어머니의 과보호적 양육행동, 청소년의 자기효능감 및 도덕적 동기화가 사이버 괴롭힘 방관 및 방어행동에 영향을 미치는 경로

Pathways Linking Maternal Anxious Rearing Behavior, Self-Efficacy, and Moral Motivation to Cyberbullying Outsider and Defender Behavior Among Adolescents

Article information

Korean J Child Stud. 2024;45(3):173-185

Publication date (electronic) : 2024 August 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.5723/kjcs.2024.45.3.173

Eunyoung Park ¹

, Min Ju Kang^,²

¹M.A., Department of Child & Family Studies/Human Life & Innovation Design, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

²Professor, Department of Child & Family Studies, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

박은영¹

, 강민주^,²

¹연세대학교 아동·가족학과/인간생애와 혁신적 디자인 융합전공 석사

²연세대학교 아동·가족학과 교수

Corresponding Author: Min Ju Kang, Professor, Department of Child & Family Studies, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea E-mail: mjkang@yonsei.ac.kr

Received 2024 April 19; Revised 2024 August 11; Accepted 2024 August 13.

Trans Abstract

Objectives

The term “outsider behavior” refers to the practice of not responding to cyberbullying, while the term “defender behavior” involves reacting to the perpetrator’s actions and seeking assistance from friends to support the victims. This study examined behavior mechanisms in the context of cyberbullying, focusing on the role of maternal anxious rearing behavior and the mediating roles of adolescents’ self-efficacy and moral motivation.

Methods

The study participants were 234 adolescents (M_age = 13.92, SD = .96) who witnessed cyberbullying while attending middle schools in South Korea. Adolescents’ perceived maternal anxious rearing behavior, self-efficacy, moral motivation, and cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Data analyses were conducted to examine descriptive statistics using SPSS and a structural equation model using AMOS.

Results

The results indicated that while maternal anxious rearing behavior is not directly associated with cyberbullying outsider behavior, it is significantly associated with lower levels of cyberbullying defender behavior. Higher levels of maternal anxious rearing behavior are associated with lower levels of self-efficacy in adolescents, leading to lower moral motivation, which, in turn, is associated with an increase in cyberbullying outsider behavior. In contrast, moral motivation is not significantly associated with cyberbullying defender behavior.

Conclusion

Adopting an integrated perspective, our findings underscore pathways to shaping different cyberbullying behavior in adolescents linked with their perceived maternal anxious rearing behavior, self-efficacy, and moral motivation. These findings highlight the crucial role of maternal anxious rearing behavior in practical implications, suggesting the need for effective interventions when adolescents witness cyberbullying.

Keywords: adolescents; cyberbullying outsider behavior; cyberbullying defender behavior; maternal anxious rearing behavior; self-efficacy; moral motivation

Introduction

Adolescents utilize the digital environment as a natural part of their life experience, which includes learning, leisure, and social interaction (Lim, Lau, & Islam, 2022). With the continuum availability of digital devices becoming more common, cyberbullying, a new form of bullying, is drawing attention as a crucial social problem. Cyberbullying encompasses the violent behavior that appears online as acts that repeatedly and willfully harm or threaten others using computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). The extent of damage to cyberbullying can be difficult to determine in real time because of asynchronous recognition of social norms or diffusion of responsibilities for cyberbullying actions (Machackova, Dedkova, Sevcikova, & Cerna, 2018). Thus, studies that support interventions for cyberbullying are urgently needed.

Understanding cyberbullying needs to be examined through intertwined mechanisms and focus on the roles of bystanders in harassment as a group process (Gini, Pozzoli, Jenkins, & Demaray, 2021). Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman and Kaukiainen (1996) classified bystanders of bullying as either reinforcing the bully, not reacting to the bullying, or defending the victim according to their reactions. The outsider refers to a group not directly or indirectly responding to bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996). These outsiders are motivated by fears of retaliation and worry that they may become subjects of harassment or that their actions may worsen the situation (Seo, 2020). In contrast, the defender stops the perpetrator’s assault, empathizes with the victims, and appeals to other friends to help them (Salmivalli et al., 1996; Seo, 2020). Cyberbullying may involve more bystanders than face-to-face bullying because it can spread rapidly to a larger audience and persist online for extended periods compared to offline (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009). However, research focusing on different mechanisms of outsider and defender behavior in the context of cyberbullying still needs to be completed. Finding pathways by describing the potential indicators of these outsider and defender behavior could play a key role in reducing cyberbullying and implementing interventions.

