PDF(2986 KB)
The Influencing Factors of Bystander Behaviors in Cyberbullying among College Students: Based on the Perspective of Group Interaction
Yu Mingshen, Liu Xixi, Bao Zhenzhou
Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (3) : 576-589.
PDF(2986 KB)
PDF(2986 KB)
The Influencing Factors of Bystander Behaviors in Cyberbullying among College Students: Based on the Perspective of Group Interaction
Cyberbullying refers to a form of repeated harassment that uses electronic information communication tools. Specifically, individuals can insult, threaten, defame, harass, or isolate others by posting comments, uploading photos or videos, or sending instant messages. College students, who frequently use the internet or social media for interpersonal communication, are more prone to experiencing cyberbullying. Previous studies have indicated that college students who suffer from cyberbullying may exhibit anxiety, depression, academic difficulties, and in severe cases, even suicidal ideation. Cyberbullying is usually described as a group interaction process that includes not only the binary interaction between the bullies and victims, but also bystanders who witness the bullying. Generally speaking, negative bystander behaviors can exacerbate cyberbullying, while positive bystander behaviors can prevent further deterioration. Previous studies have pointed out that intervention measures for cyberbullying should focus on the interaction process among victims, bullies, and bystanders, rather than targeting a single group or role. Therefore, it is necessary to factors that influence bystander behaviors from the perspective of group interaction. In addition, studies have indicated that bystander intentions are not equivalent to their behaviors, participants may report intentions but not engage in corresponding behaviors. However, few studies have clearly distinguished between bystander intentions and behaviors, which may fail to provide constructive intervention strategies.
The present study aimed to examine the influential factors of bystander behaviors in cyberbullying among college students from the perspective of group interaction and the arousal: cost-reward model, exploring the roles of self-disclosure (victims/arousal), bullying severity (bullies/cost), and social distance (bystanders/reward).
Prior to conducting the formal experiment, we evaluated the experimental materials through a pre-experiment. The formal experiment presents cyberbullying situations through video methods. Two hundred college students (Mage = 21.20, 48.50% boys) were assigned to eight different experimental conditions to explore the influences of victims’ self-disclosure, severity of cyberbullying, and social distance towards bystander behaviors on cyberbullying. Self-disclosure and severity of cyberbullying were divided into high and low groups based on the results of the pre-experiment. Social distance was manipulated in the experiments: participants in the distant group observed the victim as a stranger, while participants in the close group were informed that the victim was a friend of theirs.
The results showed that: (1) Lower level of victim’s self-disclosure resulted in more positive bystander behaviors in cyberbullying: F(1, 24) = 24.38, p <.001, η2=.12; (2) Closer social distance between victims and bystanders resulted in more positive bystander behavior in cyberbullying: F(1, 24) = 66.21, p <.001, η2 =.26; (3) The three-way interaction effect of victim’s self-disclosure, severity, and social distance towards bystander behaviors on cyberbullying was significant: F(7, 192) = 10.11, p <.01, η2 =.05. When the victim’s self-disclosure was higher, in the high-severity events, the bystander behaviors were more positive towards the closer victims compared with the distant victims (F(7, 192) = 62.96, p <.001, η2 =.33). In the low-severity events, there was no significant difference between the closer victims and the distant victims (F(7, 192) =.08, p >.05, η2 =.04). When the victim’s self-disclosure was lower, bystanders’ behaviors were more positive towards the closer victim regardless of whether bullying severity was high (F(7, 192) = 32.93, p <.001, η2 =.17) or low (F(7, 192) = 10.16, p <.01, η2 =.05).
Overall, the present study is grounded in the perspective of group interaction and the arousal-cost-reward model of cyberbullying. Using experimental methods, this study comprehensively examines the impact of self-disclosure, bullying severity, social distance, as well as their interactions on bystander behaviors. The results provide a novel approach to intervening in bystander behaviors in cyberbullying.
cyberbullying / victims’ self-disclosure / severity / social distance / bystander behaviors
| [1] |
陈光辉, 张文新. (2018). 群体互动中的个体适应性:欺凌情境中的多重参与角色. 社区心理学研究, 5(1), 53-74.
|
| [2] |
褚晓伟. (2020). 网络欺负中的旁观者效应——基于网络群组的研究 (博士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
|
| [3] |
黄勖喆, 褚晓伟, 刘庆奇, 周宗奎, 范翠英. (2019). 网络欺负中的旁观者行为. 心理科学进展, 27(7), 1248-1257.
|
| [4] |
柳希希. (2023). 大学生网络欺凌中的旁观者行为:同情和道德自我评价的作用 (硕士学位论文). 赣南师范大学, 赣州.
|
| [5] |
刘新燕, 张惠天, 王璐. (2023). “悲”天悯人,还是“乐”善好施:受助者困境态度效价与心理距离对捐赠意愿的交互影响. 南开管理评论, 26(2), 48-60.
|
| [6] |
马倩倩. (2022). 网络欺负中受害者反应影响旁观者行为的心理机制研究 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
|
| [7] |
孙雨, 孟维杰. (2022). 社会文化理论视阈下大学生网络欺凌的难题与破解. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版), 10(3), 89-95.
|
| [8] |
滕妍君. (2015). 人格特质、社会支持与网络欺负中旁观行为的关系 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
|
| [9] |
夏丹. (2011). 基于移情量表(BES)中文版的信效度及初步应用研究 (硕士学位论文). 郑州大学.
|
| [10] |
谢笑春, 孙晓军, 周宗奎. (2013). 网络自我表露的类型、功能及其影响因素. 心理科学进展, 21(2), 272-281.
|
| [11] |
徐惊蛰, 谢晓非. (2011). 解释水平视角下的自己——他人决策差异. 心理学报, 43(1), 11-20.
|
| [12] |
许文涛, 张凯丽, 汪凤炎. (2024). “亲亲相隐”中道德认知的视角差异. 心理科学, 47(2), 375-383.
|
| [13] |
余成峰. (2024). 平台媒介的兴起:隐私保护的范式与悖论. 东方法学, 5, 74-86.
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
Cicchetti, & Domenic, V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290.
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |