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

net/publication/257934049

Cyberbullying among Adolescent Bystanders: Role of the Communication

Medium, Form of Violence, and Empathy

Article  in  Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology · January 2013

DOI: 10.1002/casp.2137

CITATIONS READS

85 751

3 authors:

Julia Barlińska Anna Szuster

University of Warsaw University of Warsaw
9 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mikołaj Winiewski
University of Warsaw
33 PUBLICATIONS   260 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The children on the Internet and the concept of own privacy. View project

Universal multi-faceted program of Prevention of Electronic Aggression directed to Junior Secondary Schools View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anna Szuster on 26 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/casp.2137

Cyberbullying among Adolescent Bystanders: Role

of the Communication Medium, Form of Violence,
and Empathy

JULIA BARLIŃSKA1*, ANNA SZUSTER1 and MIKOŁAJ WINIEWSKI2

1
University of Warsaw, Faculty of Psychology, Warsaw, Poland
2
The Maria Grzegorzewska Academy of Special Education, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to understand how adolescents respond as bystanders of cyberbullying
and to seek factors that might influence their actions. The study explored the effects of type of contact
(online vs. face to face), form of violence (private vs. public), and empathy activation (affective and
cognitive) on negative bystander behaviour understood as active participation in victimisation. The
influence of experience of cyberbullying as perpetrator and as victim and gender on negative
bystander behaviour was also controlled. Three experimental studies were conducted. The results
indicate that online contact increases the likelihood of negative bystander behaviour. Private violence
was less likely to elicit negative bystander action than was public violence. Previous experience of
cyberperpetration was proved to increase the probability of negative bystander behaviour. Neither
gender nor cybervictimisation affected the engagement in negative bystander behaviour in any of
the studies. The inhibitory effect of empathy activation (both affective and cognitive) on negative
bystander behaviour was demonstrated. Both types of cognitive empathy induction, emotion and
behaviour focused, diminish the likelihood of negative bystander behaviour. The conclusions of
the research are that negative bystander behaviour occurs more often in cyberspace than offline
and that forms of intervention involving both affective and cognitive empathy may limit the negative
bystander behaviour that supports cyberbullying. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: cyberbullying; bystanders; adolescents; empathy

INTRODUCTION

For adolescents, the Internet is a natural environment for gaining experience and satisfying
social needs. Cyberbullying is a novel social phenomenon whose consequences and scale

*Correspondence to: Julia Barlińska, Wydział Psychologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, ul. Stawki 5/7, 00-183
Warszawa, Poland.
E-mail: jbarlinska@psych.uw.edu.pl

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 31 October 2012
38 J. Barlińska et al.

(Barlinska & Wojtasik, 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Li, 2006; Walrave & Heirman,
2011) necessitate the development of empirically validated guidelines for intervention
and prevention.
Research has clearly demonstrated that bystanders play a significant role in bullying,
being regarded as the ‘invisible engine in the cycle of bullying’ (Twemlow, Fonagy,
Sacco, Gies, & Hess, 2001). The emphasis on the importance of bystanders as powerful
moderators of behaviour is increasing (Salmivalli, 1999) also in the context of cyberbullying
(Ball, 2007; Kraft, 2011).
In this project, we focus on the negative aspects of the activities of witnesses. In this
context, a bystander audience in cyberspace can play an active role by participating in
the victimisation. Although they may not have created a text or image, individuals are
complicit in spreading it to ever-widening audiences. The decision to forward a nasty
message makes the boundary between perpetrator and negative bystander a very fine one
(Spears, Slee, Owens, & Johnson, 2008).
Although, as in traditional bullying, the best way to react as a bystander might be by
actively disapproving the acts of the bully and defending the victim, in cyberspace, inactive
behaviour has a different connotation than it does in direct contact and is positive to some
degree. Being a bystander inactive in the process of harming by choosing not to post or
forward but to delete nasty materials seems to be an important part of the solution to the
problem of cyberbullying, as this prevents the audience for cyberbullying from being
enlarged. This kind of reaction over the Internet towards someone being bullied entails some
degree of moral engagement in not being part of the problem (Spears et al., 2008).