Maternal Anxious Rearing Behavior Linking Self-Efficacy and Cyberbullying Outsider versus Defender Behavior

Maternal rearing behavior is considered one of the most fundamental factors influencing how adolescents interact with others as a contextual factor, especially in interpersonal relationships (Weitkamp & Seiffge-Krenke, 2019). Anxious rearing behavior characterized by excessive control over a child’s actions, which is motivated by their imperfections and concerns about mistakes, can harm a child’s development (Weitkamp & Seiffge-Krenke, 2019). Specifically, anxious rearing behavior affirms the belief that a child’s anxiety and worries are dangerous (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2017), hindering problem solving skills and increasing avoidance behavior in social situations (Young et al., 2013). Maternal anxious rearing behavior may contribute to the child’s adoption of outsider and defender behavior in different ways due to vulnerability to potential risks, especially in cyberbullying situations resulting from negative beliefs.

Due to the lack of empirical evidence, the potential pathways might be understood guided by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological lens (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The maternal figures hold a crucial role in shaping social interactions, and their rearing behavior can impact multifaceted aspects of adolescence. Specifically, when maternal rearing behavior supports children in learning from their own mistakes and avoids controlling their behavior excessively, it helps children recognize the negative associations of bullying on victims, enabling them to understand and take on the role of defending others more easily (Mazzone & Camodeca, 2019; Valdés-Cuervo, Alcántar-Nieblas, Martínez-Ferrer, & Parra-Pérez, 2018). The higher levels of maternal anxious rearing behavior, however, are associated with children’s increased perception of anxiety and avoidance behavior, potentially leading to clinical symptoms of behavioral suppression and anxiety (Van Brakel, Muris, Bögels, & Thomassen, 2006). These perceptions may foster a belief in children that they cannot independently solve problems in anxiety-inducing situations, thus reinforcing their dependence on others for solutions (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2017). This dependency could undermine their intrinsic motivation and belief in their ability to take decisive action, which is crucial in opposing cyberbullying. This underscores the need to examine pathways between maternal anxious rearing behavior and adolescents’ behavior in the context of witnessing cyberbullying.

In addition, maternal anxious rearing behavior can significantly influence the development of self-efficacy, an individual’s belief in their ability to perform specific tasks successfully (Bandura, 1977a). According to Bandura’s (1977b) social learning theory, children can observe and internalize behavior from their parents, who serve as primary models. Specifically, Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2010) found that such anxious rearing behavior may develop generalized insecurities about children’s competence and feelings related to their independent behavior. Further, when modeled by parents, anxious rearing behavior teaches children to respond similarly in situations, adversely affecting their self-efficacy (Wood, McLeod, Sigman, Hwang, & Chu, 2003). Such rearing behavior can also impair children’s ability to control their anxiety, compounding difficulties in self-regulation and further diminishing self-efficacy (McLeod, Wood, & Avny, 2011). Thus, maternal anxious rearing behavior may process external stimuli as overly challenging or threatening, reducing their chances to act independently.

Self-efficacy is one of the essential prerequisite factors for determining behavior in witnessing cyberbullying (Y. Kim, Oh, & Song, 2019). Specifically, Nikel (2020) found that individuals with high self-efficacy tend to be more competent in solving interpersonal conflicts. Since an individual’s decision to intervene in a cyberbullying situation is based on their judgment of how effective their actions are, having a rational belief that cyberbullying can be resolved makes individuals more likely to engage in defender behavior. If individuals believe they cannot succeed in an intervention, they might be more likely to show outsider behavior (Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017). However, previous studies also showed that in the context of online, even a high level of self-efficacy may not directly lead to practical defender behavior due to physical and psychological distance in cyberbullying situations (Machackova et al., 2018).

Self-Efficacy Linking Moral Motivation and Cyberbullying Outsider versus Defender Behavior

The importance of self-efficacy preceding moral motivation has been reported, and this individual belief has been known as a key determinant of the actual performance of moral behavior (Kohlberg & Candee, 1984). Self-efficacy continues to prompt individuals to take action despite challenges, even when moral needs conflict, because moral thinking drives them to act (Ferreira, Simão, Paiva, & Ferreira, 2020). Judgments based on moral standards and an individual’s intrinsic beliefs are important factors in increasing the possibility of voluntary moral behavior (Heinrichs, 2013). This behavior also leads to increased levels of adjusting and aligning one’s behavior according to the moral norms set by oneself (Oser, 2013).

Moral motivation involves prioritizing moral values and implementing them as practical actions (Rest, 1983). Such moral motivation can foster empathy and prosocial behavior towards others, contributing to an individual’s moral actions (Malti & Buchmann, 2010). It is crucial to follow moral rules and act morally, even when faced with situations that conflict with immoral desires. Indeed, children’s moral motivation is significantly associated with maternal rearing behavior (Kohlberg & Diessner, 1991). This connection is through individual differences in moral emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, and pride) stemming from their interactions with their parents (Muris & Meesters, 2014). Research has shown that adolescents with a higher level of moral motivation are more likely to help cyberbullying victims through defender behavior (Bussey, Luo, Fitzpatrick, & Allison, 2020; Patrick, Rote, Gibbs, & Basinger, 2019; Song, 2022) and are less likely to show outsider behavior (Conway, Gomez-Garibello, Talwar, & Shariff, 2016). Given that individuals in an online environment may be prone to get relatively low direct feedback for their moral behavior (Suler, 2004), it becomes increasingly important to have self-efficacy and moral motivation to show proactive behavior when witnessing cyberbullying.

