skip to main content
research-article

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

Published: 01 September 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Bystanders Join in Cyberbullying on Social Networking Sites: The Deindividuation and Moral Disengagement Perspectives
Cyberbullying on social networking sites escalates when bystanders join in the bullying. Bystanders’ joining-in behaviors reinforce the abuse, expose victims to a larger audience, and encourage further abuse by signaling their approval of the aggressive behavior. This study developed an integrative model that explains bystanders’ joining-in cyberbullying behaviors on SNSs to offer actionable insights into reducing such harmful behaviors. We tested the model using 1,179 responses using a scenario survey study. Our findings suggest that IT artifacts (including digital profile, search and privacy, relational ties, and network transparency) activated two key mechanisms that lead to cyberbullying joining-in behaviors: (i) the deindividuation experiences that attenuate self-identity and put salience on group/social identity, and (ii) the moral disengagement practices that permit the exercise of cognitive maneuvers to justify group-interested choices that do not align with social standard. The findings explain why people who do not know each other gang up to bully a target on social media. Platform owners who wish to discourage bystanders from joining in undesirable activities may consider regulating how users could share and access digital resources in a social network and should acknowledge the influence of social identity in igniting, driving, and prolonging harmful online group behaviors.

Abstract

Cyberbullying on social networking sites (SNSs) escalates when bystanders join in the bullying. Although researchers have recognized the harmful consequences of joining in cyberbullying behaviors, little is known about the role of information technology (IT) and its underlying mechanisms in fueling such negative group behavior on SNSs. To address this research gap, we develop and test an integrative model that explains bystanders’ joining-in cyberbullying behaviors on SNSs. Based on the theoretical premises of the social identity model of deindividuation effects (the SIDE model), we derive two deindividuation experiences enabled by SNSs, namely experienced anonymity and experienced social identity. We further use the social network research framework to gain insights into how IT features (i.e., digital profile, search and privacy, relational ties, and network transparency) enable these two deindividuation experiences. Considering the socially undesirable nature of joining-in behaviors, we integrate the SIDE model with moral disengagement theory to explain how deindividuation experiences allow bystanders to bypass their psychological discomfort when engaging in such behaviors through the practice of moral disengagement mechanisms. Our research model is tested using a scenario survey, with two samples recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and Facebook. Our results support the influences of IT-enabled deindividuation experiences on bystanders joining in cyberbullying and demonstrate the mediating effects of moral disengagement mechanisms in bridging the effects of deindividuation experiences on joining-in behaviors. For researchers, the integrative view offers a conceptual bridge connecting IT features, deindividuation, moral disengagement, and negative online group behaviors on SNSs. For practitioners, our findings provide platform owners and governmental agencies with directions on how to mitigate cyberbullying on SNSs and other forms of deviant and undesirable online group behaviors.
History: Yulin Fang, Senior Editor; J.J. Po-An Hsieh, Associate Editor.
Funding: This work was substantially supported by a Senior Research Fellow Scheme Award, Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [Grant HKBU SRFS2021-2H03]; and partially supported by grants from the General Research Fund, Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [Grants HKBU12511016 and HKBU12500020].
Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1161.