Cyberbullying: online peer bullying

In the context of adolescents, bullying is defined as the intentional, negative actions of one
or more pupils over an extended period, involving repeated, direct attacks on another
student who, due to the perpetrator’s advantage (whether physical or psychological), is
unable to defend himself or herself (Olweus, 1993). By extension, cyberbullying should
possess all those features, but the main difference is that it is committed via the medium
of modern communication technologies (Williams & Guerra, 2007). Due to the specifics of
the utilisation of these technologies, a number of characteristic features of bullying, for
example, repeated attacks, become ambiguous in cyberspace (Boyd, 2007). This complicates
the task of finding a precise definition.
For the purpose of this project, we treat cyberbullying in general terms as violence
committed by perpetrators and bystanders using information and communication technol-
ogies and various functionalities of the Internet, especially messaging software and social
networking services.
Also, the context of roles necessitates refining the basic definition of bullying, from a
dyadic (bully–victim) to a triadic (bully–victim–bystander) perspective (Twemlow et al.,
2001). From this point of view, cyberbullying committed via instant messengers and social
networking services can be regarded as a group phenomenon in which young Internet users
are either intentionally or unintentionally involved in bullying as active or inactive bystanders
(Ball, 2007).
Cyberbullying can assume a number of forms, for example, online harassment, intimi-
dation, and blackmail. Still, the most common form in the population of Polish teenagers
is verbal bullying and the publication or dissemination of derisory and defamatory images

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders 39

or videos. Interestingly, in over a half of all bullying cases, Polish adolescents are humil-
iated by strangers. Unfamiliar peers appear to be especially active as perpetrators or
negative bystanders (Barlinska & Wojtasik, 2008).

The characteristics of online interaction and bystander behaviour

Bystanders in cyberbullying can easily engage in perpetration (Kowalski, 2008), for example,
by forwarding or posting an image designed to humiliate another child. At the same time,
bystanders often do not perceive themselves as actual participants, although they undertake
actions that contribute to the harassment (Kraft, 2011). The characteristics of computer-
mediated communication are partly responsible for making teenagers particularly susceptible
to taking part in bystander behaviour that supports cyberbullying.
The key factor in this is the perceived online anonymity (McKenna & Bargh, 2000)
of the actor and the potential partner of the interaction – both victim and bystander. It
facilitates deindividuation and the diminution of a sense of responsibility (McKenna,
2008). This leads to Internet disinhibition (Joinson, 1998), which consists of the loss
of self-control and the absence of restraints in social behaviour typical of direct interaction
(Suler, 2004).
Although interaction in cyberspace is becoming more and more visual, non-verbal
communication is still limited when compared with face-to-face contact. Online
interaction lacks access to a whole host of information, such as that provided by facial
expressions, eye contact, or physical distance, which could modify the behaviour (Suler, 2004)
through the automatic activation of empathy as an inhibitor of aggression (Hoffman, 2000) in
cyberspace (Smith et al., 2008; Steffgen & König, 2009). Limited feedback regarding the
impact of online activity on other users produces the ‘cockpit effect’ (Heirman &
Walrave, 2008), wherein bystanders are often unaware of the actual harm caused to the victim
(Kraft, 2011).
It creates distinctive conditions that encourage unwitting aggression, which supports
cyberbullying by negative bystander behaviour.

Public versus private forms of cyberbullying

The size of the audience bearing witness to an act of bullying may influence the chances of
negative bystander behaviour occurring. It is also the defining criterion that differentiates
private from public forms of violence. This is equally true of traditional bullying and
cyberbullying. Yet in cyberbullying, this distinction seems more important than in face-
to-face forms of bullying. Cyberbullying referred to as a ‘cowardly form of bullying’
(Belsey, 2008) creates circumstances, in which private communication seems to have the
potential to exacerbate behaviour that supports bullying (Ball, 2007).
Negative bystander behaviour is more readily performed by means of private forms of
violence as private communication may allow a more selective and purposeful choice of
recipients – those who share and approve of such standards of behaviour. It increases
the probability of escaping unpunished and involves a negligible risk of adult intervention.
Because social norms, including those norms that prohibit causing harm to others and
actualise the potential penalty for their transgression, are more readily activated in a public
setting (Wicklund, 1975), we expected that negative bystander behaviour might occur
more frequently in private forms of violence.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
40 J. Barlińska et al.