Study Aim

The present study is designed to examine how maternal anxious rearing behavior is associated with cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior through self-efficacy and moral motivation. Recognizing the gender difference in adolescents’ outsider and defender behavior when witnessing cyberbullying (Campbell et al., 2020), this study included gender as a covariate. We proposed the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1

Maternal anxious rearing behavior perceived by adolescents is positively associated with cyberbullying outsider behavior, while negatively associated with defender behavior directly.

Hypothesis 2

Maternal anxious rearing behavior is associated with lower self-efficacy as well as lower moral motivation, which, in turn, is associated with a higher level of cyberbullying outsider behavior and a lower level of defender behavior.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 234 adolescents aged 12-15 years who have witnessed cyberbullying while attending middle schools in South Korea. Given that cyberbullying continues to increase and can significantly impact the growth process of adolescents (Korea Communications Commission, 2023; Lee, Kang, & Lee, 2015), this study focused on the cyberbullying experience of adolescents. Table 1 describes the demographic characteristics of participants. The study subjects’ average daily Internet usage time was 199.34 minutes (SD = 95.75), and the participants reported spending an average of 3 hours a day on the Internet.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Measures

Cyberbullying Outsider and Defender Behavior

We used a modified Participant Role Questionnaire (PRQ) to measure cyberbullying bystander behavior. The PRQ was developed by Salmivalli et al. (1996), and Seo (2008) translated and validated a version for Korean adolescents; Ko and Choi (2016) revised and validated a version that was adjusted for the cyberspace context. Among the three sub-factors (i.e., bully-followers, bystanders, and victims’ defenders), we used the 12 questions associated with bystanders, which include the outsider behavior (e.g., “I have seen cyberbullying situations and pretended not to know.”; Cronbach’s α = .75) and defender behavior (e.g., “I have asked other friends to help me with cyberbullying.”; Cronbach’s α = .66), with the definition of cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchi, 2015). Participants answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 4 = Always).

Maternal Anxious Rearing Behavior

Maternal anxious rearing behavior was measured using the revised version of the Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppostran-Child (EMBU-C) adapted for adolescents (Muris, Meesters, & van Brakel, 2003). The authors, including the Department of Child and Family Studies professor, conducted a Korean translation of the scale, confirmed by the two Korean-English bilingual experts in this field. Participants answered 10 items related to maternal anxious rearing on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never, 4 = Very Often). Example include “Your mother worries about you making mistakes.” and “Your mother is afraid when you do something on your own.” The Cronbach’s α of this scale was .72.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy was measured with the validated questionnaire, Self-Efficacy Scale, developed by Sherer et al. (1982), which has its theoretical background on Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. It was translated into Korean and modified for Korean adolescents (H. S. Kim, 2001). The scale consisted of 23 items with two dimensions: 17 items on general self-efficacy (e.g., “I try harder when I experience failure.”) and six items on social self-efficacy (e.g., “If I miss someone, I go first instead of waiting for them to come.”). Participants answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), and a higher score indicates having higher self-efficacy. The Cronbach’s α was .71.

Moral Motivation

We used a validated scale, the Moral Motivation Revised Test for Korean Adolescents, by Jeon et al. (2013), to measure moral motivation. This scale consisted of 28 items with two dimensions: 15 items on moral orientation (e.g., “It is not like me to pretend not to know someone in need of personal affairs.”) and 13 items on moral emotional attribution (e.g., “I am disappointed not to tell myself what I did wrong.”). Participants read three stories and evaluated them on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), and the higher score indicates having higher moral motivation. The Cronbach’s α was .92.

Covariate

Based on the previous research that demonstrated gender differences in cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior, we used adolescent gender as a covariate (1 = Male, 2 = Female).

Procedure

We recruited participants from middle schools nationwide from August 18 to September 16, 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Flyers with a brief description of the research were placed on social media sites, including Facebook and Instagram, which are popular among adolescents in South Korea. To ensure adherence to the human subject research protections, all researchers conducting this study have completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) program prior to the study. Participation was voluntary. A written explanation of the research objectives, ethical considerations, and confidentiality of the research was given, and only those who submitted their consent form were provided with the online questionnaire links. The number of participants was limited to one time per person, and the IP address and previous records controlled this. The response time to the questionnaire was approximately 10 to 15 minutes. After participation, we provided a $2 grab-and-go card to each participant. Questionnaires were administered to 358 participants. Two hundred thirty-four participants who witnessed cyberbullying were used for the analysis, excluding six incompletes (e.g., left blank for more than one section) or unreliable responses (e.g., two or more scales showed the same responses).

