905531

research-article2020
NMS0010.1177/1461444820905531new media & societyFerreira et al.

Article

new media & society

Online verbal aggression,

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
social relationships, and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1461444820905531
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820905531
self-efficacy beliefs journals.sagepub.com/home/nms

Paula da Costa Ferreira

Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, CICPSI, Portugal; Portuguese Foundation for Science and
Technology, Portugal; INESC-ID Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal

Ana Margarida Veiga Simão

Nadia Salgado Pereira
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, CICPSI, Portugal; Portuguese Foundation for Science and
Technology, Portugal

Paula Paulino
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, CICPSI, Portugal; Portuguese Foundation for Science and
Technology, Portugal; University Lusófona, Portugal

Sofia Oliveira
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, CICPSI, Portugal; Portuguese Foundation for Science and
Technology, Portugal

Abstract
This study aims to understand whether the relationships adolescent bystanders
of cyberbullying have with the victim and other bystanders and their self-efficacy
beliefs may affect their use of aggressive language online. Students (676, Mage = 14.10,
SD = 2.74, 55.5% male) answered questions about social media use, self-efficacy to solve
cyberbullying situations, interpersonal relationships, and their use of verbal aggression
to communicate online. Through structural equation modeling, results demonstrated
that having a relationship with the victim or other bystanders mediated the relationship
between observing cyberbullying behavior and bystanders’ use of aggressive language

Corresponding author:
Paula da Costa Ferreira, Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013
Lisbon, Portugal.
Email: paula.ferreira@campus.ul.pt
2 new media & society 00(0)

online. The effect of observing cyberbullying behavior through having a relationship with
the victim or other bystanders was lower than its direct effect on adolescent bystanders’
use of aggressive language. Self-efficacy beliefs mediated the relationship between having
a relationship with the victim and other bystanders and adolescents’ use of aggressive
language online. Implications for intervention in interpersonal communication online
are proposed.

Keywords
Bystanders, cyberbullying, interpersonal communication, self-efficacy beliefs, social
relationships

Introduction
The role of adolescent bystanders in cyberbullying is crucial, and there is yet much to be
investigated regarding the factors that influence the impact of observing aggressive lan-
guage in how adolescents communicate online (Allison and Bussey, 2017). Cyberbullying
is a phenomenon of social interaction involving aggressive communication (Veiga Simão
et al., 2017) and has been defined as individuals’ intentional repeated acts of aggression
toward others (i.e. peers) using technology (Belsey, 2006). Understanding the role of
aggressive communication (i.e. an intentionally hurtful use of one’s communication),
which includes constructive traits, such as assertiveness and argumentativeness, and
destructive traits, such as hostility and verbal aggressiveness, provides valuable insights
regarding individuals’ communication behavior (Rancer, 2009). Accordingly, since these
traits interact with environmental factors, thus producing message behavior (Rancer and
Nicotera, 2007), it is important to investigate the role of this type of communication in
cyberbullying contexts. In this study, there is a specific focus on verbal aggressive lan-
guage (i.e. offensive language) which has been used by cyberbullies to harm others and
witnessed by observers of cyberbullying.
Aggression may be defined as intentional behavior to harm others who do not want to
be harmed (Baron and Richardson, 1994). Accordingly, verbal aggression may be defined
as behavior that resorts to words to harm others intentionally (Rösner et al., 2016). Since
verbal aggression within cyberbullying functions as a means to harm others, it is a rele-
vant factor to consider. This type of verbal aggression may remain online for extended
periods of time and may be consulted frequently at any time by the victims and their
schoolmates (Dooley et al., 2009), hence, the number of bystanders can gradually
increase, prolonging and increasing the negative effects of this phenomenon on victims
(Kubiszewski et al., 2015). In a previous study (Souza et al., 2018), results indicated that
adolescents’ normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs mediated the relationship
between adolescents’ personal moral beliefs and using the content they observed from
verbal aggressions to communicate online. This study proposes to add to this previous
study and further explore the path through which bystanders’ use of aggressive language
(which they have witnessed in cyberbullying incidents) occurs.
Bystanders’ use of aggressive language, which they have observed in previous con-
texts, may be determined by various factors such as their relationship with peers
(Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Macháčková et al., 2013; Patterson et al., 2017a), self-efficacy
Ferreira et al. 3

beliefs (DeSmet et al., 2016), and social norms (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2011; Rösner et al.,
2016). In fact, considering that the behavior and the social-emotional factors of bystand-
ers are crucial for intervention in incidents of cyberbullying, it is necessary to investigate
predictor variables, such as social relationships and self-efficacy, which have been less
explored in these contexts (Olenik-Shemesh et al., 2017). Specifically, research is still
needed to investigate bystanders’ self-reported use of the aggressive language they
observed in cyberbullying situations,1 which in turn may perpetuate online aggression
and be crucial for intervention in cyberbullying.
When considering possible determinants of bystanders’ behavior, particularly the use
of aggressive language, this investigation positions itself within a socio-cognitive per-
spective by considering personal (i.e. bystanders’ self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbul-
lying situations), behavioral (i.e. bystanders’ self-reported use of the aggressive
language), and environmental (i.e. their relationships with the victim and other bystand-
ers) factors which may contribute with varying degrees to bystanders’ development, con-
sidering their social context (Bandura, 2006).
In accordance, this investigation aims to study whether observing cyberbullying
behavior is associated with adolescent bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive lan-
guage in online contexts and whether having a relationship with the victim and other
bystanders mediates this relationship. In addition, this investigation aims to study
whether having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders affects adolescent
bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language through self-efficacy beliefs to
solve cyberbullying situations. By investigating the mediating effects of self-efficacy
beliefs and social relationships in the relationship between observed cyberbullying
behavior and bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language, this study contributes
to examining the reciprocal influences between personal, environmental, and behavioral
factors within the scope of a socio-cognitive perspective.

The antecedents of bystanders’ behavior and the use of the aggressive

language
Verbal communication is essential for interrelationships, as it is the means through which
individuals build and preserve relationships (Sillars and Vangelisti, 2009). In accordance,
actions are based on thought patterns which are shaped by language and thus, situations
may take on different meanings, depending on what they are named (Bandura, 2002).
In online interaction, the consequences of a harmful situation, such as cyberbullying,
may depend on how individuals communicate verbally (Veiga Simão et al., 2017). Since
evidence has shown that predispositions toward aggressive communication explain indi-
viduals’ behavior with regard to the messages they transmit and receive (Rancer, 2009),
it is pertinent to understand what may determine whether bystanders of cyberbullying
use aggressive language after witnessing others use it in order to harm others.
Aggressive language may originate from a group of similar normative assumptions
and expectations which seem to be part of a moral order, or a system that defines and
organizes relationships among individuals and the community (Parvaresh and Tayebi,
2018). Depending on the research area, it may be defined as a rhetoric or language style
4 new media & society 00(0)

