). The rational expression of
network public opinion will reduce or even change the negative judg-
ment of aggressive individuals regarding the current situation and
generate less cyberbullying (Dewall, Anderson, & Bushman, 2011).
Therefore, we proposed the following Hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Network public opinion will moderate the relationship
between aggressive traits and cyberbullying.
According to the general aggression and aggressive social cognition
models, individual factors seldomly have direct influence on in-
dividuals' behaviors but often are influential through individual in-
ternal cognitive processes. As an individual trait factor, aggressive traits
often rely on internal cognitive processes to evoke aggressive behaviors.
Previous studies found that individuals with aggressive traits
M. Song, et al.
constructed a schema of aggressive knowledge based on their accu-
mulated life experience, which could affect their aggressive cognition
(Dewall et al., 2011) and, thus, more easily form beliefs about aggres-
sion. Belief about aggression refers to individuals' perception of whe-
ther aggression is acceptable or not when settling disputes and ex-
pressing hatred (Zhang, Liu, Xu, Wu, & Yang, 2017; Zhen, Xie, Zhang,
Wang, & Li, 2011) and is one of the main incentives for aggressive
behaviors (Montuoro & Mainhard, 2017). Previous studies found that
aggressive traits could positively predict beliefs about aggression and
that individuals with higher aggression were more likely to recognize
and accept aggressive behaviors as a means of settling disputes and
expressing hatred (Adams & Ireland, 2017; Geel et al., 2017). Similarly,
individuals' beliefs about aggression reflect their recognition and ac-
ceptance of aggressive behaviors and have a close correlation with
aggressive behaviors (Montuoro & Mainhard, 2017; Zhang et al., 2017).
Some studies found that beliefs about aggression could significantly
affect people's perception of aggressive cues, and higher beliefs about
aggression could make them inclined to regard aggressive behaviors as
a way of coping for social recognition or acceptance (Maier & James,
2014). Other studies also found that the cognitive structure (beliefs
about aggression) of individuals regarding aggressive behavior posi-
tively predicted traditional bullying (Ang, 2015; Williams & Guerra,
2007; Wright & Li, 2013; Zheng et al., 2017). Cyberbullying is a special
derivative of traditional aggressive behaviors (Baroncelli & Ciucci,
2014); individuals with higher beliefs about aggression may also per-
form more cyberbullying. Therefore, we proposed the following Hy-
pothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Beliefs about aggression will mediate the relationship
between aggressive traits and cyberbullying.
However, different atmospheres of network public opinion expres-
sion may play a specific and complex role in multiple pathways related
to cyberbullying. For example, Zhang et al. (2017) found that virtual
situations of repeated exposure to violent information tended to acti-
vate and strengthen individuals’ aggressive schemas, namely, to form
automatic links among memory, emotion, and aggressive behaviors,
thus prompting individuals to form aggressive personality traits, gra-
dually influencing or changing adulthood individual cognitive belief
systems of aggressive behavior, and then triggering cyberbullying.
Compared to the rational expression atmosphere of network public
opinion, when individuals with aggressive traits are exposed to the
environment information of the irrational expression of network public
opinion, their internal aggressive beliefs are also improved, and the
probability of bullying others on the network increases accordingly
(Dewall et al., 2011; Kowalski et al., 2014). Therefore, we proposed the
following Hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4(a). Beliefs about aggression will mediate the interactive
effects of aggressive traits and network public opinion on
cyberbullying.
Thus, the current study constructed a mediated moderation model
for the relationship between aggressive trait and cyberbullying based
on H1, H2, H3, and H4a (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The mediated moderation model.
169
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
1.3. The moderated mediation model
As mentioned above, according to the general aggression model, the
mechanism of aggressive behaviors is to activate the individual intrinsic
information processing model by taking individual and situational
factors as input variables (such as aggressive traits and network public
opinion); then, the individual internal information processing model
cognizes the input variables. Afterwards, the aggressive schema (such
as beliefs about aggression) is activated, and the individual is guided by
the aggressive schema to initiate aggressive behaviors (Dewall et al.,
2011; Montuoro & Mainhard, 2017). This theory particularly empha-
sizes the dominant role of aggressive traits in aggressive behaviors. On
one hand, aggressive traits increase hostile cognition, generate hostile
interpretation, and activate aggressive schema. On the other hand, they
interfere with the construction of aggressive knowledge schema, affect
beliefs about aggression, and then lead to aggressive behaviors (Adams
& Ireland, 2017; Ang, 2015; Wright & Li, 2013). Belief about aggression
is a belief used to evaluate the acceptability of behaviors. Individuals
make aggressive or non-aggressive judgments of others' behavioral in-
tention based on their own normative beliefs about aggression
(Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007). It can effectively predict the occurrence
probability of individuals' aggressive behaviors with different norma-
tive beliefs, and the normative beliefs holding supportive aggressive
behaviors are positively correlated with actual aggressive behaviors
(Wright & Li, 2013). Wilkowski and Robinson (2008) put forward the
Integrative Cognitive Model based on integrating existing theoretical
models and empirical evidence. They believed that different personality
traits affected the internal cognition of individuals and led to different
behavioral outcomes. This suggests that there is a direct correlation
between individuals' beliefs about aggression and cyberbullying, and
the influence of individual trait factors on cyberbullying may need to be
exerted through beliefs about aggression. For example, the joint effect
of exclusion and beliefs about aggression can further strengthen in-
dividuals’ aggressive behaviors (Poon & Chen, 2014). Beliefs about
aggression partially mediated the relationship between narcissistic
personality traits and cyberbullying (Ang, Tan, & Talib, 2011).
As an important individual difference, the effect of aggressive traits
on cyberbullying is likely to be moderated by environmental factors.
For example, parental control, a family environment variable, moder-
ates the relationship between trait self-esteem and cyberbullying
(Palermiti, Servidio, Bartolo, & Costabile, 2017). As another environ-
mental variable, network public opinion has a certain effect on in-
dividuals' thinking and behaviors (Liu et al., 2015). In other words,
network public opinion may moderate the effect of beliefs about ag-
gression on cyberbullying. According to the self-regulatory executive
function model (Paananen et al., 2019), individuals with aggressive
traits are unable to calm down and easily generate violence cognition
and mood, resulting in the failure of individual self-regulatory execu-
tive function. Surrounded by the atmosphere of network public opinion
irrational expression, individuals' beliefs about aggression will be en-
hanced, increasing the level of impulse, decreasing the ability of self-
control, and making the individual unable to reasonably estimate the
consequences of the behavior or correctly and reasonably formulate the
coping strategies of behavior. Thus, these individuals very easily show
cyberbullying when using the network. Compared to the traditional
environment of public opinion, the network environment provides a
new space for expression and discussion for the formation of public
opinion as well as a relatively free communication atmosphere for
public discussion. It can directly reflect the public's views or opinions
on certain public events in cyberspace (Zhang & Yan, 2016). The ex-
pression of network public opinion includes rational and irrational
elements. Compared to the rational expression of network public opi-
nion, the irrational expression of network public opinion will affect
individuals' attitudes and beliefs about a certain event and then more
easily cause cyberbullying (Xing, 2015; Çetin et al., 2011). According to
the cognitive connection theory, individuals with high beliefs about
M. Song, et al.
aggression influenced by aggressive words in online platforms will be
more inclined to recognize and accept aggression to settle disputes and
express hatred in the irrational expression atmosphere of network
public opinion, thus promoting the occurrence of cyberbullying. While
individuals influenced by the group atmosphere will hold appropriate
attitudes and beliefs about an event and make rational judgments in the
rational expression atmosphere of network public opinion, they cannot
easily activate beliefs about aggression, which will reduce the occur-
rence of cyberbullying (Liu et al., 2015). It can be seen that different
expression atmospheres of network public opinion affect individuals'
cognitive belief systems, thus causing the increase or decrease of cy-
berbullying (Peter & Petermann, 2018). Specifically, when in the irra-
tional expression atmosphere of network public opinion, with the in-
crease of individuals' beliefs about aggression, cyberbullying is
increased; while in the rational expression atmosphere of network
public opinion, with the decrease of individuals' beliefs about aggres-
sion, cyberbullying is also decreased. Therefore, we proposed the fol-
lowing Hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4(b). Network public opinion will moderate the
relationship between beliefs about aggression and cyberbullying.
Thus, the current study constructed a moderated mediation model
for the relationship between aggressive trait and cyberbullying based
on H1, H2, H3, and H4b (see Fig. 2).
1.4. Competing models: a mediated moderation model or a moderated
mediation model?
In the study of psychology and behavior, the relationship between
the predictor and dependent variables is often influenced by a “third
variable,” namely, a moderation variable and mediation variable
(Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005; Ye & Wen, 2013). Both moderators and
mediators can explain the relationship between predictor and depen-
dent variables, though there are differences between them. If the re-
lationship between the predictor variable and the dependent variable is
a function of the variable M, then M is called the moderator variable.
Specifically, the moderator can influence the direction (positive or
negative) and intensity (strong or weak) of the relationship between the
predictor and dependent variables. The moderator can be qualitative
(such as gender or race) or quantitative (such as age or length of edu-
cation). The moderating effect is often considered when the relation-
ship between the predictor and dependent variables is slightly stronger
or weaker or changes direction. However, the meaning of the mediation
variable is different from that. If the predictor variable influences the
dependent variable through the variable M, then M is called the med-
iator variable. The mediator variable plays an indirect role in ex-
plaining how the predictor variable affects the dependent variable
through it. The relationships among these three variables are examined
when examining the mediating effect. Firstly, it is assumed that there is
a significant correlation between the predictor and dependent vari-
ables, and there is a significant correlation between the predictor and
mediator variables. If the correlation between the predictor and de-
pendent variables or the regression coefficient is significantly decreased
Fig. 2. The moderated mediation model.
170
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
when the mediator variable is added, the mediating effect is more ap-
parent. When reduced to 0, the regression coefficient is called the full-