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistical and bivariate correlation analyses were conducted using SPSS 26.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). A structural equation modeling examined the pathways from maternal anxious rearing behavior, self-efficacy, and moral motivation to cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior using AMOS 26.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). Principal component analysis was conducted to measure the model stability and sampling adequacy for measuring maternal anxious rearing behavior, including Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Barlett tests, and the Varimax rotation method. Confirmatory factor analysis and evaluating research model fit were conducted using the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; O’Boyle & Williams, 2011). Acceptable fit indices were defined as TLI and CFI ≥ 0.90 and RMSEA ≤ 0.08 (O’Boyle & Williams, 2011).

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the study variables are presented in Table 2. Maternal anxious rearing behavior was negatively correlated with adolescent self-efficacy (r = -.18, p < .01) and cyberbullying defender behavior (r = -.20, p < .01); it was not significantly correlated with moral motivation and cyberbullying outsider behavior. Adolescent self-efficacy was positively correlated with moral motivation (r = .33, p < .001); it was not significantly correlated with cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior. The moral motivation was negatively correlated with cyberbullying outsider behavior (r = -.13, p < .05); it was not significantly correlated with cyberbullying defender behavior. Cyberbullying outsiders and defender behavior were negatively correlated (r = -.15, p < .05). We conducted a t-test to assess gender difference; only cyberbullying outsider behavior showed a significant gender difference (t = -2.15, p < .05), with the female students showing more frequent cyberbullying outsider behavior than the male students.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients Between Variables

Structural Equation Modeling Analyses

The KMO’s maternal anxious rearing behavior measure has a high sampling adequacy of 0.787, which is more than 0.5, indicating the data have no sphericity problems (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2013). The constructs are highly significant regarding the model stability, χ² (45) = 327.965 (p < .001). Using the Varimax rotation method, three factors emerged based on constructs of maternal anxious rearing: anxiety about dangerous things (factor loading of .73), mistakes (.86), and uncertainty (.84). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit with the model: χ² (125) = 166.73 (p < .01), CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .04 (90% CI [.02, .05]). The loading of factors ranged from .41 to .89, significantly representing the latent variables. Structural equation modeling was conducted to examine how maternal anxious rearing behavior affects adolescents’ cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior through self-efficacy and moral motivation. We calculated the path estimates of the structural model (Table 3 and Figure 1). The model showed a good fit with the data: χ² (20) = 52.29 (p < .001), CFI = .90, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI [.06, .11]).

Table 3

Path Estimates of the Model

Figure 1

Pathway of the effects of maternal anxious rearing behavior on cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior. The dotted lines indicate non-significant pathways; The solid lines indicate significant pathways.

^*p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

Maternal anxious rearing behavior was not significantly associated with moral motivation (β = .14, n.s.) and cyberbullying outsider behavior (β = .11, n.s.). However, maternal anxious rearing behavior did have significant negative associations with self-efficacy (β = -.53, p < .001) and cyberbullying defender behavior (β = -.24, p < .05). Adolescent self-efficacy was not significantly associated with cyberbullying outsider behavior (β = .26, n.s.) and defender behavior (β = -.20, n.s.). However, it did have a significant positive association with moral motivation (β = .59, p < .01). Moral motivation was not significantly associated with cyberbullying defender behavior (β = -.06, n.s.). However, it did have a significant negative association with cyberbullying outsider behavior (β = -.28, p < .05).

Table 4 shows that the maternal anxious rearing behavior is significantly associated with adolescents’ moral motivation mediated by self-efficacy (β = -.31, p < .05). However, direct effects of maternal anxious rearing behavior and adolescents’ self-efficacy to cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior. Squared multiple correlations (SMC) indicated that maternal anxious rearing behavior explained adolescents’ self-efficacy by 28%, maternal anxious rearing behavior and adolescents’ self-efficacy explained moral motivation by 28%, maternal anxious rearing behavior, adolescents’ self-efficacy, moral motivation explained cyberbullying outsider behavior by 9% and defender behavior by 6% in Table 4.

Table 4

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of the Model

Discussion

The present study expands our understanding of how maternal anxious rearing behavior is associated with cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior through self-efficacy and moral motivation among adolescents. We found that our first hypothesis is partially supported: maternal anxious rearing behavior is negatively associated with cyberbullying defender behavior. Validating the theoretical lens (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), lower levels of maternal anxious rearing behavior can increase the likelihood of cyberbullying defender behavior. This is consistent with previous research that could be explained by affirming their negative belief of anxiety and worries as a danger (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2017). This belief, in turn, can increase the probability of avoiding helping others in cyberbullying by hindering their confidence and willingness to engage in prosocial behavior (Mazzone & Camodeca, 2019; Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2018. The finding emphasizes the potential mechanisms in which adolescents develop voluntary behavior in cyberbullying and the need for targeted interventions to address maternal anxiety, which could help improve adolescents’ ability to defend against cyberbullying. Such intervention could include the necessity of understanding mothers’ role in recognizing adolescents’ behavior and providing them with sufficient opportunities to act independently.