Empathy as inhibitor of cyberbullying

Apart from minor definitional differences, there is a general consensus that empathy is
determined by circumstances and the condition of the other person as experienced by
the subject. Empathy can be described as an ‘affective response more appropriate to
someone else’s situation than to one’s own’ (Hoffman, 1982, p.281) or as the ability
to recognise, understand, and share the emotions and sensations of others (Singer &
de Vignemont, 2006). The exploration of cyberbullying among adolescents focuses on
the developmental aspect of empathy (Hoffman, 2000). It is considered to be a continuum,
with affective and cognitive empathy at its two extremes.
Affective empathy (Eisenberg, 2000; Hoffman, 2000) is a basic process, analogous to
the affective content of incoming stimuli. It is manifested in the ability to effortlessly sense
and powerfully experience the emotions of others. This ability to respond to the states of
other people is believed to be innate or to emerge early in ontogenesis. Empathy is
triggered by direct contact with another person. No particular activity is required; merely
noticing a situation suffices. This kind of empathy is based on superficial cues and requires
the mediation of basic cognitive processes.
Cognitive empathy is the ability to understand the beliefs, feelings, and intentions of
others (Decety & Jackson, 2004). It underlies the ability to abstract from a specific or
directly available situation. Moreover, cognitive empathy controls the ability to anticipate
the consequences of one’s actions on others, including violent acts. Cognitive empathy is
free from a number of the limitations of affective empathy occurrence, such as the
necessity of direct contact with another person and sharing their emotional state. Activa-
tion of more advanced modes of empathic stimulation, such as change of perspective,
triggers qualitatively different responses. These processes may be extended in time and
be subject to volitional control, thereby significantly expanding the scope of empathy
beyond direct interaction (Hoffman, 2000).
Research has demonstrated the importance of cognitive empathy. It is typically operatio-
nalised as perspective taking or role taking in shaping positive social relationships (Batson,
1991; Eisenberg et al., 1993), as well as reducing negative behaviour such as prejudice
(Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005) and enhancing tolerance of stigmatised groups (Batson
et al., 1997). Active teaching of perspective taking has become an effective component
of prevention and therapy programmes (Chalmers & Townsend, 1990; Robinson &
Maines, 1997), amending cognitive empathy deficits in, among others, young offenders
engaging in violence and bullying their peers at school.
In the context of cyberbullying, the role of empathy in mitigating negative bystander
behaviour is of particular importance. The cognitive and affective components of empathy
have been shown to reduce aggressive behaviour (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004) and
the propensity for committing offences and engaging in peer violence (Davis, 1994).
Cyberbullies have also been found to have lower cognitive dispositional empathy towards
their potential victims (Steffgen & König, 2009). Increasingly, neuroscientists, psycholo-
gists, and educators believe that antisocial behaviour can be reduced by encouraging
empathy at an early age.
Research into the effects of empathy on cyberbullying has yet to address the third-
party role played by bystanders. The studies referenced above support the view
that empathy is a potentially important inhibitor of bystander behaviour that sup-
ports bullying.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders 41

Significance of victimisation and perpetration cyberbullying experience

Similar to real life, online aggression affects the way people act towards others (Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004). Research findings have confirmed that there is an interaction between the
experience of being a perpetrator of cyberbullying and that of being its victim (Walrave &
Heirman, 2011; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). This also applies to a lesser extent to traditional
bullying. In addition, the two kinds of bullying – online and face to face – are related
(Slonje & Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2008). This is because past involvement in the perpe-
tration of violence reinforces aggressive behaviour through operant conditioning and mod-
elling (Bandura, 1973).
Bystanders’ exposure to cyberbullying is another source of new forms of aggression,
increasing the probability of enacting forms of bullying (Parke & Slaby, 1983). This can
make bystanders support cyberbullying more easily (Kowalski, 2008) as it raises their
overall tolerance to violence.
The experience of victimisation is another factor that facilitates bullying. The sense of
isolation and helplessness experienced by victims of cyberbullying may prompt them to
support bullying more easily, by exacting a kind of revenge on their persecutor or on
another person or social group.
These dependencies allow us to expect the existence of relationships between the
experience of being a perpetrator or victim of cyberbullying and the characteristics of
bystanders’ behaviour.

Gender
Gender is a factor that may differentiate the severity of bullying both in face-to-face and
online interactions. Yet the existing data on cyberbullying are inconclusive. Some suggest
that cyberbullying perpetration is more prevalent among boys (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink,
2008; Li, 2006) and that girls are more often victims (Smith et al., 2008). Others have
found no gender differences (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2007; Williams
& Guerra, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004).
When it comes specifically to bystanders, the data show that there are no gender
differences in peer interventions either in traditional bullying (Ball, 2007) or in cyberbullying
cases (Li, 2006). In the present study, gender differences are examined in relation to negative
bystander behaviour in supporting cyberbullying.

Overview of research
We present three experimental studies conducted on a randomised sample of pupils aged
11–18 years. The aim of the studies was to identify the factors that facilitate and inhibit
negative bystander behaviour in supporting cyberbullying. The effect of gender and being
the victim and/or perpetrator of cyberbullying was controlled.

STUDY 1

The purpose of the first study was to compare the likelihood of negative bystander behaviour
in two types of interactions: online and face to face. The characteristics of contact in
cyberspace may encourage impulsive behaviour and may increase the propensity for

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
42 J. Barlińska et al.

bystander behaviour supporting cyberbullying. Therefore, we decided to test in a controlled

setting whether online interaction is associated with a higher likelihood of negative bystander
behaviour than face to face contact. In addition, the public versus private dimension effect
was explored. As the selective and purposeful choice of addressees creates a group of recipi-
ents who share and approve of such standards of behaviour (Willard, 2006), we expected that
the chance of negative bystander behaviour would be greater in private forms of violence.