mediator (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). As mentioned earlier, if the re-
lationship between aggressive traits as the independent variable and
cyberbullying as the dependent variable is affected by the third variable
of network public opinion, then the network public opinion is a mod-
erating variable, which affects the direction (positive or negative) and
the strength (strong or weak) of the relationship between aggressive
traits and cyberbullying. For example, the relationship between “ag-
gressive traits” and “cyberbullying” is influenced by “network public
opinion” in the current study. When in an irrational expression atmo-
sphere of network public opinion, aggressive traits have a positive
correlation with cyberbullying; while in a rational expression atmo-
sphere of network public opinion, the correlation between aggressive
traits and cyberbullying is not significant. The purpose of the moder-
ating effect analysis is to explore when aggressive traits affect cyber-
bullying or when they have a significant impact (Muller et al., 2005). If
the relationship between aggressive traits as the independent variable
and cyberbullying as the dependent variable is affected by the third
variable of beliefs about aggression, then beliefs about aggression are a
mediating variable, representing a mechanism in which aggressive
traits indirectly affect cyberbullying by influencing beliefs about ag-
gression. The purpose of mediation effect analysis is to explore how
aggressive traits as the independent variable affect cyberbullying as the
dependent variable (Muller et al., 2005). If a model contains more than
three variables as well as both moderation and mediation variables,
these variables in the different position and role of model can produce
different models. The mediated moderation model and the moderated
mediation model contain two kinds of common models of moderation
and mediation variables. Among them, the mediated moderation model
implies that the effect of the independent variable on dependent vari-
able is influenced by the moderator variable while the moderator effect
(at least partially) is affected by the mediating variable (Baron & Kenny,
1986; Wen et al., 2012; Ye & Wen, 2013). That is to say, the mediated
moderation model indicates that the effect of aggressive traits on cy-
berbullying is influenced by network public opinion, and the moder-
ating effect (at least in part) works through beliefs about aggression.
The moderated mediation model means that the independent variable
influences the dependent variable through the mediating variable, and
the mediation process is regulated by the moderating variable (Baron &
Kenny, 1986; Wen et al., 2006; Ye&Wen, 2013). In other words, the
moderated mediation model indicates that aggressive traits impact
cyberbullying through beliefs about aggression, and this mediation
process is moderated by network public opinion. However, the pur-
poses and focuses of these two models are quite different, as are their
arguments and explanations. The focus of the mediated moderation
model is to consider whether the direction (positive or negative) and
strength (strong or weak) of the relationship between aggression traits
as the independent variable and cyberbullying as the dependent vari-
able is affected by the network public opinion as the moderating vari-
able, namely, the moderating effect. Secondly, it considers how the
network public opinion of moderating variable works—that is, whether
it works through beliefs about aggression as the mediating variable. The
focus of the moderated mediation model is to consider the effect of the
mechanism of aggression traits as the independent variable on cyber-
bullying as the dependent variable, namely, the mediation effect and,
secondly, whether the mediation process is moderated—that is, when
the mediation effect is stronger and when it is weaker ( HYPERLINK \l
"bib62" \o "bib62" Ye&Wen, 2013).
The mediated moderation model can further explore the relation-
ship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying and its mechanism,
which means aggressive traits are one of the important risk factors for
cyberbullying, preliminarily illustrates the conditions under which ag-
gressive traits work, and also reveals how aggressive traits affect cy-
berbullying under different conditions. The moderated mediation
model is more effective in explaining the phenomenon of cyberbullying
M. Song, et al.
than the pure moderation or mediation model. The mediated modera-
tion model is designed to explain how aggressive traits and network
public opinion interactively affect cyberbullying and whether beliefs
about aggression mediate their interactive effect. The moderated
mediation model can further explore how aggressive traits affect cy-
berbullying (the mediation mechanism) and under what conditions (the
moderation mechanism). The mediation mechanism can answer how
aggressive traits as the independent variable affect cyberbullying as the
dependent variable, but it only focuses on the “process” and “com-
monness” of the occurrence of variable relations. It cannot answer who
is more significant in terms of the effect of aggressive traits as the in-
dependent variable on cyberbullying as the dependent variable—that
is, the “condition” and “personality” issues of the occurrence of variable
relations. As far as the current study is concerned, the mediating effect
of beliefs about aggression can only explain that it is the proximal factor
between aggressive traits and cyberbullying; namely, beliefs about ag-
gression mediate the effects of aggressive traits on cyberbullying.
However, the indirect effect of beliefs about aggression may be mod-
erated by other factors. That is, the indirect effect is more significant for
an individual in a certain situation and may not be obvious for an in-
dividual in another situation. The moderated mediation model is de-
signed to investigate the mediating effect of beliefs about aggression
between aggressive traits and cyberbullying, and this mediation effect
is moderated by network public opinion.
Based on the abovementioned theories and empirical evidences, the
current study comprehensively investigated the effects of these vari-
ables of network public opinion, aggressive traits, and beliefs about
aggression on cyberbullying and put forward five hypotheses, which
were intended to test the two competitive models of mediated mod-
eration and moderated mediation according to the general aggression
model and the trait activation theory. In addition, the current study
examined the roles of beliefs about aggression and network public
opinion between aggressive traits and cyberbullying, which is con-
ducive to in-depth understanding of the effect mechanism of aggressive
traits on cyberbullying and the conditions of its occurrence, to provide
effective theoretical basis for the prevention of and intervention in
cyberbullying.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
In the current study, 700 questionnaires were randomly assigned to
college students from three universities in China via convenience
sampling. During the process, seven of them failed to answer some
questions and were excluded. Thus, there were 693 valid questionnaires
(211 males and 482 females), and the effective recovery rate was 99%.
Internet age ranged from 1 to 23 years (M = 7.65 years, SD = 2.24
years). Time spent online ranged from 0.5 to 24.0 h per day with an
average of 5.41 h per day (SD = 2.52 h). The current study followed the
principle of voluntariness, and course credits were given to participants
after completion. The current study was approved by the Ethics
Committee of the authors’ university in accordance with the ethical
principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants gave written
informed consent in accordance with the ethical principles of the
Declaration of Helsinki.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Manipulation material of network public opinion guidance
According to Huang, Ding, Wei, and Hong (2018), the manipulation
of materials of network public opinion orientation (rational or irra-
tional expression) were presented in the form of virtual community
page posts. The information presented includes post events and com-
ments from netizens on post events, where the post events are the same
(e.g., a star was reported to have beaten a reporter), but netizens tend to
171
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
comment on post events differently. That is, most of the comments were
supportive of a star's behavior in the irrational expression group,
whereas while some of the comments were supportive of his or her
behaviors in the rational expression group, others were opposed, and a
few were neutral. Then, the participants were asked to evaluate the
attitudes of the parties according to the post events, and three different
options were set for the participants to choose according to their true
attitudes. The three attitudinal evaluation options were (1) opposing
the violence of the parties, with a score of 1; (2) supporting the violence
of the parties, with a score of 2; and (3) maintaining a neutral attitude,
with both parties responsible, and with a score of 3. To test the effec-
tiveness of the manipulation, an independent sample t-test was con-
ducted for the rational and irrational comment groups. There was a
significant difference between the rational (M = 2.75, SD = 0.50) and
irrational comment groups (M = 2.28, SD = 0.91; t(690) = 4.70,
p < 0.001, d = 0.64). This indicated that the material manipulation of
the current study was effective, and different expressions of network
public opinion ere formed through different comment tendencies of the
virtual community page posts.
2.2.2. Aggressive traits scale
The Aggression Questionnaire was compiled by Buss and Perry
(1992) and revised by Zhang et al. (2017). It is a 29-item questionnaire
that uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (full) and
includes four factors: physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and
hostility. Responses across the 29 items were summed up with higher
scores indicating higher levels of aggressive traits. In the current study,
the second-order CFA model generated a very good fit with χ2/
df = 3.51, CFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.002, and
both the absolute and value-added adaptation indexes were within the
acceptable range. In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient
was 0.86.
2.2.3. Beliefs about Aggression Scale
The Normative Beliefs about Aggression Scale was compiled by
Huesmann and Guerra (1997) and revised by Zhang et al. (2017). It is a
20-item questionnaire that uses a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(completely unreasonable) to 4 (completely reasonable); 12 items are
retaliatory beliefs about aggression in specific situations, and the re-
maining 8 items are beliefs about aggression in general situations. Re-
sponses across the 20 items were summed with higher scores indicating
higher levels of beliefs about aggression. In the current study, the
second-order CFA model generated a very good fit with χ2/df = 3.02,
CFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.031, and both the
absolute and value-added adaptation indexes were within the accep-
table range. In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was
0.87.
2.2.4. Cyberbullying scale
The Cyber Victim and Bullying Scale was compiled by Çetin et al.
(2011). As this study aimed to measure bullying of others, irrelevant
items in the scale were eliminated, and the translated scale was revised
to form the Chinese revision scale. The scale is a 25-item questionnaire
that uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Responses across the 25 items were summed up with higher scores
indicating higher levels of cyberbullying. In the current study, the
second-order CFA model generated a very good fit with χ2/df = 2.58,
CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.020, and both the
absolute and value-added adaptation indexes were within the accep-
table range. In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was
0.97.
2.3. Procedure
The current study was conducted by well-trained graduate students
majoring in psychology. With the help and cooperation of school
M. Song, et al. Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178