Contrary to the expectation, we found that maternal anxious rearing behavior is not significantly associated with cyberbullying outsider behavior. It is possible that in online contexts, the impact of mothers’ direct and immediate control of their adolescents’ behavior may be diminished due to limited guidance and supervision (Williams & Guerra, 2007). While this study seeks to investigate the extent of maternal behavioral control over adolescents, it is also reasonable to consider the potential association of maternal psychological control with adolescents’ actual behavior (Rogers, Padilla-Walker, McLean, & Hurst, 2020; Seol, Kim, & Jo, 2023). These findings suggest that maternal anxious rearing behavior may include multiple aspects, behavioral and psychological, and also emphasize the complexity of factors shaping adolescents’ outsider behavior in digital contexts. Future research is needed to determine how each aspect is connected to adolescent moral motivation and social development.

As expected, the pathways for the second hypothesis were partially supported: When adolescents perceive higher levels of anxious rearing behavior from their mothers, their self-efficacy tends to be lower. In line with prior research (McLeod et al., 2011; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010), maternal anxious rearing behavior can lead to a negative sense of self-efficacy, where anything causing anxiety may be seen as highly risky (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2017). Given that self-efficacy develops differently depending on the environment (Bandura, 1977a), adolescents who have experienced anxious rearing behavior may hold negative beliefs about their behavioral abilities. Furthermore, a higher level of maternal anxious rearing behavior is associated with lower moral motivation, which is fully mediated by adolescents’ self-efficacy. This aligns with previous research (Heinrichs, 2013; McLeod et al., 2011; Oser, 2013), indicating that maternal anxious rearing behavior may affect the development of adolescents’ moral motivation by decreasing their belief in their ability to act effectively. Thus, the direct impact of maternal anxious rearing behavior on adolescents’ moral motivation might be contingent upon their self-efficacy, ultimately leading to their actual moral behavior during moral conflicts (Ferreira et al., 2020). This underscores the importance of fostering self-efficacy in parenting practices to enhance robust moral development.

Adolescents’ self-efficacy is not associated with both cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior. This is consistent with the previous understanding that an individual’s self-efficacy does not considerably impact outsider and defender behavior in the digital context (Machackova et al., 2018). This can be understandable, considering the different features between online and offline interactions to be aware of cyberbullying. According to Salmivalli, Karna, and Poskiparta (2011), judgments about bullying are essential in determining actions in a situation, including outsider and defender behavior. Given that the online environment allows for rapid spread to a larger audience (Dooley et al., 2009) compared to offline, it makes it difficult to fully assess the direct severity and comprehend cyberbullying (Siegel, 2011). Such characteristics of the virtual space may make it challenging to recognize cyberbullying situations so that their rational belief and decision to intervene in cyberbullying may not lead to actual behavior. The findings also suggest that self-efficacy may not be the only factor linking belief and actual behavior during cyberbullying situations, and the difficulty may be heightened compared to face-to-face bullying.

In addition to the result, adolescents’ self-efficacy is positively associated with their moral motivation. This finding echoes the previous research on the relationship between self-efficacy and moral motivation among adolescents (Paciello, Fida, Cerniglia, Tramontano, & Cole, 2013; Patrick et al., 2019). Specifically, the stronger their belief in their success of behavioral performance, the greater the internal dynamics of judging based on moral norms, even in moral conflict situations, leading them to positive practical actions such as defender behavior. The growth mindset theory suggests that beliefs about the malleability of one’s ability to perform a specific task can contribute to internalized values and principles that guide moral behavior (Dweck, 2013). Adolescents with strong beliefs about their behavior may develop greater moral motivation by promoting a growth-oriented mindset. There has been little research providing empirical evidence on this, and further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms explaining the association between belief within one’s behavior and motivations to conform to the rule of morality.

Contrary to our expectation, the results revealed that moral motivation is negatively associated with cyberbullying outsider behavior, but there is no significant association with cyberbullying defender behavior. Consistent with previous research (Conway, Gomez-Garibello, & Talwar, 2014; Conway et al., 2016), a higher level of moral motivation can reduce the likelihood of cyberbullying outsider behavior. It is likely that the higher the moral value, the more justified and responsible it may affect the reduction of outsider and defender behavior. This could imply that the evaluation of moral values plays a significant role in motivating justifiable and accountable actions that can help victims of cyberbullying, reducing outsider behavior. However, inconsistent with previous studies (Bussey et al., 2020; Patrick et al., 2019), moral motivation is not associated with the likelihood of cyberbullying defender behavior. This could be because of the online context, which may reduce users’ abilities to immediately identify the extent of damage to the victim (Machackova et al., 2018), decreasing the level of moral motivation and emotional attributions for cyberbullying defender behavior. This result could also be explained by Rest’s perspective of moral motivation, which is that moral understanding (e.g., moral reasoning and moral judgment) of moral principles should precede the process of moral motivation (Rest, 1983). Since moral understanding is contingent upon an individual’s cognitive maturity, adolescents who are still developing their cognitive abilities may not be able to fully recognize cyberbullying incidents as needing moral motivation. This is particularly true in cases of cyberbullying where the social dynamics and personal risk factors involved are complex, and the cues are often subtle or ambiguous.