that includes negative or uncivil comments to attack others (König and Jucks, 2019;
Rösner et al., 2016). Accordingly, aggressive language seems to be associated with the
development of communities whose members share and mandate common beliefs and
similar social values. In computer-mediated communication, there is a variety of group
practices which are still to be explored, namely with regard to the relational aspect of
language and how individuals define their social environments (Locher, 2010). Bystander
behavior, for instance, is contingent on contextual and personal factors, thus, the literature
has investigated antecedents including the presence and behavior of others (Bastiaensens
et al., 2014). For example, the number of bystanders that witness an incident of cyberbul-
lying (Blair et al., 2005), the severity of the incident (Bastiaensens et al., 2014), and the
exposure to cyberbullying have been studied (Pabian et al., 2016). Also, the literature has
mentioned other antecedents of bystander behavior, such as the physical distance between
the bystanders and the victims and/or aggressor (Obermaier et al., 2016), the victim’s
disclosure of information online (Schacter et al., 2016), and self-efficacy issues (DeSmet
et al., 2014). Finally, environmental influences and the relationship bystanders have with
victims and/or aggressors have also been highlighted as relevant antecedents (DeSmet
et al., 2016; Erreygers et al., 2016; Patterson et al., 2017b).
Research focusing on verbal aggression used by aggressors in cyberbullying has pro-
vided important evidence to understand the phenomenon, such as identifying offensive
content in social media (e.g. Potha et al., 2016). However, more research is required to
understand the effects of aggressive content that is posted online in cyberbullying situa-
tions (Livingstone and Smith, 2014). Verbal aggression has been a frequent type of
behavior of aggressors in incidents of cyberbullying (Bauman, 2013). Observing such
types of aggressive behavior could determine bystanders’ behavior (Latané and Darley,
1970), since these individuals may adopt the verbal aggression they witness.
Since social groups may be determined by intra- and intergroup communications,
language plays an important role in conveying social identities and group boundaries
(Giles, 2012; Giles and Maass, 2016). Moreover, intergroup membership and communi-
cation become crucial in certain development stages such as adolescence (Burns et al.,
2008). Considering cyberbullying tends to occur mostly between youths (Patterson et al.,
2017b), when studying such phenomenon, one must attend to the relevance of language
as an instrument for social interactions. Therefore, individuals can make adjustments in
their language in order to create, maintain, or decrease social distance in interactions. In
fact, language (oral or written) may determine whether an individual belongs to an
ingroup or outgroup, prompting feelings, attitudes, and even stereotypes (Keblusek et al.,
2017). Bystanders may witness the use of malicious comments that are posted online by
aggressors to resolve feelings of dissatisfaction, express anger, and even have fun (Lee
and Kim, 2015). This type of verbal aggression used online by aggressors is often ambig-
uous and therefore may be interpreted by bystanders either as hostile or humorous
because it is rooted, to some extent, in undetermined social and communicative norms
related with social media (Livingstone and Smith, 2014).
While some studies have investigated bystanders’ response to cyberbullying in terms
of supporting the victim or reinforcing the bully (Macháčková and Pfetsch, 2016), the
intent of this study is to focus on bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language
because verbal communication is crucial for interrelationships, as it is the medium
Ferreira et al. 5

through which individuals construct and maintain social relationships (Sillars and
Vangelisti, 2009).
Individuals internalize language they observe by transforming interpersonal linguistic
resources into intrapersonal ones (Vygotsky, 1986). Moreover, using this language tends
to take place in situations where individuals are involved emotionally and motivation-
ally. Accordingly, this involvement may determine both the outcome of that particular
situation and the individuals’ readiness for other events alike (Rogoff, 1995). Accordingly,
some of the literature (Ferreira et al., 2019; Carlo et al., 2003; Crick and Dodge, 1996;
Stadler et al., 2010) has indicated that when an event is observed, an individual can react
differently through a reflective process or an impulse which may be influenced by indi-
vidual differences or social influence. In fact, the use of language seems to be developed
through social observational learning (Bandura, 2006) in which individuals observe what
others do and learn from them to engage in what they deem as appropriate action.
Therefore, this study proposes to understand whether witnessing cyberbullying behavior
determines bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language that is offensive and has
been used to harm others. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. Observing cyberbullying behavior will be associated with adolescent

bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language, such that those who observe
more will have a greater tendency to use it.

Relationships with peers and bystanders’ use of observed aggressive

language
According to the literature, the friendship group has been reported as one of the main
influences regarding traditional bullying (Burns et al., 2008) and cyberbullying (Foody
et al., 2019). In fact, bystanders’ perception of their friends’ acceptance has been related
to a higher experience of social pressure to join the aggressors and to higher levels of
bystanders’ cyberbullying behavior (Bastiaensens et al., 2016). Later, even though there
was no association with overall support and reinforcement, Macháčková and Pfetsch
(2016) found that both in bullying and cyberbullying, bystanders tended to react in a
prosocial manner toward the victim or reinforce the aggressor, depending on their cogni-
tive and affective empathy with these individuals. Moreover, DeSmet et al. (2016) pro-
vided evidence that knowing the victims offline was a major predictor of bystander
positive intervention. For instance, aiding and comforting the victim was more probable
when bystanders were close friends with them, while ignoring the victim was less likely
in such situation (Patterson et al., 2017a, 2017b).
In line with the previous findings, Brody and Vangelisti (2016) concluded that
bystanders with a close friendship with the victim, as opposed to being only acquaint-
ances, were more likely to actively defend and offer social support to the victim and less
likely to passively observe. Moreover, in Patterson et al. (2017a), bystanders were more
likely to ignore cyberbullying posts if they did not have a close relationship with the
victim. However, when the victim was an acquaintance, bystanders close to the aggres-
sor tended to join in on the aggression, or to ignore and not intervene. In accordance,
Bastiaensens et al. (2014) revealed that bystanders reported higher behavioral intentions
6 new media & society 00(0)

to engage in cyberbullying behavior when other bystanders who reinforced the bully
were close friends, as opposed to being acquaintances. Furthermore, bystanders had
lower behavioral intentions to join in on the aggression when close friends defended the
victim than when acquaintances did.
In line with the aforementioned studies, bystanders’ decision on whether and how to
intervene in a cyberbullying event seems to be determined to some extent by the relation-
ship they have with the victim and other bystanders. In other words, the friendship group
may guide their behavior in these situations, particularly the use of verbal aggression to
communicate online. Therefore, this study proposes to understand whether the relation-
ship between observing cyberbullying behavior and bystanders’ self-reported use of
aggressive language is mediated by having a close relationship with the victim and other
bystanders. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. Having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders affects the
relationship between observing cyberbullying behavior and adolescent bystanders’
self-reported use of aggressive language, and the indirect effect will be lower than the
direct effect.