teachers, the group testing was carried out with the class as a unit with
unified procedures. Participants first filled in the demographic variables
(such as gender, grade, network age), and then were randomly pre-
sented with virtual community page posts with rational or irrational
expression of network public opinion. They were asked to evaluate the
event of the post and the evaluation results were neither good nor bad.
Then, the participants completed the measurement of aggressive traits,
belief about aggression, and cyberbullying, and finally, the experi-
menter collected questionnaires on the spot.
2.4. Statistical analyses
provided in Table 1. The results of the bivariate correlations showed
that aggressive traits were positively correlated with beliefs about ag-
gression and cyberbullying (p < 0.01), and beliefs about aggression
were positively correlated with cyberbullying (p < 0.01). Network
public opinion was not significantly correlated with belief about ag-
gression and cyberbullying except for a negative correlation with ag-
gressive traits. In addition, Internet age, grade, and Internet time were
all significantly positively correlated with cyberbullying. Therefore,
Internet age, grade, and Internet time were used as control variables in
subsequent analysis to explore independent effect of aggressive traits
and beliefs about aggression on cyberbullying.

Data collected in the current study were recorded on a computer

and processed using SPSS 22.0 and Amos 21.0. According to Erceg-
Hurn and Mirosevich (2008), the bootstrap confidence intervals were
used to test the significance of the regression coefficients. This method
does not need to assume normality of the data but reconstructs the
sample distribution by adopting a random sampling method based on
the original sample (a total of 5000 resamples in the current study, each
with a sample size of 693), which then obtains a robust standard error
of the parameter estimation and confidence intervals with 95% bias
correction. If the confidence interval does not contain zero, it indicates
statistical significance.
3. Results
3.1. Common method biases test
The common method bias (CMB) may exist in the current study as
all of the questions in the survey were answered by the same re-
spondent. We used two techniques to check whether there was a threat
of CMB. First, Harman's single-factor test was conducted to determine if
the variance of our data came largely from a common method source
(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We subjected all of the
measurement items of major constructs and control variables to a
principal component analysis to see how many orthogonal components
would emerge. Fourteen components with eigenvalues of more than 1.0
emerged, and the largest single component accounted for 20.38% of the
variance. Secondly, the single-factor model was constructed with all
dimensions of aggressive traits, beliefs about aggression, and cyber-
bullying as indicators. The results indicated that the CFA model gen-
erated a poor fit with χ2/df = 17.182, RMSEA = 0.157, NFI = 0.186,
CFI = 0.743, SRMR = 0.094, indicating that there was no significant
CMB between the variables.
3.2. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
Descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix of aggressive traits,
beliefs about aggression, network public opinion, and cyberbullying are
3.3. The relationship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying: a mixed
model analysis
According to Ye and Wen (2013), if the mediated moderation model
satisfied the following three requirements, it indicated the existence of
mediated moderation effect (see Table 2). In the first step, aggressive
traits as the independent variable had a significant effect on cyberbul-
lying as the dependent variable (β = 0.47, p < 0.001). Aggressive
traits as the independent variable and network public opinion as the
moderator should significantly interact to influence cyberbullying as
the dependent variable (β = −0.24, p < 0.001). Next, as a second
step, aggressive traits as the independent variable should have a sig-
nificant effect on beliefs about aggression as the mediator (β = 0.25,
p < 0.001), and the interaction effect of aggressive traits as the in-
dependent variable × network public opinion as the moderator on be-
liefs about aggression as the mediator was required to be significant
(β = −0.28, p < 0.001). Finally, in the third step, beliefs about ag-
gression as the mediator was added into the model while additionally
controlling for the interaction of beliefs about aggression as the med-
iator × network public opinion as the moderator. The third condition to
support a mediated moderation model required that beliefs about ag-
gression as the mediator were significantly related to cyberbullying as
the dependent variable (β = 0.12, p < 0.05) and that the relationship
between cyberbullying as the dependent variable and the interaction of
aggressive traits as the independent variable × network public opinion
as the moderator was reduced in size (β = −0.18, p < 0.01) after
controlling for the interaction of beliefs about aggression as the med-
iator × network public opinion as the moderator. Predictors were
standardized in each equation, and the network age, grade, and net-
work time were controlled. The variance expansion factor of all pre-
dictive variables was less than 1, so there was no multicollinearity
problem. The results of further test on the integrated model indicated
that the degree of fit of the model was good (χ2/df = 3.02, CFI = 0.92,
NFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.032; see Fig. 3). Among them, the
interaction between aggressive traits and network public opinion sig-
nificantly negatively predicted cyberbullying (γ = −0.23, p < 0.001),
the interaction between aggressive traits and network public opinion