Participants
The sample consisted of 760 pupils (380 boys and 380 girls) aged 11–18 years (Mage = 14.91
years; SDage = 1.04 years) from junior high schools and high schools from three provinces of
Poland.

Manipulation
Each participant received a ‘Message from a peer’; its main element was in the form of a
picture containing a debasing image manipulated to show a boy’s face on the body of a dog
with the following comment: ‘Hi, this is my classmate, he looks like a total fool’. The
situation was inspired by actual cases reported to helpline.org.pl, which provides support
to victims of Internet threats.
A Web application, simulating a popular online communication tool among teenagers,
was used in the online condition. In the face-to-face condition, the message was provided
on a sheet of paper to reproduce the actual social context of a typical classroom situation.
Participants were assigned to one of four conditions: face to face versus online and
private versus public. The task was to make a decision on whether the cyberbullying material
should be public or not. This decision was the indicator of active versus inactive bystander
behaviour. The forms of active or passive behaviour varied depending on the condition:
• ‘pass the message to another student’ or ‘throw it away’ in private the face-to-face condition;
• ‘forward to a peer’ or ‘delete’ in the private online condition;
• ‘put it up in the school’s hall’ or ‘throw it away’ in the public face-to-face condition;
• ‘add to class profile’ or ‘delete’ in the public online condition.

Procedure
The study was anonymous and carried out in groups. To control access to the online
version of the study, each participant logged in using a unique, one-time password. The
study was conducted as an in-class (computer laboratory) experiment following a 2 (online
vs. face-to-face condition)  2 (private vs. public conditions) between-participant design
with random group assignment.
The opening task was ‘Message from a peer’. After reading the message, participants
were asked to choose how to act; then, participants completed a questionnaire on the
experience of cyberbullying.

Measures
A 10-item scale of cyberbullying experience (Barlinska & Wojtasik, 2008) was employed.
The questionnaire consists of two subscales, each containing five questions, related to

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders 43

experiencing incidents of cyberbullying as the perpetrator (e.g. ‘Have you ever posted or
sent material that was false or embarrassed someone?’) and victim (e.g. ‘Has anyone ever
posted false or embarrassing materials about you?’). Answers were indicated on a 4-point
Likert-type scale (1 – never, 4 – several times). Both scales (Mvictim = 1.60, SD = 0.61,
and Mperpetrator = 1.74, SD = 0.68) proved to be internally consistent, a = .81 and a = .74,
respectively. The composite scores were used in further analyses.

Results
To evaluate whether gender, the type of contact (online vs. face-to-face), and form of
violence (private vs. public) affected the likelihood of negative bystander behaviour, a
logistic regression analysis was conducted, with selected behaviour (0 – inactive, 1 – active)
as the dependent variable. To address the question of whether previous experiences of
cyberbullying influenced negative bystander behaviour, a second model with an additional
block was tested. In the first model, gender, type of contact, and form of violence were
entered. In the second step, previous experiences as a victim and perpetrator of cyberbullying
were included in the model.
Table 1 presents the results of the hierarchical logistic regression analysis and includes
the values of individual regression coefficients and odds ratios with 95% confidence
intervals, Wald’s chi-squared with the significance level for each variable, overall model
fit statistics, and several measures of association.
The overall model statistics suggest a good fit and the predictive abilities of the model. The
results of the first step indicate that negative bystander behaviour is more likely to occur in
online than in face-to-face contact. Furthermore, the public context of violence decreases
negative bystander behaviour regardless of the type of contact. In additional, the results show
that gender is not related to the choice of behaviour. In the second step, past experiences of
cyberbullying were entered. This model was superior to the previous one in terms of overall
fit, showing the significant impact of these experiences. However, only experience as perpe-
trator was significant and served as an independent predictor of negative bystander behaviour.

Table 1. Logistic regression for cyberbullying and gender, type of contact, form of violence, and
experiences with cyberbullying
Predictor B SE B Wald’s w2 OR (95% CI) Block w2
Step 1 28.05**
Gender (0 – girls) 0.03 0.16 0.05 0.97 (0.71–1.32)
Contact (0 – face to face) 0.48 0.16 9.08* 1.62 (1.18–2.21)
Form (0 – private) 0.65 0.16 16.43** 0.52 (0.38–0.71)
Step 2 57.99**
Experience as perpetrator 0.83 0.15 30.93** 2.29 (1.71–3.07)
Experience as victim 0.12 0.17 0.50 1.13 (0.81–1.57)
Overall model w2
Likelihood ratio test 85.90**
Score test 84.66**
H&L 6.49
*p > .05; **p < .001.
Step 1: Cox & Snell R2 = .04; Nagelkerke R2 = .05; McFadden R2 = .03.
Step 2: Cox & Snell R2 = .11; Nagelkerke R2 = .15; McFadden R2 = .09.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
44 J. Barlińska et al.