Self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations

The socio-cognitive perspective indicates that personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors contribute with varying degrees to individuals’ development, considering their
social and cultural context (Bandura, 2006). In this study, we considered bystanders’
behavioral factors, such as their self-reported use of aggressive language, as the depend-
ent variable, as well as contextual factors, such as their relationship with the victim and
other bystanders of a cyberbulling situation, as a mediating variable. In this section, we
present the personal factors also as a mediating variable, which we considered as bystand-
ers’ self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations.
In the enactment of personal agency, self-efficacy is a central feature, since it involves
individuals’ beliefs in their ability to control their own functioning and environmental
occurrences (Bandura, 2001). Hence, and in accordance with the socio-cognitive theory,
self-efficacy influences the relationship between thought and action and is one of the
main elements determining individuals’ behavior (Allison and Bussey, 2017). From an
agentic perspective, self-efficacy is a key factor in how individuals adapt, develop,
behave, and change, as it is the basis for well-being, motivation, and other factors
(Bandura, 2006). Self-efficacy beliefs affect individuals’ emotions, susceptibility to
depression and stress, and may determine their decision-making processes in hostile cir-
cumstances (Bandura, 2006). Moreover, self-efficacy is affected by past experiences and
the perception of others (Bandura, 2001). It arises from self-perception and external
experiences and determines the outcome of different situations.
Individuals’ decision-making and social behavior may be determined by self-efficacy
beliefs through cognitive, affective, motivational, and selection processes (Bandura,
2001; Pastorelli et al., 2001). In adverse situations, those with high self-efficacy
beliefs tend to regulate the necessary amount of effort to reach goals. Furthermore, in
challenging events, perceived self-efficacy has been linked to individuals’ coping
Ferreira et al. 7

abilities, as well as their capability to control stressful sequences of thought when facing
challenging situations (Bandura, 2008). Thus, individuals will confront challenges they
believe to be capable of managing and avoid those they feel they cannot succeed because
self-efficacy determines behavior in adverse situations.
In face-to-face bullying, self-efficacy has been found to affect support for the victim
(Thornberg and Jungert, 2013). Specifically, bystanders with low self-efficacy to inter-
vene favorably on the victim’s behalf did not or delayed intervention. Those with high
self-efficacy to intervene favorably on the victim’s behalf tended to help the victim.
Cappadocia et al. (2012) found that only among girls a high level of self-efficacy pre-
dicted intervening to help the victim.
Some research on bystander behavior in cyberbullying situations has focused on self-
efficacy (Anker and Feeley, 2011). For example, while DeSmet et al. (2014) provided
evidence that bystanders’ self-efficacy to confront the aggressor was greater if social
support was available to them, Barchia and Bussey (2011) found that self-efficacy for
defending the victim was related to defending behavior. Moreover, Olenik-Shemesh
et al. (2017) found that of the passive bystanders who participated in their study, those
who were afraid to intervene reported lower emotional and social self-efficacy than those
who thought it was not their business. In our study, we opted to investigate self-efficacy
to resolve cyberbullying situations and how it may determine bystanders’ self-reported
use of aggressive language.
Considering the findings from other studies, it seems suitable to understand how self-
efficacy to resolve cyberbullying situations plays a role in bystanders’ self-reported use
of language from aggressors’ verbal aggression because it is a predictor of behavior
concerning threats (Bandura, 2008). For instance, bystanders of cyberbullying may regu-
late their behavior to ignore the situation because they believe they will not be able to
assist the victim (Allison and Bussey, 2017). Moreover, since self-efficacy is affected by
past experiences and the perception of others (Bandura, 2001), it is crucial to understand
its role with regard to bystanders’ relationship with the victim(s) and other bystanders
and their self-reported aggressive language. Furthermore, research has provided evi-
dence that self-efficacy to stop cyberbullying predicted positive bystander behavior to
defend the victim or report to an adult (DeSmet et al., 2016). Thus, we hypothesize the
following:

Hypothesis 3. Self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations affect the relation-

ship between having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders and adoles-
cent bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language, and the indirect effect will
be lower than the direct effect.

The proposed conceptual model of this study is shown in Figure 1.

The proposed model shows the adolescent bystanders’ relationship with the victim
and other bystanders as a mediator between observing cyberbullying behavior and their
self-reported use of aggressive language. It also shows the relationship with the victim
and other bystanders affecting adolescent bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive
language through self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations.
8 new media & society 00(0)

Figure 1. The proposed conceptual model.

Method
Participants
A convenience sample of schools was chosen, where all students were invited to partici-
pate in different phases of this investigation. In all phases of data collection, student
participation depended only on their own volunteerism and parental consent. Specifically,
of those who brought in their parental consent, 100% volunteered to participate. A total
sample of 1607 adolescents was used in this study (Mage = 15.1, SD = 2.27, 52.3% female).
In the first phase, we asked 529 5th to 12th graders (Mage = 14.27, SD = 1.69, 53.7%
female) from a school in the center of Portugal to participate. Data from this sample were
used to compute exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the questionnaires Noticing the
Event Questionnaire for bystanders of cyberbullying, Using content from online verbal
aggression in cyberbullying, and Bystander Relations. In the second phase, 402 5th to
12th graders (Mage = 13.12, SD = 2.19, 55.7% female) from five schools in the center of
Portugal participated in this study, and these data were used to proceed with confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) of the aforementioned scales and to compute EFA of the Self-
efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations questionnaires. In the third phase and
for the main analyses, 676 5th to 12th graders (Mage = 14.10, SD = 2.74, 55.5% male)
were asked to participate in this study, from five schools in the center and four schools in
the southern area of Portugal. The data from this sample were also used for the CFA of
the Adolescent Self-efficacy Scale to Solve Cyberbullying Situations.

Instruments
The scales used in this study were developed and validated through EFA, CFA, and reli-
ability indicators for Portuguese adolescents (contact authors for full report). As the lit-
erature suggests (Mehari et al., 2014), all items were generated in conformity with
theoretical recommendations and empirical evidence. We also ensured that rigorous sta-
tistical procedures were conducted to enable us to present sound instruments which cap-
tured the constructs we intended to measure. For instance, Berne et al. (2013) stated that
Ferreira et al. 9