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of all variables.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Sex a
– – 1
2 Grade – – −0.07 1
3 Internet age 5.83 2.70 0.10 0.16∗∗ 1
4 Internet time 4.00 3.01 0.20∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.27∗∗ 1
5 Aggressive traits 73.27 15.07 −0.04 0.09 0.04 0.21∗∗ 1
6 Belief about aggression 43.89 4.85 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.26∗∗ 1
7 Network public opinion b
– – −0.02 0.33∗∗ 0.10 0.06 −0.13∗ −0.08 1
8 Cyberbullying 36.51 15.57 0.10 0.28∗∗ 0.18∗∗ 0.29∗∗ 0.52∗∗ 0.34∗∗ −0.07 1

Note. N = 693.
∗
p-value < 0.05, ∗∗p-value < 0.01.
a
Gender is a dummy variable, female = 0, male = 1.
b
Network public opinion is a dummy variable, irrational comment = 0, rational comment = 1.

172
M. Song, et al. Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178

Table 2
Testing the mediated moderator effect model.
Variables Model 1(Y: Cyberbullying) Model 2 (M: Beliefs about aggression) Model 3(Y: Cyberbullying)

B SE β 95%CI B SE β 95%CI B SE β 95%CI

∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗

X 0.47 0.53 0.47 [0.37, 0.58] 0.25 0.07 0.25 [0.11, 0.39] 0.44 0.05 0.44 [0.34, 0.55]
U −0.17 0.05 −0.17∗∗ [−0.27, −0.07] −0.09 0.07 −0.09 [−0.22, 0.04] −0.16 0.05 −0.16∗∗ [−0.26, −0.06]
X×U −0.24 0.05 −0.24∗∗∗ [−0.34, −0.14] −0.28 0.07 −0.28∗∗∗ [−0.41, −0.15] −0.18 0.05 −0.18∗∗ [−0.28, −0.08]
M 0.12 0.05 0.12∗ [0.01, 0.22]
M×U −0.12 0.05 −0.12∗ [−0.22, −0.01]
Sex 0.16 0.10 0.16 [−0.03, 0.36] 0.17 0.13 0.17 [−0.09, 0.43] 0.14 0.01 0.14 [−0.05, 0.34]
Grade 0.25 0.06 0.25∗∗∗ [0.12, 0.39] 0.09 0.08 0.09 [−0.08, 0.26] 0.24 0.06 0.24∗∗∗ [0.11, 0.37]
Internet age 0.02 0.02 0.05 [−0.02, 0.05] 0.02 0.02 0.02 [−0.03, 0.07] 0.02 0.02 0.02 [−0.02, 0.05]
Internet time 0.03 0.02 0.03 [−0.01, 0.06] −0.03 0.02 −0.03 [−0.08, 0.02] 0.03 0.02 0.03 [−0.01, 0.07]
R2 0.54 0.20 0.56
F 33.92∗∗∗ 7.39∗∗∗ 28.53∗∗∗

Note. X, U, M, and Y represent aggressive trait, network public opinion, beliefs about aggression, and cyberbullying, respectively, as below. Therefore, the 95%
confidence interval of predicted variables was obtained by bootstrap method; ∗p-value < 0.05, ∗∗p-value < 0.01, ∗∗∗p-value < 0.001.

Fig. 3. The mediated moderator effect model. Note. R2 represents the inter-
pretation rate of variance. The dotted line is not significant; ∗p-value < 0.05,
∗∗
p-value < 0.01, ∗∗∗p-value < 0.001.
Fig. 4. The moderated mediation effect model. Note. R2 represents the inter-
pretation rate of variance. The dotted line is not significant; ∗p-value < 0.05,
∗∗
p-value < 0.01, ∗∗∗p-value < 0.001.

significantly negatively predicted beliefs about aggression (γ = −0.27,

considered the mediated moderator model.
p < 0.001), and beliefs about aggression significantly positively pre-
To clearly explain the nature of the effect of the interaction between
dicted cyberbullying (γ = 0.13, p < 0.05). The above results showed
aggressive traits and network public opinion on cyberbullying, a simple
that the interaction between network public opinion and aggressive
effect analysis graph was drawn based on the values of the regression
traits would indirectly affect cyberbullying through beliefs about ag-
equation taken from the mean of the independent variable and the
gression as a mediating variable. Therefore, a mediating moderator
moderating variable plus or minus one standard deviation (see Figs. 5
model is established.
and 6). It could be found that, under the guidance of network public
According to Ye and Wen (2013), if the moderated mediation model
opinion with irrational comments, aggressive traits had a significant
satisfied the following three requirements, it indicated the existence of
positive predictive effect on cyberbullying (bsimple = 0.08, SE = 0.06,
a moderated mediation effect (see Table 2). In the first step, aggressive
traits as the independent variable had a significant effect on cyberbul-
lying as the dependent variable (β = 0.47, p < 0.001). Aggressive
traits as the independent variable and network public opinion as the
moderator should significantly interact to influence cyberbullying as
the dependent variable (β = −0.24, p < 0.001). Next, as a second
step, aggressive traits as the independent variable and network public
opinion as the moderator should significantly interact to influence be-
liefs about aggression as the mediator (β = −0.28, p < 0.001). Finally,
in the third step, beliefs about aggression as the mediator and network
public opinion as the moderator should significantly interact to influ-
ence cyberbullying as the dependent variable (β = −0.12, p < 0.05),
and there should be a moderating effect of aggressive traits as the in-
dependent variable on the residual effect of cyberbullying as the de-
pendent variable (β = −0.18, p < 0.01). Predictors were standardized
in each equation, and the network age, grade, and network time were
controlled. The variance expansion factor of all predictive variables was
less than 1, so there was no multicollinearity problem. The results of
further test on the integrated model indicated that the degree of fit of
the model was not good (χ2/df = 3.02, CFI = 0.72, NFI = 0.85, Fig. 5. Interaction of aggressive traits and network public opinion on cyber-
GFI = 0.74, RMSEA = 0.078; see Fig. 4). Thus, the current study only bullying.