STUDY 2

Research on empathy in the context of cyberbullying has shown relatively low levels of
empathic stimulation in the perpetrator during interaction with the victim (Steffgen & König,
2009). Activation of affective empathy preceding a potential cyberbullying act may reduce
the probability of the act by inducing emphatic arousal through automatic, uncontrolled
mechanisms. We decided to test whether affective empathy activation is associated with a
lower likelihood of negative bystander behaviour.

Participants
The sample consisted of 296 pupils (189 boys and 107 girls) aged 12–18 years (Mage = 15.35
years, SDage = 1.24 years) from junior high schools and high schools.

Manipulation
To activate affective empathy, a 2-minute video recording was used presenting a case of
cyberbullying, the victim’s feelings, and the effects on her behaviour.
A pilot test examined the effectiveness of the empathy manipulation. In a between-
group experimental study, we tested whether watching the movie would change the
emotional state of participants. We used a Polish adaptation of the positive and negative
affect schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Forty-four junior high school
pupils were split in two groups (21 in the movie and 23 in the no-movie condition). In the
first condition, the participants watched the movie and then completed the 20-item PANAS
scale. In the control condition, the participants only completed the scale.
To compare emotions across groups, an analysis of variance with mixed design was
conducted, involving a 2 (condition)  2 (positive and negative emotions) design, with the
first factor varying between participants and the second factor within participants. A signifi-
cant condition  emotions effect was found, F(1,42) = 23.67, p < .01; p = 0.36. Post hoc
analysis showed that in the control group, positive emotions were significantly higher
(M = 3.22) than those in the group that had seen the movie (M = 2.05), and the difference
was very large d = 1.64. The opposite pattern was found for negative emotions – these were
higher in the movie condition (M = 1.83) than that in the control condition (M = 1.34). The
difference here was smaller but still substantial (d = 0.68).
The pilot test showed that watching the manipulation movie changed the emotional state
according to the signs of the emotions exposed: It strengthened the experience of negative
emotions and decreased the experience of positive emotions. It is typical of the reaction of
sympathy – a symptom of empathy.

Procedure
The study followed a between-participant design. The place of the study and procedure
were similar to Study 1. First, pupils were randomly assigned to experimental (empathy
activation) or control (no activation) conditions. Next, the ‘Message from a peer’ task with
the selection of type of behaviour was conducted. Only the online version of the tool was
used. Participants were making a choice between two options: ‘forward’ or ‘delete’.
Finally, the experience of cyberbullying scale was administered.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders 45

Measures
The same 10-item scale of cyberbullying experience was employed as that in Study 1. Both
scales proved to be reliable: Mvictim = 1.40, SD = 0.56, a = .76, and Mperpetrator = 1.41, SD = 0.55,
a = .78.

Results
To evaluate whether activation of empathy is reducing the likelihood of negative bystander
behaviour, logistic regression analysis was conducted, with selected behaviour (0 – inactive,
1 – active) as the dependent variable. In addition, for control purposes, previous experiences
of cyberbullying and gender were included in the model.
Table 2 presents the logistic regression results for negative bystander behaviour
predicted by gender, previous experience of cyberbullying, and experimental condition
(empathy activation). The results show a substantial effect of the experimental condition,
significantly decreasing the odds of negative bystander behaviour. In addition, the results
show a strong effect of previous experience as perpetrator in predicting negative bystander
behaviour. Effects for gender and previous experience as a cyberbullying victim were not
significant. These findings are consistent with the previous study.

STUDY 3

The aim of Study 3 was to examine the effects of cognitive empathy on negative bystander
behaviour. Research has demonstrated the importance of cognitive empathy in reducing
negative behaviour (Batson et al., 1997; Galinsky et al., 2005). The focus has been on
two aspects of cognitive empathy: anticipation of (i) emotions experienced by the other
person and (ii) the other person’s behaviour in response to the harm to his or her well-
being. A number of reports have supported the efficacy of this form of induction (Krevans
& Gibbs, 1996; Parke & Swain, 1980) for enhancing the understanding of the conse-
quences of one’s own behaviour. It was expected that actively taking the perspective of
another person by focusing on the negative consequences of cyberbullying for its victim
would decrease the odds of negative bystander behaviour.