scales measuring cyberbullying should invest in statistical procedures, which could pro-
vide validity to the measures used. In view of this, we computed EFA and CFA of all
instruments, as well as performed reliability statistics. To specify, we used Cronbach’s
alpha to measure our instruments’ internal consistency. Since the Cronbach’s alpha val-
ues presented were good (above .70), we considered our measures reliable.
Specifically, the instructions and the items regarding observed cyberbullying behav-
ior mirrored intent to harm through digital media and participants were given the oppor-
tunity to report the frequency (repetition) with which they observed cyberbullying
behavior, as suggested in the literature (Patchin and Hinduja, 2015). The mode (i.e. elec-
tronically) was also included so that participants did not confuse cyberbullying with
bullying, as suggested in the literature (Ybarra et al., 2012). In addition, we did not sup-
ply a definition of cyberbullying in the scale itself, as research has shown that such
practice does not provide more rigorous or accurate measures of cyberbullying (Ybarra
et al., 2012). Moreover, research has suggested that the word “bully” is used in the instru-
ments that measure cyberbullying in the context of English-speaking countries (Ybarra
et al., 2012). Since this study was conducted in Portugal, we used the equivalent of bully
in Portuguese, which is “aggressor.”
The items from our Noticing the Event Scale were based on the Cyberbullying
Inventory for College Students (Francisco et al., 2015), which was developed from semi-
structured interviews with older students. The items presented were adapted, and face
and content validity were provided with the help of three adolescent volunteers, two
researchers studying the field, two assistant professors, and two full university profes-
sors. To provide rigorous content validity, we had a panel of five experts (researchers and
professors) rate the questionnaire, which yielded a content validity index of 1, which is
recommended according to the literature (Lawshe, 1975; Wilson et al., 2012). We also
ensured that these items were constructed in line with recommendations in the literature,
such as fully covering cyberbullying behavior, rather than one single general item asking
participants if they had observed any cyberbullying (Gradinger et al., 2010). In fact,
research has demonstrated that measuring cyberbullying with various specific items is
more accurate than using a single item, since the latter does not cover cyberbullying
behavior extensively and turns into an underestimated evaluation of the phenomenon
(Gradinger et al., 2010). Berne et al. (2013), for instance, reviewed 22 scales which
measured cyberbullying through a multi-item approach.
Observing cyberbullying behavior was measured with the unidimensional Noticing
the Event Scale (α = .90 from the EFA), which includes nine items and asks participants
(on a Likert-type scale of 1 = never to 5 = various times per day) to remember if in the last
6 months they observed cyberbullying behavior such as someone being insulted, har-
assed with sexual content, and threatened through written messages and/or photos,
emails, Chat, Messenger, Skype, Facebook, YouTube, Blogs, WhatsApp, and online
games (e.g. “I saw someone threatening someone else”). EFA demonstrated the scale
explains 52% of the variance and CFA values were good according to the literature,
χ2(23) = 58.32, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.54, CFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06,
95% CI = [0.04, 0.08], SRMR = 0.05, AIC = 102.32 (Hooper et al., 2008). The reliability
of the scale for the sample used in the main analyses was α = .89. Participants were then
asked to remember and to refer to a specific situation they had observed.
10 new media & society 00(0)

One dimension from the Bystanders’ Relations Scale was used to measure the inter-
personal relationships bystanders had with the victims and bystanders (α = .87 from the
EFA). This dimension has eight items and asks participants (on a Likert-type scale of
1 = not at all, to 5 = very much) about the type of relationship (i.e. if they knew them,
were friends with them, and had something in common with them) they had with the
victims and other bystanders involved in a specific cyberbullying situation they observed
(e.g. “I was a friend of the victim”; “I knew the other people who saw the same situation
I saw”). EFA demonstrated the scale explains 55% of the variance and CFA values were
good according to the literature, namely, χ2(38) = 86.65, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.280,
CFI = 0.90, GFI = 0.89, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.07], SRMR = 0.09,
AIC = 142.65 (Hooper et al., 2008). The reliability of the scale for the sample used in the
main analyses was α = .94.
To measure bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language, one dimension was
used (with four items, α = .94 from the EFA) from the scale Using content from online
verbal aggression in cyberbullying. First, and before responding to the scale, participants
were asked to identify expressions of verbal aggression in specific cyberbullying situa-
tions which they had observed, such as threatening someone, harassing with sexual con-
tent, spreading rumors, pretending to be someone else, making fun of someone, insulting
someone, revealing personal information without consent, and using someone’s image
without consent. This first open-ended question directed participants to think about the
cyberbullying incident(s) they had witnessed through messages in emails, Chat,
Messenger, Skype, Facebook, YouTube, Blogs, WhatsApp, and online games and to write
down the exact words, expressions, or sentences that they remember seeing written, even
if they considered them to be inappropriate. Then, the dimension used to assess bystand-
ers’ self-reported use of aggressive language asked them (on a Likert-type scale of
1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree) about how they reacted to this type of language
(e.g. “I adopted the same language to play around with my friends”; “I adopted the same
language to do the same”; “I felt like using the same language”; “I reacted with the same
language”). EFA showed the scale explained 60% of the variance and CFA demonstrated
good values according to the literature (Hooper et al., 2008), namely, χ2(23) = 111.79,
p < .001, χ2/df = 4.86, CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, 95% CI = [0.05,
0.07], SRMR = 0.07, AIC = 155.79. The reliability of the scale for the sample used in the
main analyses was α = .87.
The self-efficacy to solve cyberbullying situations was measured with the unidi-
mensional Adolescent Self-efficacy Scale to Solve Cyberbullying Situations (α = .98
from the EFA), which includes nine items and asks participants (on a Likert-type scale
of 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree) whether they would be able to resolve spe-
cific cyberbullying situations even if it was difficult to do so (e.g. “I think I am able to
resolve the situation if I see someone being harassed with sexual content”). EFA dem-
onstrated the scale explains 87% of the variance and CFA showed good values accord-
ing to the literature, namely, χ2(25) = 59.82, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.39, CFI = 0.95,
GFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.06], SRMR = 0.05,
AIC = 99.82 (Hooper et al., 2008). The reliability of the scale for the sample used in the
main analyses was α = .98. The full report of the EFA and CFA of the instruments may
be obtained by contacting the authors.
Ferreira et al. 11

Procedures
Authorization for this study to be conducted and data to be gathered was granted by the
Ministry of Education of Portugal, the Portuguese National Commission of Data
Protection, the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of
Lisbon, the schools’ boards of directors, the teachers, the parents, and the students them-
selves. The schools’ boards of directors were contacted personally, and teachers sent out
written consent forms to parents through the students. Students were free to participate in
the study as volunteers, once all authorizations were granted. Various researchers admin-
istered the inventory containing all scales to participants in a classroom context with com-
puters with Internet access in their schools. Participants were informed that they could
have psychological assistance (i.e. with a psychologist) if they needed to during or after
filling in the inventory. All participants were informed that they could quit the inventory
at any time. All participants were volunteers, and data were treated anonymously.

Data analyses
The results presented in this article were computed from a database which was used in
a previous study to test different relationships between variables (Souza et al., 2018).
IBM SPSS (v.23; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to calculate the correlations
and means of the variables used for the main analyses. The gender variable was coded
as 1 = girls and 2 = boys. AMOS (v. 23; SPSS Inc.) was used to evaluate the significance
of the regression coefficients after estimating the parameters through the asymptotically
distribution-free method considering the non-normal distribution of the data, which is
characteristic of data on cyberbullying. The normality of the variables was evaluated
with the univariate and multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis. The significance of the
total, direct, and indirect effects was assessed with χ2 tests (Marôco, 2010). We consid-
ered significant effects p < .05. The bootstrapping method (2000 samples, 95% CI) was
used to test for mediation effects (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). First, the direct and indi-
rect effects and the control variables age and gender were tested, as the literature sug-
gests (Preacher and Hayes, 2008)—the first yielding significant values. Considering the
principles of parsimony in structural equation modeling (Raykov and Marcoulides,
1999), various causal models of observing cyberbullying behavior on bystanders’ self-
reported use of aggressive language were tested. These models are presented in the
“Results” section.