173
M. Song, et al.
Fig. 6. Interaction of aggressive traits and network public opinion on beliefs
about aggression.
p < 0.001); under the guidance of network public opinion with ra-
tional comments, the positive predictive effect of aggressive traits on
cyberbullying was weakened (bsimple = 0.03, SE = 0.09, p < 0.05). Si-
milarly, under the guidance of network public opinion with irrational
comments, aggressive traits had a significant positive predictive effect
on beliefs about aggression (bsimple = 0.07, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001);
under the guidance of network public opinion with rational comments,
aggressive traits had no significant positive predictive effect on cyber-
bullying (bsimple = 0.01, SE = 0.08, p = 0.600)—that is, when in-
dividuals were in the situation of irrational expression of network
public opinion, aggressive traits directly affected cyberbullying.
In summary, aggressive traits significantly positively predicted cy-
berbullying, network public opinion had a moderating effect on the
relationship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying, and beliefs
about aggression played a mediating role in this moderating effect. That
is, under the guidance of the network public opinion with irrational
comments, aggressive traits not only affected cyberbullying by acting
on beliefs about aggression but also directly affected cyberbullying. On
the contrary, under the guidance of the network public opinion with
rational comments, aggressive traits directly affected the occurrence of
cyberbullying.
4. Discussion
4.1. The relationship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying
The current study found no significant difference in cyberbullying as
a function of gender, which is consistent with some existing findings
(Zhang et al., 2017). This may be because traditional bullying relies on
strength and small group implementation, while cyberbullying relies on
Internet technology and anonymity. The bullying is conducted directly
by virtue of the Internet; thus, the influence of differences in physical
strength between men and women is greatly reduced. In addition, the
current study also found that grade, Internet age, and Internet time
were significantly positively correlated with Internet bullying, which
was consistent with previous findings (Li et al., 2016; Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004). At the university stage, the goals and priorities faced
by students in each grade are also very different. These differences will
lead to the stage and level of their emotions. As the grades increase,
college students who face a stronger sense of pressure, greater emo-
tional fluctuations, and more negative experiences are more inclined to
vent through the Internet, which is more likely to cause cyberbullying
(Li et al., 2016). Because of the virtual and indirect nature of the net-
work, individuals with an older age are more inclined to bully others
174
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
indirectly rather than directly online by spreading rumors and pub-
lishing false information. The older the network, the longer the time
they spend on the Internet, and the more likely they are to be bullied
(Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004).
The correlation analysis showed that aggressive traits had a sig-
nificant positive effect on cyberbullying. The higher of aggressive traits,
the more likely it might lead to cyberbullying. According to the clues
filter theory (Walther, 1992), as network communication lacks effective
social communication clues and the premise of physical absenteeism
has the characteristics of over time and space, it is impossible to cor-
rectly judge the correct tone of voice, attitude response, and emotional
state for individuals with high aggressive traits communicating with
others. This will reduce the empathy ability in these individuals without
burdening them with more negative emotions, such as guilt and re-
morse, resulting in the occurrence of cyberbullying (Allison, Bussey, &
Lindsey, 2016). In addition, when using the network, individuals with
high aggressive traits are apt to over-identify some information from
the network as threatening stimuli, which leads to cognitive imbalance
of the pre-attention system and reduces the critical value of the dan-
gerous stimuli probability, resulting in cognitive bias and physiological
alertness and further arousing anger, anxiety, and other negative
emotional experience. To adjust the imbalance caused by the rapid
changes of physiology and psychology, individuals often choose some
extreme bad behaviors for self-adjustment (Barhaim, Lamy, Pergamin,
Bakermanskranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007), which indirectly
leads to the emergence of cyberbullying.
4.2. Moderating role of network public opinion
After controlling gender, grade, Internet age, and Internet time, the
current study found that Internet public opinion played a significant
moderating role in the relationship between aggressive traits and cy-
berbullying. Irrational expression of Internet public opinion sig-
nificantly enhanced the predictive effect of aggressive traits on cyber-
bullying. Aggressive traits have relatively little predictive effect on
cyberbullying in the context of the rational expression of network
public opinion, which supports previous findings (Dewall et al., 2011).
According to the trait activation theory, the effect of aggressive traits on
cyberbullying will be moderated by Internet public opinion. This is
because the public of network public opinion (especially Internet users)
use the Internet as a platform to exert certain influence or express
biased opinions or remarks on some certain public events through
network language or other means (Hu, 2016). Because of the anonymity
and virtual characteristics of the current network platform, the ex-
pression of network public opinion has become differentiated into ir-
rational and rational expressions. Individuals with aggressive traits
influenced by the irrational expression of Internet public opinion may
choose to maintain consistency with other people's opinions and thus be
more likely to engage in cyberbullying, such as abuse and slander (Cao
& Bai, 2011; Lin & Li, 2016). Näsi et al. found that there was a sig-
nificant association between exposure to websites relating to eating
disorders and online harassment. Hawdon et al. (2016) found that there
is a considerable amount of hate material online, but the degree to
which individuals from different countries are exposed to these mate-
rials varies, and thus there can be country-wide differences in degree of
online hate. On the contrary, individuals with aggressive traits influ-
enced by rational expressions may correspondingly show less cyber-
bullying. Similarly, according to the “spiral of silence” theory, network
public opinion is an atmosphere in which network groups comment on
a hot topic. Under the pressure of rational or irrational comments, in-
dividuals, fearing being isolated from the group, would choose the
viewpoint consistent with the rest of the group members by force of
pressure, remaining silent about their own true opinion (Zhang et al.,
2017). Especially in the irrational atmosphere of online public opinion,
aggressive individuals are more likely to enact cyberbullying.
M. Song, et al.
4.3. Mediating role of beliefs about aggression
The results of the current study indicated that beliefs about ag-
gression partially mediated the relationship between aggressive traits
and cyberbullying. It showed that beliefs about aggression played a
“bridge” role in the moderating effect of network public opinion on the
relationship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying. That is, the
reason network public opinion plays a moderating role in the re-
lationship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying is that the irra-
tional expression of network public opinion plays a moderating role in
the relationship between aggressive traits and beliefs about aggression.
In other words, there is a mediating moderator effect between ag-
gressive traits and cyberbullying; namely, beliefs about aggression play
a mediating role in the effect of the interaction between aggressive
traits and network public opinion on cyberbullying. Specifically, ag-
gressive traits in the rational expression of network public opinion do
not have much impact on beliefs about aggression and have no in-
hibitory effect on cyberbullying while, in the irrational expression of
network public opinion, they significantly influence cyberbullying
through beliefs about aggression, which is consistent with the findings
of related research (Ang et al., 2011; Williams & Guerra, 2007). Ac-
cording to group polarization theory, when individuals with aggressive
traits are in the atmosphere of irrational or rational expression of net-
work public opinion, they will change their acceptance and recognition
of aggressive behaviors due to the influence of emotional infection or
inflammatory language of other groups, thus causing cyberbullying
(Liu, 2014a, 2014b). In addition, the cognitive connection theory holds
that, when individuals with aggressive traits are in the atmosphere of
irrational expression of network public opinion, aggressive words such
as abuse and insult in the network platform will activate individuals’
thinking memory related to aggression and affect the generation of
cyberbullying. When network comments or opinions form an atmo-
sphere of rational expression of network public opinion, individuals
with aggressive traits will change their perceptions and judgments of
the current situation according to the group atmosphere, and beliefs
about aggression will not be easily activated, which will reduce the
occurrence of cyberbullying accordingly (Liu et al., 2015). In the at-
mosphere of irrational expression of network public opinion, in-
dividuals with high aggressive traits are more inclined to recognize and
accept cyberbullying and consider cyberbullying as a reasonable way to
solve the problem. Their own cognitive bias towards rationalization of
aggressive behaviors increases the likelihood that individuals will shift
this cognitive attitude in real life to cyberspace, making them show
more cyberbullying in the face of irrational comments or opinions in
cyberspace.
The mediated moderation model can further explore the relation-
ship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying, and its mechanism,
