Bystanders Join in Cyberbullying on Social Networking Sites: The Deindividuation and Moral Disengagement Perspectives

References

• ADL (2020) Online hate and 2020 harassment: The American experience 2020. Report (May 3), https://www.adl.org/media/14643/download.Google Scholar
• Akram Z, Khan AG, Akram U, Ahmad S, Song LJ (2022) A contemporary view of interpersonal aggression and cyberbullying through ICT: Multilevel insights from lmx differentiation. Internet Res., ePub ahead of print, May 17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Al-Garadi MA, Hussain MR, Khan N, Murtaza G, Nweke HF, Ali I, Mujtaba G, Chiroma H, Khattak HA, Gani A (2019) Predicting cyberbullying on social media in the big data era using machine learning algorithms: Review of literature and open challenges. IEEE Access 7:70701–70718.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alleyne E, Fernandes I, Pritchard E (2014) Denying humanness to victims: How gang members justify violent behavior. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 17(6):750–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson J, Bresnahan M, Musatics C (2014) Combating weight-based cyberbullying on Facebook with the dissenter effect. Cyberpsych. Behav. Soc. Networks 17(5):281–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A (2016) Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves (Worth Publishers, New York).Google Scholar
• Bandura A (2002) Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J. Moral Ed. 31(2):101–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A, Underwood B, Fromson ME (1975) Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. J. Res. Personality 9(4):253–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C (1996) Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 71(2):364–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barlinska J, Szuster A, Winiewski M (2013) Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: Role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psych. 23(1):37–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barlinska J, Szuster A, Winiewski M (2018) Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: Role of affective vs. cognitive empathy in increasing prosocial cyberbystander behavior. Frontiers Psych. 9:799–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bastiaensens S, Vandebosch H, Poels K, Van Cleemput K, DeSmet A, De Bourdeaudhuij I (2014) Cyberbullying on social network sites: An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Comput. Human Behav. 31:259–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bastiaensens S, Pabian S, Vandebosch H, Poels K, van Cleemput K, Desmet A, de Bourdeaudhuij I (2016) From normative influence to social pressure: How relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Soc. Development 25(1):193–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauman S, Newman ML (2013) Testing assumptions about cyberbullying: Perceived distress associated with acts of conventional and cyber bullying. Psych. Violence 3(1):27–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Behnk S, Hao L, Reuben E (2022) Partners in crime: Diffusion of responsibility in antisocial behaviors. Eur. Econom. Rev. 145:104116. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/11031/partners-in-crime-diffusion-of-responsibility-in-antisocial-behaviors.Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Management 29(6):991–1013.Google Scholar
• Brody N, Vangelisti AL (2015) Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Comm. Monographs 83(1):1–26.Google Scholar
• Cao B, Lin W-Y (2015) How do victims react to cyberbullying on social networking sites? The influence of previous cyberbullying victimization experiences. Comput. Human Behav. 52:458–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan TKH, Cheung CMK, Lee ZWY (2021) Cyberbullying on social networking sites: A literature review and future research directions. Inform. Management 58(2):103411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan TKH, Cheung CMK, Wong RYM (2019) Cyberbullying on social networking sites: The crime opportunity and affordance perspectives. J. Management Inform. Systems 36(2):574–609.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen H-T (2018) Spiral of silence on social media and the moderating role of disagreement and publicness in the network: Analyzing expressive and withdrawal behaviors. New Media Soc. 20(10):3917–3936.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen VHH, Wu Y (2015) Group identification as a mediator of the effect of players’ anonymity on cheating in online games. Behav. Inform. Tech. 34(7):658–667.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheung CMK, Wong RYM, Chan TKH (2021) Online disinhibition: Conceptualization, measurement, and implications for online deviant behavior. Indust. Management Data Systems 121(1):48–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Arcy J, Herath T, Shoss MK (2014) Understanding employee responses to stressful information security requirements: A coping perspective. J. Management Inform. Systems 31(2):285–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darley JM, Latane B (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 8(4):377–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeSmet A, Bastiaensens S, Van Cleemput K, Poels K, Vandebosch H, Cardon G, de Bourdeaudhuij I (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. Comput. Human Behav. 57:398–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diener E, Wallbom M (1976) Effects of self-awareness on antinormative behavior. J. Res. Personality 10(1):107–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• El Zein M, Bahrami B, Hertwig R (2019) Shared responsibility in collective decisions. Nature Human Behav. 3(6):554–559.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forsberg C, Thornberg R, Samuelsson M (2014) Bystanders to bullying: Fourth-to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Res. Papers Ed. 29(5):557–576.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaudette T, Scrivens R, Davies G, Frank R (2021) Upvoting extremism: Collective identity formation and the extreme right on reddit. New Media Soc. 23(12):3491–3508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giner-Sorolla R, Leidner B, Castano E (2012) Dehumanization, demonization, and morality shifting: Paths to moral certainty in extremist violence. Hogg MA, Blaylock DL, eds. Extremism and the Psychology of Uncertainty (Wiley‐Blackwell, Boston), 165–182.Google Scholar
• Gini G (2007) Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying. School Psych. Internat. 28(1):77–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giumetti GW, Kowalski RM (2022) Cyberbullying via social media and well-being. Current Opinion Psych. 45:101314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glasford DE, Dovidio JF, Pratto F (2009) I continue to feel so good about us: In-group identification and the use of social identity—Enhancing strategies to reduce intragroup dissonance. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 35(4):415–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gosling P, Denizeau M, Oberlé D (2006) Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonance reduction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 90(5):722–733.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hair JJF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (pls-sem), 2nd ed. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Harris LT, Fiske ST (2006) Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psych. Sci. 17(10):847–853.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holfeld B (2014) Perceptions and attributions of bystanders to cyber bullying. Comput. Human Behav. 38:1–7.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hughes R, Huby M (2002) The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. J. Advanced Nursing 37(4):382–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones SE, Manstead ASR, Livingstone AG (2011) Ganging up or sticking together? Group processes and children’s responses to text-message bullying. British J. Psych. 102(1):71–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane GC, Alavi M, Labianca G, Borgatti SP (2014) What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 38(1):274–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koehler C, Weber M (2018) “Do I really need to help?!” Perceived severity of cyberbullying, victim blaming, and bystanders’ willingness to help the victim. Cyberpsych. J. Psych. Res. Cyberspace 12(4). https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/11451/10232.Google Scholar
• Latané B, Darley JM (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York).Google Scholar
• Leidner B, Castano E, Zaiser E, Giner-Sorolla R (2010) Ingroup glorification, moral disengagement, and justice in the context of collective violence. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 36(8):1115–1129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li S, Zhang G (2018) Intergroup communication in online forums: The effect of group identification on online support provision. Comm. Res. 48(6):874–894.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Longobardi C, Settanni M, Fabris MA, Marengo D (2020) Follow or be followed: Exploring the links between Instagram popularity, social media addiction, cyber victimization, and subjective happiness in Italian adolescents. Children Youth Services Rev. 113:104955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louis WR, Taylor DM, Douglas RL (2005) Normative influence and rational conflict decisions: Group norms and cost-benefit analyses for intergroup behavior. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 8(4):355–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lowry PB, Zhang J, Wang C, Siponen M (2016) Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Inform. Systems Res. 27(4):962–986.Link, Google Scholar
• Machackova H, Pfetsch J (2016) Bystanders’ responses to offline bullying and cyberbullying: The role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression. Scandinavian J. Psych. 57(2):169–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP (2011) Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 35(2):293–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marshall A, Chan TKH (2021) Cybermobbing behaviors on social networking sites: A social impact and dual social influences perspective. DIGIT 2021 Proc., vol. 1. https://aisel.aisnet.org/digit2021/1/.Google Scholar
• McGloin JM, Thomas KJ (2016) Incentives for collective deviance: Group size and changes in perceived risk, cost, and reward. Criminology 54(3):459–486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McHugo GJ, Smith CA, Lanzetta JT (1982) The structure of self-reports of emotional responses to film segments. Motivation Emotion 6(4):365–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mooij T (2011) Differences in pupil characteristics and motives in being a victim, perpetrator and witness of violence in secondary education. Res. Papers Ed. 26(1):105–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore C, Detert JR, Klebe Treviño L, Baker VL, Mayer DM (2012) Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psych. 65(1):1–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nagumo J, Imahashi R (2020) Hana Kimura’s death fuels debate over how to stop cyberbullying. Nikkei Asian Rev. (June 16), https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Hana-Kimura-s-death-fuels-debate-over-how-to-stop-cyberbullying.Google Scholar
• Obermaier M, Fawzi N, Koch T (2014) Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media Soc. 18(8):1491–1507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patterson LJ, Allan A, Cross D (2016) Adolescent bystanders’ perspectives of aggression in the online vs. school environments. J. Adolescence 49:60–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patterson LJ, Allan A, Cross D (2017) Adolescent bystander behavior in the school and online environments and the implications for interventions targeting cyberbullying. J. School Violence 16(4):361–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center (2017) Online harassment 2017. Accessed September 2, 2019, https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/.Google Scholar