Results
The correlations between the variables in the proposed hypotheses are shown in Table 1.
Age was significantly and positively related to gender, observing cyberbullying behav-
ior, and having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders, but not to self-effi-
cacy beliefs to resolve cyberbullying situations. These results indicate that older students
tended to report more observed incidents and having more relationships with the victim
and other bystanders. Gender was significantly and negatively related to self-efficacy
beliefs to resolve cyberbullying situations, meaning girls tended to report this more.
12 new media & society 00(0)

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables (N = 676).

Variables M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Age 14.10 (2.74)
2. Gender .10***
3. Observing cyberbullying behavior 1.78 (0.84) .20*** .30
4. R elationship with victim and other 2.21 (1.15) .11*** −.47 .54***
bystanders
5. S elf-efficacy to resolve 2.43 (1.13) .05 −.10* .02 .10*
cyberbullying situations
6. Bystanders’ self-reported use of 1.98 (1.18) .13*** .13*** .42*** .44*** .14***
aggressive language

*p < .05; ***p < .001.

Moreover, gender was significantly and positively related to bystanders’ self-reported

use of aggressive language, suggesting that boys tended to adopt this type of language
more. Observing cyberbullying behavior was positively and significantly related to
bystanders’ relationship with the victim and other bystanders, as well as their self-
reported use of aggressive language. Having a relationship with the victim and other
bystanders was positively and significantly associated with bystanders’ self-efficacy
beliefs to resolve cyberbullying situations and their self-reported use of aggressive lan-
guage. Also, bystanders’ self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations were posi-
tively related to their relationship with the victim and other bystanders, and to their
self-reported use of aggressive language.
Through structural equation modeling, several models were tested to clarify unex-
plored paths, although only four of these causal models (with the best fit indices) for
bystanders’ reported use of aggressive language are presented. Table 2 shows the fit
indices of the models presented.
Since social relationships have been found to be one of the main influences of inter-
personal interaction in cyberbullying (Foody et al., 2019), all models present the variable
social relationships as a mediator affecting the relationship between observing cyberbul-
lying incidents and adolescent bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language.
Moreover, the literature has highlighted the importance of self-efficacy beliefs to regu-
late efforts necessary to reach goals and overcome obstacles or threats (Bandura, 1988);
therefore, this variable was also considered in all the models. In model 1, self-efficacy
beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations was the mediator between bystanders’ social
relationships and their self-reported use of aggressive language. Model 2 is similar to
model 1, but with the control variables age and gender. Model 3 includes these self-
efficacy beliefs as a mediator affecting the relationship between observing cyberbullying
incidents and adolescent bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language. Introducing
self-efficacy as a mediator of these two variables will enable a better understanding of its
role, that is, whether its antecedent may be the observation of cybebullying incidents or
bystanders‘ social relationships (as in model 1). Specifically, comparing these two mod-
els will provide evidence of the role of social relationships as well when considering
Ferreira et al. 13

Table 2. Models to test the effects of observing cyberbullying behavior, social relationships,
and self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations on self-reported use of aggressive
language.

Models χ2 df χ2/df CFI GFI IFI TLI RMSEA 95% CI AIC SRMR
1 1.02 1 1.02 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.00 [0.00, 0.10] 19.02 0.01
2 47.40 7 6.77* 0.85 0.99 0.86 0.69 0.09 [0.06, 0.11] 75.40 0.06
3 5.65 1 5.65* 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.87 0.08 [0.02, 0.15] 23.65 0.01
4 52.04 7 7.43* 0.83 0.99 0.84 0.65 0.09 [0.07, 0.11] 80.04 0.06

CFI: comparative fit index; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index;
RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; CI: confidence interval; AIC: Akaike information crite-
rion; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual.
*p < .01.

Figure 2. Results of the chosen model.

*p < .05; ***p < .001.

self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations. Model 4 is similar to model 3, but

with the control variables age and gender.
As suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1989), the lowest AIC values were considered,
which enabled a comparison between these competitive models. Therefore, we opted for
model 1 (Table 2), which revealed an AIC score of 19.02. Results of the chosen model
(see Figure 2) demonstrated that the observation of cyberbullying behavior was associ-
ated with adolescent bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language, thus confirm-
ing hypothesis 1. Also, having a relationship with the victim or other bystanders mediated
the relationship between observing cyberbullying behavior and adolescent bystanders’
self-reported use of aggressive language, hence confirming hypothesis 2. Specifically,
observing cyberbullying behavior on bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive lan-
guage through having a relationship with the victim or other bystanders was lower than
the direct effect. Self-efficacy beliefs to resolve cyberbullying situations mediated the
relationship between having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders and ado-
lescent bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language, thus confirming hypothesis
14 new media & society 00(0)

3. Believing one is capable of resolving cyberbullying situations affected the relationship

between having a close relationship with the victim and other bystanders, and reporting
the use of aggressive language, as the indirect effect was lower than the direct effect. The
model presented 26% of the variance relating to bystanders’ self-reported use of aggres-
sive language. All trajectories were statistically significant. Having a relationship with
the aggressor revealed no significant effects in the model.
Table 2 shows model 2 with low values which include the control variables age and
gender. Even though this was not a good fitting model, these results suggest that there is
a tendency for boys to report greater use of aggressive language.
In Figure 2, a (95% CI = [0.48, 0.58]) represents the direct effect of observing cyber-
bullying incidents on the relationship with the victim and other bystanders; b1 (95% CI
= [0.21, 0.35]) represents the direct effect of the relationship with the victim and other
bystanders on bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language; c′ (95% CI = [0.18,
0.33]) represents the direct effect of observing cyberbullying incidents on bystanders’
self-reported use of aggressive language; c (95% CI = [0.37, 0.49]) represents the total
effect of observing cyberbullying incidents on bystanders’ self-reported use of aggres-
sive language; e1 (95% CI = [0.17, 0.29]) represents the indirect effect of observing
cyberbullying incidents on bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language through
the relationship with the victim and other bystanders; d (95% CI = [0.03, 0.16]) repre-
sents the direct effect of the relationship with the victim and other bystanders on self-
efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations; b2 (95% CI = [0.06, 0.17]) represents
the direct effect of self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations on bystanders’
self-reported use of aggressive language; and e2 (95% CI = [0.00, 0.02]) represents the
indirect effect of the relationship with the victim and other bystanders on bystanders’
self-reported use of aggressive language through self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbul-
lying situations.