which means aggressive traits are one of the important risk factors for
cyberbullying, preliminarily illustrates the conditions under which ag-
gressive traits work and also reveals how aggressive traits affect cy-
berbullying under different conditions. The moderated mediation
model is more effective in explaining the phenomenon of cyberbullying
than the pure moderation or mediation model. The current study found
that, during the occurrence of cyberbullying, the irrational expression
of network public opinion in the network environment increases the
beliefs about aggression of individuals with high aggressive traits,
which is more likely to cause cyberbullying. On the contrary, the ra-
tional expression atmosphere of network public opinion has a relatively
low probability of activating beliefs of about aggression of individuals
with aggressive traits, thus producing less cyberbullying.
4.4. Practical implications and future directions
Based on the general aggression model and trait activation theory,
the current study explored the effects of aggressive traits on cyberbul-
lying from the perspective of network public opinion and found that the
175
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
irrational expression of network public opinion would increase beliefs
about aggression of individuals with high aggressive traits and then
induce cyberbullying, which has certain theoretical significance for
studies of aggressive traits on cyberbullying. In addition, the current
study proposed two competitive models and then chose a mediated
moderator to examine the effects of aggressive traits on cyberbullying
as well as the moderating role of network public opinion and mediating
role of beliefs about aggression in this process based on research pur-
pose, research focus, and integrated model fit. It not only widened the
application scope of general aggression model but also contributed to
an understanding of the process of cyberbullying.
In addition, the findings of the current study can provide some
guidance for preventing and reducing cyberbullying. The current study
found a positive correlation between cyberbullying and grade, network
age, and internet time. This reminds us that parents and schools should
correctly guide students' online behaviors, avoid indulging in network
virtual space for extended periods, reasonably control online time, and
reduce the potential for cyberbullying. The current study also found
that network public opinion moderated the relationship between ag-
gressive traits and cyberbullying. This further reminds us that the
government should engage with network public opinion and guide the
formation of an orderly and standardized network society in cyber-
space. In view of the irrational comments of network public opinion, we
should make full use of the role of opinion leaders, change irrational
public opinion, and create a rational atmosphere of public opinion. At
the same time, we should improve the moral quality of netizens, purify
cyberspace, create a green network platform, strengthen the super-
vision of violent video or games on the network, and prevent copycat
behavior of netizens to prevent and reduce cyberbullying. Moreover,
the current study also found that beliefs about aggression mediated the
relationship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying. At the same
time, it suggests that we can promote a “zero tolerance” attitude to-
wards cyberbullying and prevent the emergence of irregular behavior
by changing an individual's biased beliefs about aggressive behavior.
For example, role-playing or discussion can be used to simulate the
adverse effects of cyberbullying on others, enhance individuals' ability
to empathize with the victim, and change the cognitive attitude towards
aggressive behaviors, thereby reducing and preventing the occurrence
of cyberbullying (Zhu, Chen, & Zhou, 2014).
However, there are still some limitations of the current study that
require perfection and improvement in the future. Firstly, for the se-
lection of independent variables, the current study only examined the
effect of aggressive traits and beliefs about aggression in individual
factors on cyberbullying. Future studies can examine the effect of dif-
ferent factors more comprehensively (such as family, school, social
environment, and so on) on cyberbullying; secondly, the measurement
of cyberbullying in the current study is only for bullies, and future
studies should consider other perspectives (such as bullies, bystanders)
to explore the effects of aggressive traits on cyberbullying; thirdly, as
far as the moderating mechanism is concerned, the current study only
examined the moderator variables at the group level, and future studies
can explore the moderator at the individual level. Similarly, in terms of
the mediating mechanism, the current study found that beliefs about
aggression only had a partial mediating effect between aggressive traits
and cyberbullying, which indicates that there may be other mediating
variables. Future studies can examine the mediating variables at the
emotional level. Fourth, the current study adopted a cross-sectional
design and questionnaire survey, which made it difficult to explain any
causality between variables and could not assess the “influence” of
particular variables. Future studies may consider using a longitudinal
design to investigate the occurrence mechanism of cyberbullying from a
developmental and dynamic perspective. Fifth, this study was based on
a small Chinese sample, and the proportion of female students was high,
and so the effects may not be universal. Future studies should increase
the sample size and balance the proportion of males and females.
M. Song, et al.
5. Conclusion
The current study took a crucial step in exploring the roles of net-
work public opinion and beliefs about aggression on the impact of ag-
gressive traits on cyberbullying and provided a substantial contribution
to proposing measures for preventing cyberbullying among netizens.
The results of the current study revealed that aggressive traits sig-
nificantly predicted beliefs about aggression and cyberbullying, net-
work public opinion moderated the relationship between aggressive
traits and cyberbullying, and beliefs about aggression partially medi-
ated the moderating effect of network public opinion on the relation-
ship between aggressive traits and cyberbullying.
Author contributions
Conceive and writing frame design: LZ and SL. Wrote the paper: MS,
ZZ and SL. Revise the manuscript: MS, ZZ, SL, HF, TZ and LZ.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (71874170), the National Social Science Fund of
China (12BSH055) and the K.C. Wong Magna Fund at Ningbo
University. Minghua Song, Zhuan Zhu and Shen Liu shared the first
authorships.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.015.
Appendix
Aggressive Traits Scale
Instructions: This part is the description of oneself. Please draw
“○” or “√” on the corresponding number after each sentence is read
according to the degree of consistency with yourself. Among them,
1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = not sure, 4 = a little bit, 5 = full.
1.My friends say that I'm somewhat argumentative. 1 2 3 4 5
2.If I must resort to violence to protect my rights, I will.
1 2 3 4 5
3.When people are especially nice, I wonder what they want.
1 2 3 4 5
4.I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I have become so mad that I have broken things. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I can't help getting into arguments when people disagree with me.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things.
1 2 3 4 5
8. Occasionally, I can't control the urge to strike another person.
1 2 3 4 5
9. I am an even-tempered person. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I have threatened people I know. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I flare up quickly but get over it quickly. 1 2 3 4 5
13. There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows.
1 2 3 4 5
14. When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.
1 2 3 4 5
176
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
15. I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person.
1 2 3 4 5
17. At times, I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I have trouble controlling my temper. 1 2 3 4 5
19. When frustrated, I let my irritation show. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.
1 2 3 4 5
21. I often find myself disagreeing with people. 1 2 3 4 5
22. If somebody hits me, I hit back. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode.
1 2 3 4 5
24. Other people always seem to get the breaks. 1 2 3 4 5
25. Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.
1 2 3 4 5
26. I know that “friends” talk about me behind my back.
1 2 3 4 5
27. Some of my friends think I'm a hothead. 1 2 3 4 5
28. Sometimes, I fly off the handle for no good reason. 1 2 3 4 5
29. I get into fights a little more than the average person does.
1 2 3 4 5
Beliefs about Aggression Scale
Instructions: The following questions ask you about whether you
think certain behaviors are WRONG or are OK. Please draw “○” or “√”
that best describes what you think. Among them, 1 = not at all, 2 = a
little, 3 = a little bit, 4 = full.
Suppose a boy says something bad to another boy, John.
1. Do you think it's OK for John to scream at him? 1 2 3 4
2. Do you think it's OK for John to hit him? 1 2 3 4
Suppose a boy says something bad to a girl.
3. Do you think it's wrong for the girl to scream at him? 1 2 3 4
4. Do you think it's wrong for the girl to hit him? 1 2 3 4
Suppose a girl says something bad to another girl, Mary.
5. Do you think it's OK for Mary to scream at her? 1 2 3 4
6. Do you think it's OK for Mary to hit her? 1 2 3 4
Suppose a girl says something bad to a boy.
7. Do you think it's wrong for the boy to scream at her? 1 2 3 4
8. Do you think it's wrong for the boy to hit her? 1 2 3 4
Suppose a boy hits another boy, John?
9. Do you think it's wrong for John to hit him back? 1 2 3 4
Suppose a boy hits a girl.
10. Do you think it's OK for the girl to hit him back? 1 2 3 4
Suppose a girl hits another girl, Mary?
11. Do you think it's wrong for Mary to hit her back? 1 2 3 4
Suppose a girl hits a boy.
12. Do you think it's wrong for the boy to hit her back? 1 2 3 4
13. In general, it is wrong to hit other people. 1 2 3 4
14. If you're angry, it is OK to say mean things to other people.
1 2 3 4
M. Song, et al. Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178

15. In general, it is OK to yell at others and say bad things. 1 2 3 4 intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25(3), 35–42. https://doi.
16. It is usually OK to push or shove other people around if you're mad. org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.011.
Ang, R. P., Huan, V. S., & Florell, D. (2014). Understanding the relationship between
1 2 3 4 proactive and reactive aggression, and cyberbullying across United States and
17. It is wrong to insult other people. 1 2 3 4 Singapore adolescent samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(2), 237–254.
18. It is wrong to take it out on others by saying mean things when https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505149.
Ang, R. P., Tan, K. A., & Talib, M. A. (2011). Normative beliefs about aggression as a
you're mad. 1 2 3 4 mediator of narcissistic exploitativeness and cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal
19. It is generally wrong to get into physical fights with others. Violence, 26(13), 2619–2634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510388286.
1 2 3 4 Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2015). Cyber and school bullying: Same or different
phenomena? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/
20. In general, it is OK to take your anger out on others by using j.avb.2015.09.013.
physical force. 1 2 3 4 Athanasiades, C., Baldry, A. C., Kamariotis, T., Kostouli, M., & Psalti, A. (2016). The “net”
of the internet: Risk factors for cyberbullying among secondary-school students in
Greece. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(2), 1–17.
Cyberbullying Scale
Barhaim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermanskranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M.
H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A
Instructions: Many college students will participate in the inter- meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/
action on the Internet. Weibo, and posting are very common network 0033-2909.133.1.1.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
behaviors. Many people will also respond to or evaluate other people's social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
information release. The purpose of this study is to understand college Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
students' participation in network behavior and its impact on college Baroncelli, A., & Ciucci, E. (2014). Unique effects of different components of trait emo-
tional intelligence in traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescence,
Students' daily life. The following are some of the behaviors on the 37(6), 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.05.009.
Internet. Please draw “○” or “√” on the corresponding number after Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
each sentence is read according to the degree of consistency with Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452.
Cao, R., & Bai, S. L. (2011). The characteristics of net opinion in China at the present
yourself. Among them, 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = not sure, 4 = a stage. Journal of Hebei University (Philosophy and Social Science), 36(2), 70–75.
little bit, 5 = full. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6378.2011.02.016 [In Chinese].
Çetin, B., Yaman, E., & Peker, A. (2011). Cyber victim and bullying scale: A study of
validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2261–2271. https://doi.org/
1. Using offensive symbols on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.014.
2. Editing photos in offensive manner on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Dewall, C. N., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). The general aggression model:
3. Using Internet as a slandering tool. 1 2 3 4 5 Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1(3), 245–258. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0023842.
4. Disclosure of information about the family members of the parties
Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods: An
to the incident on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American
5. Hiding identity on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Psychologist, 63(7), 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.591.
6. Reproduce spoof pictures of events on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Gagnon, J., Mercédès, A., Emond, F. C., Derguy, S., Brochu, A. F., Bessette, M., et al.
(2017). An ERP study on hostile attribution bias in aggressive and nonaggressive
7. Detail the event in the comments. 1 2 3 4 5 individuals: ERP study of hostile attribution bias. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 217–229.
8. Spread false information on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21676.
9. Sharing videos without permission on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Geel, M. V., Goemans, A., Toprak, F., & Vedder, P. (2017). Which personality traits are
related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the big five, dark triad
10. Sharing someone's photos without permission on the Internet. and sadism. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 231–235. https://doi.org/10.
1 2 3 4 5 1016/j.paid.2016.10.063.
11. Writing offensive comments about news on websites. Gini, G., & Espelage, D. L. (2014). Peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide risk in
children and adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312(5),
1 2 3 4 5 545–546. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3212.
12. Using humiliating expressions on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Exposure to online hate in four nations: A
13. Using Internet as a propaganda tool for own benefit. cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01639625.2016.1196985.
1 2 3 4 5
Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T. I., Toumbourou, J. W.,
14. Using nicknames on the Internet in a disturbing way. et al. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in
1 2 3 4 5 Australian secondary school students. Journal of Adolescent Health Official Publication
of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 51(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
15. Publishing the personal information of the parties involved in the
jadohealth.2011.11.019.
incident through the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Holt, M. K., Vivolokantor, A. M., Polanin, J. R., Holland, K. M., Degue, S., Matjasko, J. L.,
16. Rumoring on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 et al. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis.
17. Mocking on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Pediatrics, 135(2), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1864.
Hu, Q. (2016). The correct guidance of irrational expression of network public opinion.
18. Blaming on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Journal News Research, 7(11), 46.
19. Using someone's identity without his/her permission on the Huang, F., Ding, Q., Wei, H., & Hong, J. Z. (2018). Effects of post thematic characteristics
Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 on knowledge sharing in the virtual community: The bystander effect perspective.
Acta Psychology Sinica, 50(2), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.
20. Entering someone's private page without permission on the 00226 [In Chinese].
Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression
21. Editing videos in offensive manner on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408–419.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408.
22. Publish private life on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Huesmann, L. R., & Kirwil, L. (2007). Why observing violence increases the risk of violent
23. Using abusive/insulting language in e-mails. 1 2 3 4 5 behavior by the observer. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsony, & I. Waldman (Eds.). The
24. Sharing images with sexual content on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 545–570). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816840.029.
25. Reprint posts on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5
Hutson, E. (2016). Cyberbullying in adolescence: A concept analysis. Advances in Nursing
Science, 39(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000104.
References Jenaro, C., Flores, N., & Frías, C. P. (2017). Systematic review of empirical studies on
cyberbullying in adults: What we know and what we should investigate. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 38, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.12.003.
Adams, C., & Ireland, J. L. (2017). The role of beliefs and trait aggression in prison Jiang, W. S., & Liu, X. R. (2011). Analysis of irrational expression in the formation of
bullying among young offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 29(3), network public opinion. Southeast Communication, 8(6), 41–43. https://doi.org/10.
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1395060. 3969/j.issn.1672-9579.2011.06.014 [In Chinese].
Allison, K. R., Bussey, K., & Lindsey, D. (2016). Cyber-bystanding in context: A review of Keipi, T., Näsi, M., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Online hate and harmful content:
the literature on witnesses' responses to cyberbullying. Children and Youth Services Cross-national perspectives. Routledgehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315628370.
Review, 65, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.03.026. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in
Ang, R. P. (2015). Adolescent cyberbullying: A review of characteristics, prevention and the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among