This finding indicates that when parents control their adolescents’ behavior due to anxiety, adolescents may undervalue their actions and abilities. This can decrease their moral judgments and hinder their motivations to respond to others in need in a digital context actively. Therefore, to reduce cyberbullying, especially among adolescents, it is vital to minimize excessive parental behavioral control that may negatively impact adolescents’ independence and autonomy in their behavior. In light of the potential challenges posed by the online environment, there is a need to consider a holistic perspective that includes both individual and family levels. Providing an environment where adolescents can experience trial and error through voluntary actions will be crucial. This approach allows them to recognize the value and impact of their actions as opportunities rather than focusing solely on the negative consequences.

Additionally, continuous education should be needed to promote a nuanced understanding of Internet ethics and morality. This education could foster changes in thinking and encourage appropriate moral judgment and responsibility for adolescent users. Given that individual moral norms are likely to be loosened in cyberspace (Suler, 2004), it is imperative to take proactive actions to reduce cyberbullying by helping victims and inducing voluntary moral behavior. One possible approach to promoting this goal could be to implement programs that engage adolescents in the roles of bystanders, empowering them to practice practical coping behavior in the form of virtual simulation. This approach may be particularly suitable for adolescents who spend significant time in online contexts and, therefore, are at increased risk of witnessing cyberbullying.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has several limitations. The experience of witnessing cyberbullying was limited. Among the collected 358 participants, 67% of participants answered that they had witnessed cyberbullying. We asked about the experience of witnessing cyberbullying with the definition of cyberbullying by asking if they witnessed the cyberbullying within a year. The definition of witnessing cyberbullying can vary depending on the difference in the duration of damage, the perpetrator’s criteria, and their intensity. Future research should consider a more accurate number of specific cases of witnessing cyberbullying (Doumas & Midgett, 2020).

Next, the age and gender distribution of the adolescents who participated in this study appeared uneven, with more fifteen-year-olds than any other age group and more female participants than male participants. This study controlled gender based on the gender difference in cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior (Campbell et al., 2020). However, this uneven distribution could potentially impact the detection of indirect effects. Previous research has also shown relative differences in cyberbullying, with older adolescents witnessing more cyberbullying than younger adolescents, yet younger adolescents appear to intervene more (Allison & Bussey, 2017). Further, parental influence is more directly reported in early adolescence and then decreases (Keijsers & Poulin, 2013), and younger adolescents demonstrated higher self-efficacy compared to older adolescents (Clark & Bussey, 2020). This suggests that future studies should consider the pathways of cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior by age and gender. This will provide a foundation for delivering targeted interventions for adolescents.

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrate empirical evidence focused on the mechanisms, including environmental and personal factors of adolescence, that contribute to cyberbullying outsider and defender behavior. These results indicate significant practical implications in suggesting the development of effective interventions when adolescents witness the cyberbullying situation. Specifically, this study highlights the role of maternal rearing behavior, which may affect the shaping of adolescents’ behavioral values and further moral motivations based on moral standards, which in turn affect their behavior in cyberbullying. It is necessary to recognize the pivotal role of maternal influence in reducing excessive control that may impede adolescents’ independence. This provides insight to create an environment that allows adolescents to experience trial-and-error actions and choices. Further, the present study underscores the need for parent educational programs, specifically focusing on reducing their anxious rearing behavior to alleviate anxiety about their adolescents’ behavior and eventually building one of the key factors to voluntary behavior to support others.

Notes

This article is a part of the first author’s master’s thesis submitted in 2022 and was presented at the 2021 Annual Fall Conference of the Korean Home Economics Association.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

Affrunti N. W., Woodruff-Borden J.. 2017;The roles of anxious rearing, negative affect, and effortful control in a model of risk for child perfectionism. Journal of Child and Family Studies 26:2547–2555. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0767-8.

Allison K. R., Bussey K.. 2017;Individual and collective moral influences on intervention in cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior 74:7–15. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.019.

Bandura A.. 1977a;Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2):191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.

Bandura A.. 1977b. Social Learning theory New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bronfenbrenner U.. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Bussey K., Luo A., Fitzpatrick S., Allison K.. 2020;Defending victims of cyberbullying: The role of self-efficacy and moral disengagement. Journal of School Psychology 78:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.11.006.

Campbell M. A., Whiteford C., Duncanson K., Spears B., Butler D., Slee P. T.. 2020;Cyberbullying bystanders: Gender, grade, and actions among primary and secondary school students in Australia. International Journal of Technoethics 8(1):44–55. doi: 10.4018/ijt.2017010104.

Clark M., Bussey K.. 2020;The role of self-efficacy in defending cyberbullying victims. Computers in Human Behavior 109:106340. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106340.