Discussion
Results demonstrated that the observation of cyberbullying behavior was associated with
bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language. Bystanders may employ this lan-
guage to adopt different modes of thinking and behavior (e.g. to play or to attack), which
in turn may be used destructively by them (Keblusek et al., 2017). This study focused
specifically on verbal aggressive language that bystanders observed being used by cyber-
bullies as a destructive form of aggressive communication (Rancer, 2009). The results
highlight how witnessing cyberbullying events may be related with the adoption of this
type of aggressive language by adolescents while they communicate online with others.
The mediation results suggested that the indirect relationship between observing
cyberbullying behavior and bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language through
having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders was lower than the direct effect.
This finding contributes to the literature and extends results from previous studies on
bystander behavior that found normative moral beliefs were mediators between personal
moral beliefs and using online verbal aggression (Souza et al., 2018). In particular, results
suggest that bystanders who witnessed cyberbullying behavior and had a relationship with
the victims and other bystanders may be less likely to report using aggressive language
Ferreira et al. 15

after witnessing others use it online. In other words, observing these incidents seemed to
have a greater effect on appropriating this type of language without having the mediating
variable, then when in the case that the observer knew the victim or other bystanders. The
fact that there is a positive correlation between having a relationship with the victim or
other bystanders and bystanders’ self-reported use of the language they observed could be
interpreted as the latter not refraining from using this type of language, since the first have
also been in contact with it. In fact, the effect of observing these incidents on appropriat-
ing the language that was observed is lower when it is mediated by knowing the victim
and other bystanders. Hence, social relationships, namely, with the victim and other
bystanders in this study, seem to have had a big impact on how bystanders reacted to the
language they were in contact with in the cyberbullying incidents they observed.
Specifically, other studies found that knowing the victims offline was related to
bystanders’ positive intervention (DeSmet et al., 2016) and that aiding and comforting
the victim was more probable when bystanders were close friends with them (Patterson
et al., 2017a, 2017b). This work did not focus on the study of positive or negative behav-
ior toward the victim or the aggressor, especially since other studies have provided
important insights on bystanders’ response to cyberbullying in terms of supporting the
victim of reinforcing the bully (Macháčková and Pfetsch, 2016).
Studying the role of aggressive communication, such as verbal aggressiveness, pro-
vides valuable insights regarding individuals’ interpersonal communication behavior
(Rancer, 2009). Since different forms of communication interact with environmental fac-
tors (Rancer and Nicotera, 2007), it is important to investigate this type of communica-
tion in cyberbullying contexts considering a socio-cognitive approach (Bandura, 2006).
In doing so, one can achieve a more comprehensive perspective of the use of verbal
aggression in online interactions between peers and specifically, how the repeated use of
such language might perpetuate online aggressions. That is to say that once the relation
between personal factors, such as self-efficacy beliefs and contextual elements, like
observing cyberbullying situations, are better understood, preventing behavior, such as
the use of verbal aggression online, may be more efficient. Such knowledge can be
essential for the intervention in cyberbullying behavior.
Moreover, believing one is capable of solving cyberbullying situations affected the
relationship between having a relationship with the victim and other bystanders, and
self-reported less use of aggressive language, as the indirect effect was lower than the
direct effect. This finding highlights how a personal factor, such as self-efficacy beliefs,
may in fact, determine bystanders’ self-reported use of aggressive language under dis-
tressful situations (Bandura, 2006) and within a social context of peer pressure (Bandura,
2001). The fact that bystanders believed they were capable of solving a cyberbullying
situation when they knew the victim and other bystanders influenced their self-reported
use of aggressive language. This finding is worth exploring because this may lead
bystanders to use less aggressive language when they have a relationship with the vic-
tim and other bystanders and believe that they can solve this type of situation without
resorting to this type of language. In fact, they could opt toward a more constructive
form of interpersonal communication, such as assertiveness and argumentativeness,
which could provide bystanders with an enhanced perceived credibility when commu-
nicating with others (Rancer, 2009).
16 new media & society 00(0)

With regard to age, this variable was not significant in the proposed model; however,
in the correlations presented, it revealed that there was a tendency for older students to
observe cyberbullying behavior more frequently and have a relationship with the victim
and other bystanders. However, age was not related to self-efficacy beliefs to resolve
cyberbullying incidents. Nonetheless, in this regard, girls tended to report higher self-
efficacy beliefs to resolve cyberbullying incidents, whereas boys tended to report a
greater use of aggressive language.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Some limitations of this investigation must be addressed. This focused primarily on
whether bystanders appropriated this type of language. It did not investigate to what aim
bystanders of cyberbullying used the aggressive language they observed (to engage in
prosocial, assertive help versus antisocial aggressive joining in). Rather, thus, it would be
theoretically and practically interesting to investigate more details about what they used the
language for in future studies with qualitative methodologies for instance (i.e. interviews).
Since this study is cross-sectional in nature, it would be pertinent for future studies to
research the role of bystanders’ relationship with the victims and other bystanders, as well
as self-efficacy beliefs in their self-reported use of aggressive language through experi-
mental designs. Furthermore, this investigation focused on self-efficacy beliefs to resolve
cyberbullying situations; therefore, it would be relevant to also examine the role of group
efficacy to solve cyberbullying situations in the context of verbal aggression online. In
addition, since research has found that there are no significant differences between bystand-
ers’ behavior in bullying and cyberbullying situations (Macháčková and Pfetsch, 2016),
understanding how specific online and offline peer group norms may influence the self-
reported use of aggressive language would help explain bystanders’ reactions.
Moreover, even though this investigation makes an important contribution to increase
knowledge regarding what may be related with bystanders’ use of aggressive language
after witnessing others using it, it would be interesting to examine any potential new
bystander demeanor regarding their way of communicating online, which may thus lead
to different problem-solving strategies with regard to cyberbullying (Whittaker and
Kowalski, 2015). Furthermore, considering self-efficacy is the main aspect of personal
agency which refers to individuals’ beliefs in their ability to manage their own function-
ing and environmental occurrences, a future contribution could investigate bystanders’
perceived behavioral control (Bandura, 2001), which seems to be a strong antecedent of
cyberbullying behavior (Pabian and Vandebosch, 2014). In addition, it would be an
important contribution to the field to understand whether bystanders’ self-efficacy beliefs
to solve cyberbullying situations are in accordance with their form of communicating in
these situations through longitudinal studies with both self-reported and objective data.
Hence, investigating these determinants could contribute to future cyberbullying inter-
ventions. Future studies could also consider investigating adolescents’ different inten-
tions in detail when using specific language to communicate with others online. Finally,
a replication of the study could be done to confirm the fit indices of the chosen model, as
well as to understand whether the model could function if the relationship between the
bystander and the cyberbully was considered.
Ferreira et al. 17