• Polites GL, Roberts N, Thatcher J (2012) Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: A review and guidelines for their use. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 21(1):22–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Postmes T, Spears R (1998) Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 123(3):238–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Postmes T, Spears R, Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? Side-effects of computer-mediated communication. Comm. Res. 25(6):689–715.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (1989) Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. Paulus PB, ed. Psychology of Group Influence (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., London), 87–109.Google Scholar
• RAD (2018) Online harassment: Still a big problem and getting worse. Accessed September 1, 2019, http://onlineharassmentdata.org.Google Scholar
• Reicher S, Levine M (1994) Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out‐group. British J. Soc. Psych. 33(2):145–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reicher SD, Spears R, Postmes T (1995) A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 6(1):161–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robson C, Witenberg RT (2013) The influence of moral disengagement, morally based self-esteem, age, and gender on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. J. School Violence 12(2):211–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roccas S, Klar Y, Liviatan I (2004) Exonerating Cognitions, Group Identification, and Personal Values as Predictors of Collective Guilt Among Jewish-Israelis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Runions KC, Bak M (2015) Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Cyberpsych. Behav. Soc. Networks 18(7):400–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salmivalli C (2010) Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression Violent Behav. 15(2):112–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sarker S, Chatterjee S, Xiao X, Elbanna A (2019) The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the is discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 43(3):695–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sassenberg K (2002) Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynam. 6(1):27–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schacter HL, Greenberg S, Juvonen J (2016) Who’s to blame? The effects of victim disclosure on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Comput. Human Behav. 57:115–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spears R, Lea M (1994) Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Comm. Res. 21(4):427–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spears R, Postmes T (2015) Group identity, social influence, and collective action online: Extensions and applications of the side model. Sundar SS, ed. The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, vol. 32 (Wiley Online Library, UK), 23–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steer OL, Betts LR, Baguley T, Binder JF (2020) “I feel like everyone does it”—Adolescents’ perceptions and awareness of the association between humour, banter, and cyberbullying. Comput. Human Behav. 108:106297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsych. Behav. 7(3):321–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. Worchel S, Austin WG, eds. Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), 7–24.Google Scholar
• Tarafdar M, Davison RM (2018) Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 19(6):523–551.Google Scholar
• Tepper BJ, Duffy MK, Henle CA, Lambert LS (2006) Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psych. 59(1):101–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornberg R (2015) School bullying as a collective action: Stigma processes and identity struggling. Children Soc. 29(4):310–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornberg R, Jungert T (2013) Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. J. Adolescence 36(3):475–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turel O, Matt C, Trenz M, Cheung CMK, D’Arcy J, Qahri-Saremi H, Tarafdar M (2019) Panel report: The dark side of the digitization of the individual. Internet Res. 29(2):274–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Twemlow SW, Fonagy P, Sacco FC, Gies ML, Hess D (2001) Improving the social and intellectual climate in elementary schools by addressing the bully-victim-bystander power struggles. Cohen J, ed. Caring Classrooms, Intelligent Schools: The Social Emotional Education of Young Children (Teachers College Press, New York), 162–181.Google Scholar
• Valkenburg PM, Peter J (2011) Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. J. Adolescent Health 48(2):121–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walther JB (2011) Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. Knapp ML, Daly JA, eds. The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 4th ed. (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA), 443–479.Google Scholar
• Waytz A, Epley N (2012) Social connection enables dehumanization. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 48(1):70–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber M, Koehler C, Schnauber-Stockmann A (2019) Why should I help you? Man up! Bystanders’ gender stereotypic perceptions of a cyberbullying incident. Deviant Behav. 40(5):585–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber M, Ziegele M, Schnauber A (2013) Blaming the victim: The effects of extraversion and information disclosure on guilt attributions in cyberbullying. Cyberpsych. Behav. Soc. Networks 16(4):254–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilks T (2004) The use of vignettes in qualitative research into social work values. Qualitative Soc. Work 3(1):78–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wong RYM, Cheung CMK, Xiao B, Thatcher JB (2021) Standing up or standing by: Understanding bystanders’ proactive reporting responses to social media harassment. Inform. Systems Res. 32(2):561–581.Link, Google Scholar
• Wright M (2018) Cyberbullying victimization through social networking sites and adjustment difficulties: The role of parental mediation. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 19(2):113–123.Google Scholar