Conway L., Gomez-Garibello C., Talwar V.. 2014;Moving from traditional bullying to cyberbullying: The role of moral emotions and reasoning. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 60(1):216–220. doi: 10.11575/ajer.v60i1.55899.

Conway L., Gomez-Garibello C., Talwar V., Shariff S.. 2016;Face-to-face and online: An investigation of children’s and adolescents’ bullying behavior through the lens of moral emotions and judgments. Journal of School Violence 15(4):503–522. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2015.1112805.

Dooley J. J., Pyżalski J., Cross D.. 2009;Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology 217(4):182–188. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182.

Doumas D. M., Midgett A.. 2020;Witnessing cyberbullying and internalizing symptoms among middle school students. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 10(4):957–966. doi: 10.3390/ejihpe10040068.

Dweck C.. 2013. Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development New York: Psychology Press.

Ferreira P. C., Simão A. V., Paiva A., Ferreira A.. 2020;Responsive bystander behaviour in cyberbullying: A path through self-efficacy. Behaviour & Information Technology 39(5):511–524. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1602671.

Gini G., Pozzoli T., Jenkins L., Demaray M.. 2021. Participant roles in bullying. In : Smith P. K., Norman J. O., eds. The wiley blackwell handbook of bullying p. 76–95. New York: Wiley.

Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., Anderson R. E.. 2013. Multivariate data analysis 7th edth ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Education.

Heinrichs K.. 2013. Moral motivation in the light of action theory: Perspectives on theoretical and empirical progress. In : Heinrichs K., Oser F., Lovat T., eds. Handbook of moral motivation p. 623–657. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Hinduja S., Patchin J. W.. 2015. Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying 2nd Edth ed. California: Corwin.

Keijsers L., Poulin F.. 2013;Developmental changes in parent-child communication throughout adolescence. Developmental Psychology 49(12):2301–2308. doi: 10.1037/a0032217.

Kohlberg L., Candee D.. 1984. The relation of moral judgment to moral action. In : Kurtines W. M., Gewirtz J. L., eds. Morality, moral behavior, and moral development p. 52–73. New York: Wiley.

Kohlberg L., Diessner R.. 1991. A cognitive-developmental approach to moral attachment. In : Gewirtz J. L., Kurtines W. M., eds. Intersections with attachment p. 229–246. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lim W., Lau B. T., Islam F. M. A.. 2022;Cyberbullying awareness intervention in digital and non-digital environment for youth: Current knowledge. Education and Information Technologies :1–57. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11472-z.

Machackova H., Dedkova L., Sevcikova A., Cerna A.. 2018;Bystanders’ supportive and passive responses to cyberaggression. Journal of School Violence 17(1):99–110. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2016.1222499.

Malti T., Buchmann M.. 2010;Socialization and individual antecedents of adolescents’ and young adults’ moral motivation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39:138–149. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9400-5.

Mazzone A., Camodeca M.. 2019;Bullying and moral disengagement in early adolescence: Do personality and family functioning matter. Journal of Child and Family Studies 28:2120–2130. doi: 10.1007/s10826-019-01431-7.

McLeod B. D., Wood J. J., Avny S. B.. 2011. Parenting and child anxiety disorders. In : McKay D., Storch E. A., eds. Handbook of child and adolescent anxiety disorders p. 213–228. New York: Springer.

Muris P., Meesters C.. 2014;Small or big in the eyes of the other: On the developmental psychopathology of self-conscious emotions as shame, guilt, and pride. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 17:19–40. doi: 10.1007/s10567-013-0137-z.

Muris P., Meesters C., van Brakel A.. 2003;Assessment of anxious rearing behaviors with a modified version of “Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran” questionnaire for children. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 25:229–237. doi: 10.1023/A:1025894928131.

Nikel Ł.. 2020;Submissiveness, assertiveness and aggressiveness in school-age children: The role of self-efficacy and the Big Five. Children and Youth Services Review 110:104746. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104746.

O’Boyle E. H. Jr, Williams L. J.. 2011;Decomposing model fit: Measurement vs. theory in organizational research using latent variables. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(1):1–12. doi: 10.1037/a0020539.

Oser F.. 2013. Models of moral motivation. In : Heinrichs K., Oser F., Lovat T., eds. Handbook of moral motivation p. 7–24. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Paciello M., Fida R., Cerniglia L., Tramontano C., Cole E.. 2013;High cost helping scenario: The role of empathy, prosocial reasoning and moral disengagement on helping behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 55(1):3–7. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.004.

Patrick R. B., Rote W. M., Gibbs J. C., Basinger K. S.. 2019;Defend, stand by, or join in?: The relative influence of moral identity, moral judgment, and social self-efficacy on adolescents’ bystander behaviors in bullying situations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48:2051–2064. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01089-w.

Rest J. R.. 1983. Morality. In : Mussen P., Flavell J., Markman E., eds. Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development p. 556–628. New York: Wiley.