Further insights and implications for practice

Cyberbullying is a phenomenon of social interaction (Veiga Simão et al., 2017), and
understanding bystanders’ presence within this context is still being researched. The
results of this study contribute to a better understanding of adolescents’ interpersonal
online communication as bystanders and underline the importance of social relation-
ships and self-efficacy in bystanders’ decision to use aggressive language. Specifically,
the models presented revealed that self-efficacy beliefs to resolve cyberbullying situa-
tions was associated to bystanders’ relationship with the victim and other bystanders, as
opposed to stemming directly from observed incidents to determine the use of verbal
aggression. This evidence suggests that bystanders’ social relationships are determi-
nants of these beliefs. In other words, it is not only the observed situation that may
determine bystanders’ self-efficacy beliefs to resolve a cyberbullying situation but the
relationships they have with those involved, namely the victim and other bystanders.
Focusing on bystanders’ relationships with those involved in the cyberbullying situa-
tions they witness, developing self-efficacy beliefs, and understanding how these rela-
tions determine these beliefs, which in turn condition bystanders’ self-reported use of
aggressive language, hold prospects of an increased psychological understanding of the
decision-making process bystanders go through before choosing ways of communicat-
ing their thoughts with others online. Given the social nature of cyberbullying, the pos-
sible determining role of interpersonal relationships in behavior might also suggest the
relevance of group interventions in this phenomenon.
Moreover, the results presented may contribute to how the cyberbullying phenome-
non and verbal aggression are conceptualized because the role of gender may potentially
clarify how self-efficacy beliefs to resolve these types of incidents may be perceived
differently on whether bystanders are boys or girls. In fact, the results revealed that boys
had a greater tendency to use verbal aggression and a lower tendency to report this type
of self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, not only should these variables be considered when con-
ceptualizing phenomena in detail but also when designing educational programs tailored
to specific individuals (e.g. boys and/or girls).
Implementing educational programs that focus on aiding these individuals in develop-
ing their self-efficacy beliefs to solve cyberbullying situations is a priority, concerning
their interpersonal communication skills within their ingroups and outgroups.
Furthermore, educational interventions in cyberbullying should also focus on promoting
adolescents’ ability to communicate in online interactions, which often do not provide
enough social cues and nonverbal behavior to help make behavioral decisions (Van Der
Heide and Walther, 2009). These programs could focus on teaching adolescents how to
develop their interpersonal communication skills, specifically, including constructive
forms of communication, such as assertiveness and argumentativeness, and how to regu-
late destructive forms of communication, such as hostility and verbal aggressiveness
(Rancer, 2009). Since different forms of communication interact with environmental fac-
tors (Rancer and Nicotera, 2007), and individual differences, which are important aspects
in the socio-cognitive theory (Bandura, 2006), it is important to investigate the role of
this type of communication in cyberbullying contexts. These insights may help develop
intervention programs with innovative technological resources (i.e. application and
18 new media & society 00(0)

online games) which propose to promote social-emotional skills, resolution strategies,

and prosocial behavior among bystanders through the development of interpersonal
communication skills.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science
and Technology (grant nos SFRH/BPD/110695/2015 and PTDC/MHC-PED/3297/2014).

ORCID iDs
Paula da Costa Ferreira https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8679-4566
Ana Margarida Veiga Simão https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3652-5573
Sofia Oliveira https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3941-1387

Note
1. Hereafter, to facilitate the reading process, we will refer to this variable as “self-reported use
of aggressive language.”

References
Allison KR and Bussey K (2017) Individual and collective moral influences on intervention in
cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior 74: 7–15.
Anker AE and Feeley TH (2011) Are nonparticipants in prosocial behavior merely innocent
bystanders? Health Communication 26(1): 13–24.
Bandura A (1988) Perceived self-efficacy: exercise of control through self-belief. In: Dauwalder
JP, Perrez M and Hobi V (eds) Annual Series of European Research in Behavior Therapy,
Vol. 2. Amsterdam; Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 27–59.
Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology
52(1): 1–26.
Bandura A (2002) Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of
Moral Education 31(2): 101–119.
Bandura A (2006) Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In: Pajares F and Urdan
T (eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing,
pp. 1–43.
Bandura A (2008) An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In: Lopez SJ (ed.) Positive
Psychology: Exploring the Best in People, Discovering Human Strengths. Westport, CT:
Praeger, pp. 167–196.
Barchia K and Bussey K (2011) Predictors of student defenders of peer aggression victims: empa-
thy and social cognitive factors. International Journal of Behavioral Development 35(4):
289–297.
Baron RA and Richardson DR (1994) Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press.
Bastiaensens S, Pabian S, Vandebosch H, et al. (2016) From normative influence to social pres-
sure: how relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development
25(1): 193–211.
Bastiaensens S, Vandebosch H, Poels K, et al. (2014) Cyberbullying on social network sites: an
experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the
bully. Computers in Human Behavior 31: 259–271.
Ferreira et al. 19

Bauman S (2013) Cyberbullying: what does research tell us? Theory into Practice 52(4): 249–256.
Belsey B (2006) Cyberbullying: an emerging threat to the “always on” generation. Available at:
http://www.billbelsey.com/?p=1827
Berne S, Frisén A, Schultze-Krumbholz A, et al. (2013) Cyberbullying assessment instruments: a
systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 18(2): 320–334.
Blair CA, Foster Thompson L and Wuensch KL (2005) Electronic helping behavior: the vir-
tual presence of others makes a difference. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27(2):
171–178.
Brody N and Vangelisti AL (2016) Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication
Monographs 83(1): 94–119.
Browne MW and Cudeck R (1989) Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance struc-
tures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24(4): 445–455.
Burns S, Maycock B, Cross D, et al. (2008) The power of peers: why some students bully others
to conform. Qualitative Health Research 18(12): 1704–1716.
Cappadocia MC, Pepler D, Cummings JG, et al. (2012) Individual motivations and characteristics
associated with bystander intervention during bullying episodes among children and youth.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology 27(3): 201–216.
Carlo G, Hausmann A, Christiansen S, et al. (2003) Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of
a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence 23:
107–134.
Crick NR and Dodge KA (1996) Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proac-
tive aggression. Child Development 67(3): 993–1002.
DeSmet A, Bastiaensens S, Van Cleemput K, et al. (2016) Deciding whether to look after them, to
like it, or leave it: a multidimensional analysis of predictors of positive and negative bystander
behavior in cyberbullying among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior 57: 398–415.
DeSmet A, Veldeman C, Poels K, et al. (2014) Determinants of self-reported bystander behav-
ior in cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking 17(4): 207–215.
Dooley JJ, Pyżalski J and Cross D (2009) Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: a theo-
retical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology 217(4):
182–188.
Erreygers S, Pabian S, Vandebosch H, et al. (2016) Helping behavior among adolescent
bystanders of cyberbullying: the role of impulsivity. Learning and Individual Differences
48: 61–67.
Ferreira PC, Veiga Simão AM, Paiva A, et al. (2019) Responsive bystander behaviour in cyber-
bullying: a path through self-efficacy. Behaviour & Information Technology 58: 12–23.
Fishbein M and Ajzen I (2011) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action
Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Foody M, McGuire L, Kuldas S, et al. (2019) Friendship quality and gender differences in associa-
tion with cyberbullying involvement and psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology
10: 1723.
Francisco SM, Veiga Simão AM, Ferreira PC, et al. (2015) Cyberbullying: The hidden side of
college students. Computers in Human Behavior 43: 167–182.
Giles H (2012) The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. New York: Routledge.
Giles H and Maass A (2016) Advances in Intergroup Communication. Bern: Peter Lang.
Gradinger P, Strohmeier D and Spiel C (2010) Definition and measurement of cyberbullying.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 4(2). Available at:
https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4235/3280 (accessed 5 July 2019).
20 new media & society 00(0)