Table 2. Logistic regression for cyberbullying and empathy activation

Predictor B SE B Wald’s w2 OR (95% CI)
Gender (0 – girls) 0.35 0.37 0.88 0.70 (0.34–1.46)
Experience as perpetrator 1.69 0.37 21.24** 5.43 (2.64–11.13)
Experience as victim 0.55 0.42 1.71 0.57 (0.25–1.32)
Empathy (0 – no movie) 1.09 0.40 7.45* 0.34 (0.15–0.74)
Overall model w2
Likelihood ratio test 38.72**
Score test 44.44**
H&L 7.47
**p > .001; *p > .01.
Cox & Snell R2 = .12; Nagelkerke R2 = .21; McFadden R2 = .15.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
46 J. Barlińska et al.

Participants
The sample consisted of 288 pupils (140 boys and 148 girls) aged 12–18 years (Mage = 14.83
years, SDage = 1.5 years) from junior high schools and high schools.

Manipulation
To activate two types of cognitive empathy, the same 2-minute movie was used as in Study
2. An instruction activating conscious and reflective processes preceded the video. In the
experimental conditions, the participants were instructed to identify with the situation
depicted in the video and to focus on those aspects that reflected the victim’s emotions
in the first condition and behaviour in the second condition. To activate the process of
cognitive empathy, the participants were asked to select from a list of emotions/behaviours
that appeared in the recording. In the control condition, the participants were instructed to
focus on the elements of the background and were asked to select from a list of elements
that appeared in the recording.

Procedure
The nature and place of the study were the same as in Studies 1 and 2. The design of the
study followed a simple between-subject experimental design: two types of cognitive
empathy activation (focus on emotions vs. behaviour) and a control group with focus on
background details.
First, participants watched a short video and completed a short task; then, they were
asked to select a behaviour in the ‘Message from a peer’ task. Finally, the scale of previous
experience of cyberbullying was applied.

Measures
The same 10-item scale of cyberbullying experience as in Studies 1 and 2 was employed.
Both subscales proved to be reliable: Mvictim = 1.39, SD = 0.61, a = .81, and Mperpetrator = 1.39,
SD = 0.59, a = .79.

Results
To address the hypothesis concerning the influence of the activation of different aspects of
empathy on reducing negative bystander behaviour, hierarchical logistic regression
analyses were conducted. In the first step, gender and previous experience with cyberbullying
were entered into the model. In the second step, aspects of empathy (dummy coded
experimental group) were entered.
Table 3 shows the results of two logistic regression models predicting negative bystander
behaviour. The first model shows results consistent with the two previous studies, suggesting
that gender and earlier victimisation do not predict negative bystander behaviour, and only
past experience as perpetrator is strongly related to behavioural preference. The second
model, presenting a better overall fit, shows that both experimental conditions significantly
decrease the odds of negative bystander behaviour. There is a slight difference in effect size
between the emotion and behaviour conditions. However, it is so little that it does not provide

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders 47

Table 3. Logistic regression for cyberbullying and two types of empathy

Predictor B SE B Wald’s w2 OR (95% CI) Block w2

Step 1 86.43***
Gender (0 – girls) 0.21 0.35 0.35 1.24 (0.62–2.46)
Experience as perpetrator 2.53 0.49 27.10** 12.56 (4.84–32.44)
Experience as victim 0.33 0.39 0.71 1.39 (0.65–2.99)
Step 2 7.87*
Empathy emotions 1.06 0.44 5.86* 0.35 (0.15–0.82)
(0 – background details)
Empathy behaviour 0.95 0.43 4.91* 0.39 (0.17–0.89)
(0 – background details)
Overall model w2
Likelihood ratio test 94.29***
Score test 89.03***
H&L 9.40
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
Step 1: Cox & Snell R2 = .26; Nagelkerke R2 = .40; McFadden R2 = .28.
Step 2: Cox & Snell R2 = .28; Nagelkerke R2 = .43; McFadden R2 = .31.