177
M. Song, et al.
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0036634.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School
Psychology International, 27(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143034306064547.
Li, W., Li, K., & Zhang, Q. C. (2016). Narcissism and cyber-bullying: A mediating effect of
moral disengagement. Psychology: Techniques and Application, 4(11), 676–683.
https://doi.org/10.16842/j.cnki.issn2095-5588.2016.11.006 [In Chinese].
Lin, J. J., & Li, Z. C. (2016). The reasons and avoidance of irrational network public
opinion. Young Journalist, 76(2), 26–27 [In Chinese] doi: 103969/j.issn.1002-
2759.2016.02.017.
Liu, H. Z. (2014a). On the irrational network public opinion on group events and its
psychological mechanism. Journal of Poltical Science and Law, 31(6), 81–85 [In
Chinese].
Liu, J. (2014b). Peeking into the psychology of netizens and guiding network public
opinion: A study of the guidance of network public opinion in the perspective of
psychology. News of the World, 26(11), 150–151 [In Chinese].
Liu, W. W., Jiang, Q., Ren, J. J., Li, S. F., & Xu, Y. P. (2015). The impact of trait anger on
aggressive behavior: Moderated mediating effect of hostile cognition and impulsivity
level. Psychological Development and Education, 31(4), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.
16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2015.04.13 [In Chinese].
Long, X. D. (2014). The impact of network group psychology on network public opinion.
Today’ Massmedia, 23(7), 31–32. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-8122.2014.07.
014 [In Chinese].
Maier, K. J., & James, A. E. (2014). Hostility and social support explain physical activity
beyond negative affect among young men, but not women, in college. Behavioral
Medicine, 40, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2013.826170.
Molapour, T., Lindström, B., & Olsson, A. (2016). Aversive learning and trait aggression
influence retaliatory behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 833–843. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00833.
Montuoro, P., & Mainhard, T. (2017). An investigation of the mechanism underlying
teacher aggression: Testing I(3) theory and the general aggression model. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.
12161.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and
mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852.
Paananen, M., Aro, T., Viholainen, H., Koponen, T., Tolvanen, A., Westerholm, J., & Aro,
M. (2019). Self-regulatory efficacy and sources of efficacy in elementary school pu-
pils: Self-regulatory experiences in a population sample and pupils with attention and
executive function difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 70, 53–61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.01.003.
Palermiti, A. L., Servidio, R., Bartolo, M. G., & Costabile, A. (2017). Cyberbullying and
self-esteem: An Italian study. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 136–141. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.026.
Peter, I. K., & Petermann, F. (2018). Cyberbullying: A concept analysis of defining at-
tributes and additional influencing factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 86,
350–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.013.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879.
Poon, K. T., & Chen, Z. S. (2014). When justice surrenders: The effect of just-world beliefs
on aggression following ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52,
101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.006.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Reed, K. P., Cooper, R. L., Nugent, W. R., & Russell, K. (2016). Cyberbullying: A literature
review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strate-
gies. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(1), 37–45. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10911359.2015.1059165.
Rey, R. D., Lazuras, L., Casas, J. A., Barkoukis, V., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Tsorbatzoudis, H.
(2016). Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender
and nationality affect this relationship? Learning and Individual Differences, 45,
275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.021.
Savage, M. W., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2017). Moving toward a theory: Testing an integrated
178
View publication stats
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 167–178
model of cyberbullying perpetration, aggression, social skills, and internet self-effi-
cacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2017.02.016.
Selkie, E. M., Kota, R., Chan, Y. F., & Moreno, M. (2015). Cyberbullying, depression, and
problem alcohol use in female college students: A multisite study. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.
0371.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2007.00611.x.
Smith, P., Waterman, M., & Ward, N. (2011). Driving aggression in forensic and non-
forensic populations: Relationships to self-reported levels of aggression, anger and
impulsivity. British Journal of Psychology, 97(3), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000712605X79111.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.88.3.500.
Topcu, C., & Erdurbaker, O. (2012). Affective and cognitive empathy as mediators of
gender differences in cyber and traditional bullying. School Psychology International,
33(5), 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312446882.
Tremblay, P. F., & Belchevski, M. (2004). Did the instigator intend to provoke? A key
moderator in the relation between trait aggression and aggressive behavior.
Aggressive Behavior, 30(5), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20027.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/
009365092019001003.
Wen, Z., Chang, L., & Hau, K. T. (2006). Mediated moderator and moderated mediator.
Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(3), 448–452.
Wen, Z. L., Liu, H. Y., & Hau, K. T. (2012). Analyses of moderating and mediating effects.
Beijing: Educational Science Publishing House.
Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). The cognitive basis of trait anger and re-
active aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
12(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307309874.
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14–S21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.
2007.08.018.
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). Normative beliefs about aggression and cyber aggression
among young adults: A longitudinal investigation. Aggressive Behavior, 39(3),
161–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21470.
Xing, X. D. (2015). The social psychological origin of irrational network public opinion.
Youth Journalist, 75(35), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-2759.2015.35.
006 [In Chinese].
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00328.x.
Ye, B. J., & Wen, Z. L. (2013). A discussion on testing methods for mediated moderation
models: Discrimination and integration. Acta Psychology Sinica, 45(9), 1050–1060.
https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01050 [In Chinese].
Zhang, L., Liu, S., Xu, Q., Wu, X. Y., & Yang, M. Y. (2017). Long-term effect of violence
exposure in real-life on aggressive behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Acta
Psychology Sinica, 49(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00050 [In
Chinese].
Zhang, Z. A., & Yan, Q. H. (2016). Individual emotion, social emotion and collective will:
On the irrationality and its factors of network public opinion. Journalism Review,
34(11), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.16057/j.cnki.31-1171/g2.2016.11.008 [In
Chinese].
Zheng, Q., Ye, B. J., Yao, Y. M., Chen, J. W., Fu, H. H., Lei, X., et al. (2017). Normative
beliefs about aggression on cyberbullying: The mediating roles of moral disengage-
ment and internet morality. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25(4), 727–730.
https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2017.04.029 [In Chinese].
Zhen, S., Xie, H., Zhang, W., Wang, S., & Li, D. (2011). Exposure to violent computer
games and Chinese adolescents' physical aggression: The role of beliefs about ag-
gression, hostile expectations, and empathy. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5),
1675–1687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.006.
Zhu, Y. H., Chen, Q., & Zhou, H. Z. (2014). Review and latest progress of research on
cyberbullying abroad. Chinese Youth Studies, 26(11), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.
3969/j.issn.1002-9931.2014.11.016 [In Chinese].