Hooper D, Coughlan J and Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for
determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6(1): 53–60.
Available at: https://arrow.dit.ie/libart/4/ (accessed 27 October 2018).
Keblusek L, Giles H and Maass A (2017) Communication and group life: how language and sym-
bols shape intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 20(5): 632–643.
König L and Jucks R (2019) Hot topics in science communication: aggressive language decreases
trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science 28(4):
401–416.
Kubiszewski V, Fontaine R, Potard C, et al. (2015) Does cyberbullying overlap with school bul-
lying when taking modality of involvement into account? Computers in Human Behavior 43:
49–57.
Latané B and Darley JM (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology 28:
563–575.
Lee SH and Kim HW (2015) Why people post benevolent and malicious comments online.
Communications of the ACM 58(11): 74–79.
Livingstone S and Smith PK (2014) Annual research review: harms experienced by child users of
online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggres-
sive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 55(6): 635–654.
Locher MA (2010) Introduction: politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communica-
tion. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 6(1): 1–5.
Macháčková H and Pfetsch J (2016) Bystanders’ responses to offline bullying and cyberbully-
ing: the role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology 57(2): 169–176.
Macháčková H, Dedkova L, Sevcikova A, et al. (2013) Bystanders’ support of cyberbullied
schoolmates. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 23(1): 25–36.
Marôco J (2010) Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fundamentos Teóricos, Software & Aplicações
(Structural Equation Analyses: Theoretical Foundations, Software and Applications). Pêro
Pinheiro: Report Number, Lda.
Mehari KR, Farrell AD and Le ATH (2014) Cyberbullying among adolescents: measures in search
of a construct. Psychology of Violence 4(4): 399–415.
Obermaier M, Fawzi N and Koch T (2016) Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystand-
ers affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media & Society 18(8): 491–1507.
Olenik-Shemesh D, Heiman T and Eden S (2017) Bystanders’ behavior in cyberbullying episodes:
active and passive patterns in the context of personal-socio-emotional factors. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 32(1): 23–48.
Pabian S and Vandebosch H (2014) Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand cyber-
bullying: the importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology 11(4): 463–477.
Pabian S, Vandebosch H, Poels K, et al. (2016) Exposure to cyberbullying as a bystander: an inves-
tigation of desensitization effects among early adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior
62: 480–487.
Parvaresh V and Tayebi T (2018) Impoliteness, aggression and the moral order. Journal of
Pragmatics 132: 91–107.
Pastorelli C, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, et al. (2001) The structure of children’s perceived self-
efficacy: a cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 17(2): 87–97.
Patchin JW and Hinduja S (2015) Measuring cyberbullying: implications for research. Aggression
and Violent Behavior 23: 69–74.
Ferreira et al. 21

Patterson LJ, Allan A and Cross D (2017a) Adolescent perceptions of bystanders’ responses to
cyberbullying. New Media & Society 19(3): 366–383.
Patterson LJ, Allan A and Cross D (2017b) Adolescent bystander behavior in the school and
online environments and the implications for interventions targeting cyberbullying. Journal
of School Violence 16(4): 361–375.
Potha N, Maragoudakis M and Lyras D (2016) A biology-inspired, data mining framework for
extracting patterns in sexual cyberbullying data. Knowledge-Based Systems 96: 134–155.
Preacher KJ and Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and com-
paring indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3):
879–891.
Rancer A (2009) Aggressive communication. In: Reis HT and Sprecher S (eds) Encyclopedia of
Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 65–68.
Rancer AS and Nicotera AM (2007) Aggressive communication. In: Whaley BB and Samter W
(eds) Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 129–147.
Raykov T and Marcoulides GA (1999) On desirability of parsimony in structural equation model
selection. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 292–300.
Rogoff B (1995) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation,
guided participation and apprenticeship. In: Wertsch JV, del Rio P and Alvarez A (eds)
Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–164.
Rösner L, Winter S and Krämer NC (2016) Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online com-
ments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 58:
461–470.
Schacter HL, Greenberg S and Juvonen J (2016) Who’s to blame? The effects of victim disclosure
on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior 57: 115–121.
Sillars A and Vangelisti A (2009) Communication processes, verbal. In: Reis HT and Sprecher
S (eds) Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 267–271.
Souza SB, Veiga Simão AM, Ferreira AI, et al. (2018) University students’ perceptions of campus
climate, cyberbullying and cultural issues: implications for theory and practice. Studies in
Higher Education 43(11): 2072–2087.
Stadler C, Poustka F and Sterzer P (2010) The heterogeneity of disruptive behavior disorders:
implications for neurobiological research and treatment. Frontiers in Psychiatry 1: 21.
Thornberg R and Jungert T (2013) Bystander behavior in bullying situations: basic moral sensitivity,
moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence 36: 475–483.
Van Der Heide B and Walther JB (2009) Computer-mediated communication. In: Reis HT and
Sprecher S (eds) Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.
291–293.
Veiga Simão AV, Ferreira PC, Freire I, et al. (2017) Adolescent cybervictimization - Who they
turn to and their perceived school climate. Journal of Adolescence 58: 12–23.
Vygotsky L (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Whittaker E and Kowalski RM (2015) Cyberbullying via social media. Journal of School Violence
14(1): 11–29.
Wilson FR, Pan W and Schumsky DA (2012) Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s
content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 45(3):
197–210.
Ybarra M, Boyd D, Korchmaros J, et al. (2012) Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the
larger context of bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 51: 53–58.
22 new media & society 00(0)

Author biographies
Paula da Costa Ferreira, PhD, is a researcher in Educational Psychology and an invited professor
at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She has a PhD in Educational Psychology.
She is responsible for the Cyberbullying Study Program of the ProAdapt Research Group at the
Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) and is a researcher at INESC-ID, Instituto
Superior Técnico in Lisbon, Portugal. She currently investigates emotion and behavioral regula-
tion, as well as moral engagement in cyberbullying.
Ana Margarida Veiga Simão, PhD, is a full professor at the Faculty of Psychology of the University
of Lisbon. She is also the coordinator of the Interuniversity Doctoral Program (Coimbra-Lisboa)
in Educational Psychology and a researcher of the ProAdapt Research Group of the Research
Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI). Her main research interests are the processes of self-
regulated learning, professional development of teachers, teaching in higher education, violence in
educational contexts, bullying, and cyberbullying.
Nadia Salgado Pereira, PhD, is a clinical psychologist, has a PhD in Educational Psychology, and
works at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She has developed a Social-
Emotional Learning Program in the Portuguese educational context. Currently she is developing
an application to help adolescents regulate their behavior in situations of cyberbullying.
Paula Paulino, PhD, is an assistant professor at the School of Psychology and Life Sciences of the
Lusophone University of Humanities and Technologies, Lisbon. She has a PhD in Educational
Psychology (Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon [FPUL], Portugal). She is a researcher
in Educational Psychology at the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI) at the
FPUL. Her main research interests focus on motivation, self-regulated learning, bullying, and
cyberbullying.
Sofia Oliveira, MSc, is an educational psychologist, has a master’s degree in Educational
Psychology (Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon [FPUL], Portugal), and currently works
as a research assistant at FPUL. Her main research interests focus on self-regulated learning,
social-emotional learning, and professional development of teachers. Currently she is developing
an application to help adolescents regulate their behavior in situations of cyberbullying.