a basis for suggesting that one of the methods could be more effective in preventing negative
bystander behaviour.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The purpose of the studies was to identify factors modifying the occurrence of negative
bystander behaviour among adolescents. The results indicate that there are three factors that
increase the likelihood of negative bystander behaviour occurring: (i) the cyberspace
conditions, (ii) the private nature of the act, and (iii) the experience of being a cyberbullying
perpetrator. Two factors decreased negative bystander behaviour: (i) affective empathy
activation and (ii) cognitive empathy activation.
The results of Study 1 confirm the effect of the type of contact. Online contact increased
the likelihood of negative bystander behaviour. This is consistent with other research data
on the aspects typical of online interaction, which may increase the propensity for violence
(Heirman & Walrave, 2008; Joinson, 1998; McKenna, 2008; McKenna & Bargh, 2000;
Suler, 2004). The private dimension of violence proved to be an important factor as the
conditions in which a behaviour is accessible to one or only a few observers encourage
antisocial choices. This result is in line with data presenting the effects of exposure in
the public context, which limits socially disapproved behaviour by activating social norms
prohibiting harming others (Wicklund, 1975).
Results obtained in Study 2 confirm the role of affective empathy in mitigating the
support of bystanders for cyberbullying activity. In the affective empathy condition, the
probability of negative bystander behaviour was significantly lower than that in the control
condition. Mere contact with a situation affecting the well-being of another person proved
to be sufficient to curb such behaviour. It should be noted that the empathy-activating
material (circumstances of a cyberbullying victim) was consistent with the subject matter
of the next task: sending a defamatory message online. Thus, affective empathy reduced
the analogous behaviour.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
48 J. Barlińska et al.

The results of Study 3 indicate that actively taking the perspective of another person by
focusing on the negative consequences of cyberbullying for its victim reduces bystander
behaviour in support of cyberbullying. Underlying this behaviour modification is the ability
to ‘mentalise’ (Frith & Frith, 2003), which is unique to the cognitive aspect of empathetic
responses. It encourages a deeper understanding of the other person’s circumstances. Both
types of induction – emotion and behaviour focused – diminished the likelihood of negative
behaviour. Our results are coherent and consistent with those of others concerning the role of
empathy (Hoffman, 2000) and perspective taking (Clore & Jeffrey, 1972), which confirms
their validity. They also extend the current knowledge on the associations of cyberbullying
and empathy, showing that the situational activation of empathy may also limit behaviour
supporting online aggression.
The results of all three studies suggest that gender does not affect negative bystander
behaviour, which is consistent with others’ results (Ball, 2007; Li, 2006). Experience of being
a cyberbullying victim was not found to be associated with involvement in behaviour that
supported bullying, whether online or in face-to-face contact. However, being a perpetrator
of cyberbullying turned out to be an important predictor of negative bystander behaviour in
all of the studies. This result, different from the one concerning cybervictimisation, is in line
with earlier studies emphasising the relations between roles in cyberbullying (Walrave &
Heirman, 2011; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) and can be interpreted in several ways. First,
it may reflect a well-rooted propensity for aggression in some adolescents. Second, social
learning theory (Bandura, 1973) offers an explanation of this relationship in the form of the
effect of being trained to ‘be a perpetrator’.
Unlike most research on the phenomenon of cyberbullying, the present studies employed an
experimental method. It seems that this may provide an alternative to prevalent questionnaire-
based studies on cyberbullying, which can be particularly problematic because of discrepancy
between declaration and behaviour (Ajzen & Fisbein, 1977).
Of course, the present studies have some limitations. First, the results were achieved in a
group of adolescents aged 11–18 years, and these cannot be generalised to different age
groups. Second, the investigated behaviour is only one of the many possible acts of
negative bystander behaviour. Its fairly mild form restricts the possibility of generalising
our findings to more severe forms of online violence. Third, we measured cyberbullying
bystander behaviour in a specific Internet environment – through the simulation of an
instant messenger– which limits the possibility of predicting how respondents would react
using different Internet functionalities. Furthermore, our studies made the distinction
between the private and public dimension of violence: Private is associated with one-to-one
communication, and public, with one-to-many communication. Finally, the methods of
empathy activation were a variation of the real-life induction method used by Hoffman
(2000). They proved to be equally effective in cyberspace but are not free from shortcomings.
Empathy was activated by a video referring to the context of cyberbullying in a between-
group experiment. The question whether the activation of empathy in a context which is
not specific to cyberbullying would prove to be equally effective in restricting online
violence remains open. Also, the design of the studies needs to be enriched by a schema
using pretesting and posttesting to give us stronger proof.
The present research programme has certain practical implications. It may serve as the
basis for creating various age and ability-specific forms of intervention and prevention that
are focused on bystander behaviour – increasingly perceived as the key for solving the
problem of cyberbullying (Kraft, 2011; Spears et al., 2008). Although the decision to

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders 49

interrupt bullying makes bystanders become part of the solution in both real life and cyber
space, this seems to operate in different ways in each environment. In real life, individuals
must actively do something to intervene. In cyber space, individuals must actively choose
not do something (Spears et al., 2008). That is why encouraging adolescents not to forward
cyberbullying material seems to have special importance in preventing and stopping
cyberbullying.
The confirmation of the efficiency of empathy in curbing negative bystander behaviour
seems to be an important conclusion of this study. The basic embodied processes of
affective empathy and generation of the more complex, cognitive functions of empathy by
employing induction may prove helpful in achieving this outcome. Both aspects of accessi-
bility to an external perspective appear to play a fundamental part in limiting behaviour that
supports cyberbullying.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The presented research was financed by Grant DSM101613 from the Faculty of Psychology
at the University of Warsaw.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fisbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
Ball, S. (2007). Bystanders and bullying: A summary of research for Anti-Bullying Week. Retrieved
March 3, 2012, from http://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/pdf/Bystanders_and_Bullying.pdf
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Barlinska, J., & Wojtasik, Ł. (2008). Peer violence and electronic media – Research and social
campaign. In M. Barbovschi, & M. Diaconescu (Eds.), Teenagers’ actions and interactions
online in Central and Eastern Europe. Potentials and empowerment, risks and victimization
(pp. 281–299). Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Cluj University Press Babes- Bolyai University.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L.,
& Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group
improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118.
Belsey, B. (2008). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the “Always On” generation. Retrieved
October 13, 2009, from http://www.cyberbullying.ca/pdf/Cyberbullying_Article_by_Bill_Belsey.
pdf
Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage
social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), McArthur Foundation on Digital Learning – Youth, identity,
and digital media volume (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chalmers J. B., & Townsend, R. (1990). The effect of training in social perspective taking on socially
maladjusted girls. Child Development, 61, 178–190.
Clore, G. L., & Jeffrey, K. M. (1972). Emotional role playing, attitude change and attraction toward a
disabled person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 105–111.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark
Publishers.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral
Cognition Neuroscience Review, 3, 71–100.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Vollink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental
perception. CyberPsychology and Behaviour, 11, 217–223.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
50 J. Barlińska et al.

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology,
51, 665–697.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Speer, A. L., Switzer, G., Karbon, M., & Troyer, D. (1993).
The relations of empathy-related emotions and maternal practices to children’s comforting behavior.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 131–150.
Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Development and neuropsychology of mentalizing. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 358, 459–473.
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking: Fostering social bonds and
facilitating social coordination. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–125.
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2008). Assessing Concerns and Issues about the Mediation of
Technology in Cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace,
2(2), 1–12.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to
offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156.
Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), Development of Prosocial Behaviour (pp. 281–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Joinson, A. N. (1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. In J.
Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet (pp. 43–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441–476.
Kowalski, R. M. (2008). Cyber bullying: Recognizing and treating victim and aggressor. Psychiatric
Times, 25 (pp. 1–2). Retrieved September 8, 2011, from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/
display/article/10168/1336550
Kraft, E. (2011). Online Bystanders: Are they the key to preventing cyberbullying. Retrieved
February 3, 2012, from http://www.elementalethics.com/files/Ellen_Kraft_PhD.pdf
Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents’ use of inductive discipline: Relations to children’s
empathy and prosocial behaviour. Child Development, 67, 3263–3277.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology
International, 27, 157–170.
McKenna, K. Y. A. (2008). Influence on the nature and functioning of social groups. In A. Barak
(Ed.), Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace: Theory, research and applications (pp. 228–242).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet
for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 57–75.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), &
E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology Vol. 4: Socialization, personality
and social development (pp. 574–642). New York, NY: Wiley.
Parke, R. D., & Swain, D. B. (1980). Empathy and fear as mediators of resistance to deviation in
children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 123–134.
Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1997). Crying for help: The no blame approach to bullying. Bristol,
UK: Lucky Duck Publishing Ltd.
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for interventions.
Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453–9.
Singer, T., & de Vignemont, F. (2006). The emphatic brain: How, when and why? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 10, 435–441.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2007). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 49, 1–8.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying:
Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49,
376–385.
Spears, B. A., Slee, P. T., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2008). Behind the Scenes: Insights into the
Human Dimension of Covert Bullying. Report prepared for Department of Education, Employment
and Workplace Relations: Canberra.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders 51

Steffgen, G., & König, A. (2009). Cyber bullying: The role of traditional bullying and empathy. In
B. Sapeo, L. Haddon, E. Mante-Meijer, L. Fortunati, T. Turk, & E. Loos (Eds.), The good, the
bad and the challenging. Conference Proceedings (Vol. II, pp. 1041–1047). Brussels, Belgium:
Cost office.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 7, 321–326.
Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., & Hess, D. (2001). Improving the social and
intellectual climate in elementary schools by addressing the bully-victim- bystander power
struggles. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Caring classrooms, intelligent schools: The social emotional education
of young children (pp. 162–182). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimization and perpetration.
Children & Society, 25, 59–72.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 1063–1070.
Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 9, 233–275.
Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social
aggression, threats, and distress. Eugene, OR: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, 14–21.
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, 7, 1308–1316.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 23: 37–51 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/casp

View publication stats