References

[1]
ADL (2020) Online hate and 2020 harassment: The American experience 2020. Report (May 3), https://www.adl.org/media/14643/download.
[2]
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.
[3]
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.
[4]
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.
[5]
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.
[6]
Bandura A (2016) Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves (Worth Publishers, New York).
[7]
Bandura A (2002) Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J. Moral Ed. 31(2):101–119.
[8]
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.
[9]
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.
[10]
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.
[11]
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.
[12]
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.
[13]
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.
[14]
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.
[15]
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.
[16]
Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Management 29(6):991–1013.
[17]
Brody N, Vangelisti AL (2015) Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Comm. Monographs 83(1):1–26.
[18]
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.
[19]
Chan TKH, Cheung CMK, Lee ZWY (2021) Cyberbullying on social networking sites: A literature review and future research directions. Inform. Management 58(2):103411.
[20]
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.
[21]
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.
[22]
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.
[23]
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.
[24]
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.
[25]
Darley JM, Latane B (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 8(4):377–383.
[26]
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.
[27]
Diener E, Wallbom M (1976) Effects of self-awareness on antinormative behavior. J. Res. Personality 10(1):107–111.
[28]
El Zein M, Bahrami B, Hertwig R (2019) Shared responsibility in collective decisions. Nature Human Behav. 3(6):554–559.
[29]
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.
[30]
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.
[31]
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.
[32]
Gini G (2007) Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying. School Psych. Internat. 28(1):77–89.
[33]
Giumetti GW, Kowalski RM (2022) Cyberbullying via social media and well-being. Current Opinion Psych. 45:101314.
[34]
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.
[35]
Gosling P, Denizeau M, Oberlé D (2006) Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonance reduction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 90(5):722–733.
[36]
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).
[37]
Harris LT, Fiske ST (2006) Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psych. Sci. 17(10):847–853.
[38]
Holfeld B (2014) Perceptions and attributions of bystanders to cyber bullying. Comput. Human Behav. 38:1–7.
[39]
Hughes R, Huby M (2002) The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. J. Advanced Nursing 37(4):382–386.
[40]
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.
[41]
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.
[42]
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.
[43]
Latané B, Darley JM (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York).
[44]
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.
[45]
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.
[46]
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.
[47]
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.
[48]
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.
[49]
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.
[50]
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.
[51]
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/.
[52]
McGloin JM, Thomas KJ (2016) Incentives for collective deviance: Group size and changes in perceived risk, cost, and reward. Criminology 54(3):459–486.
[53]
McHugo GJ, Smith CA, Lanzetta JT (1982) The structure of self-reports of emotional responses to film segments. Motivation Emotion 6(4):365–385.
[54]
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.
[55]
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.
[56]
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.
[57]
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.
[58]
Patterson LJ, Allan A, Cross D (2016) Adolescent bystanders’ perspectives of aggression in the online vs. school environments. J. Adolescence 49:60–67.
[59]
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.
[60]
Pew Research Center (2017) Online harassment 2017. Accessed September 2, 2019, https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/.
[61]
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.
[62]
Postmes T, Spears R (1998) Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 123(3):238–259.
[63]
Postmes T, Spears R, Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? Side-effects of computer-mediated communication. Comm. Res. 25(6):689–715.
[64]
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.
[65]
RAD (2018) Online harassment: Still a big problem and getting worse. Accessed September 1, 2019, http://onlineharassmentdata.org.
[66]
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.
[67]
Reicher SD, Spears R, Postmes T (1995) A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 6(1):161–198.
[68]
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.
[69]
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).
[70]
Runions KC, Bak M (2015) Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Cyberpsych. Behav. Soc. Networks 18(7):400–405.
[71]
Salmivalli C (2010) Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression Violent Behav. 15(2):112–120.
[72]
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.
[73]
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.
[74]
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.
[75]
Spears R, Lea M (1994) Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Comm. Res. 21(4):427–459.
[76]
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.
[77]
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.
[78]
Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsych. Behav. 7(3):321–326.
[79]
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.
[80]
Tarafdar M, Davison RM (2018) Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 19(6):523–551.
[81]
Tepper BJ, Duffy MK, Henle CA, Lambert LS (2006) Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psych. 59(1):101–123.
[82]
Thornberg R (2015) School bullying as a collective action: Stigma processes and identity struggling. Children Soc. 29(4):310–320.
[83]
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.
[84]
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.
[85]
Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK).
[86]
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.
[87]
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.
[88]
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.
[89]
Waytz A, Epley N (2012) Social connection enables dehumanization. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 48(1):70–76.
[90]
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.
[91]
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.
[92]
Wilks T (2004) The use of vignettes in qualitative research into social work values. Qualitative Soc. Work 3(1):78–87.
[93]
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.
[94]
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.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information Systems Research
Information Systems Research  Volume 34, Issue 3
September 2023
517 pages
ISSN:1526-5536
DOI:10.1287/isre.2023.34.issue-3
Issue’s Table of Contents
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. You are free to download this work and share with others, but cannot change in any way or use commercially without permission, and you must attribute this work as “Information Systems Research. Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1161, used under a Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.”

Publisher

INFORMS

Linthicum, MD, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2023
Accepted: 15 July 2022
Received: 07 January 2020

Author Tags

  1. online harms
  2. cyberbullying
  3. social networking sites (SNSs)
  4. bystanders
  5. joining-in behaviors
  6. deindividuation
  7. anonymity
  8. social identity
  9. moral disengagement

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media