Rogers A. A., Padilla-Walker L. M., McLean R. D., Hurst J. L.. 2020;Trajectories of perceived parental psychological control across adolescence and implications for the development of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 49:136–149. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01070-7.

Salmivalli C., Karna A., Poskiparta E.. 2011;Counteracting bullying in Finland: The KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal of Behavioral Development 35(5):405–411. doi: 10.1177/0165025411407457.

Salmivalli C., Lagerspetz K., Björkqvist K., Österman K., Kaukiainen A.. 1996;Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior 22(1):1–15. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T.

Siegel L. J.. 2011. Criminology: The core 4th edth ed. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Soenens B., Vansteenkiste M.. 2010;A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review 30(1):74–99. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001.

Suler J.. 2004;The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 7(3):321–326. doi: 10.1089/1094931041291295.

Thornberg R., Wänström L., Hong J. S., Espelage D. L.. 2017;Classroom relationship qualities and social-cognitive correlates of defending and passive bystanding in school bullying in Sweden: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology 63:49–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.002.

Valdés-Cuervo Á. A., Alcántar-Nieblas C., Martínez-Ferrer B., Parra-Pérez L.. 2018;Relations between restorative parental discipline, family climate, parental support, empathy, shame, and defenders in bullying. Children and Youth Services Review 95:152–159. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.015.

Van Brakel A. M., Muris P., Bögels S. M., Thomassen C.. 2006;A multifactorial model for the etiology of anxiety in non-clinical adolescents: Main and interactive effects of behavioral inhibition, attachment and parental rearing. Journal of Child and Family Studies 15(5):568–578. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-9061-x.

Weitkamp K., Seiffge-Krenke I.. 2019;The association between parental rearing dimensions and adolescent psychopathology: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48:469–483. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0928-0.

Williams K. R., Guerra N. G.. 2007;Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 41(6):S14–S21. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018.

Wood J. J., McLeod B. D., Sigman M., Hwang W-C., Chu B. C.. 2003;Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory, empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 44(1):134–151. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00106.

Young B. J., Wallace D. P., Imig M., Borgerding L., Brown-Jacobsen A. M., Whiteside S. P.. 2013;Parenting behaviors and childhood anxiety: A psychometric investigation of the EMBU-C. Journal of Child and Family Studies 22:1138–1146. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9677-y.

Jeon J. H., Lee I. J., Kim Y. H., Park G. Y., Yoon Y. D., Ryue S. H., Hong S. H.. 2013;A study on the development of the moral motivation revised test for Korean adolescents (2nd year). Journal of Ethics Education Studies 29:29–62. Retrieved from https://www.earticle.net/Article/A191531.

Kim H. S.. 2001. relationship between self-efficacy and career maturity of middle school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T8001391.

Kim Y., Oh I., Song J.. 2019;A comparative analysis of factors influencing on bystanders’ behavioral intention between traditional and cyber bullying. The Journal of Educational Studies 50(4):31–55. doi: 10.15854/jes.2019.12.50.4.31.

Ko A., Choi S.. 2016;Study on cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders - focusing on the empathy of middle school students -. Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association 28(4):79–95. doi: 10.19031/jkheea.2016.12.28.4.79.

Korea Communications Commission. (2023, March 24). 2022 Cyber violence survey results report [2022년 사이버폭력 실태조사 결과 보고서]. Retrieved from https://www.kcc.go.kr/user.do.

Lee S., Kang J-. H., Lee W-.. 2015. The types and countermeasures of youth cyber violence (15-AA-07). Korea Institute of Criminology and Justice. Retrieved from https://www.kicj.re.kr/board.es?mid=a20201000000&bid=0029&list_no=12379&act=view.

Seo M.. 2020;Bystanders’ experience in cyber bullying among adolescents: Focused on group chat room. The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology 33(3):65–88. doi: 10.35574/KJDP.2020.9.33.3.65.

Seol M., Kim J. M., Jo H.. 2023;The effect of parental psychological control on adolescents’ relational aggression: The dual mediating effects of internalized shame and moral disengagement. Journal of Families and Better Life 41(3):1–15. doi: 10.7466/JFBL.2023.41.3.1.

Song J.. 2022;The moral judgment, moral disengagement, and personality beliefs factors influencing on bystander’s defending tendency in cyberbullying. Korean Journal of Youth Studies 29(11):705–724. doi: 10.21509/KJYS.2022.11.29.11.705.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Demographic characteristics		N (%)
Age	12 years	19 (8.1%)
	13 years	61 (26.1%)
	14 years	74 (31.6%)
	15 years	80 (34.2%)
Gender	Male	90 (38.5%)
Gender	Female	144 (61.5%)
Academic year	7^th grade	52 (22.2%)
	8^th grade	68 (29.1%)
	9^th grade	114 (48.7%)
Resident area	Seoul	107 (45.7%)
	Gyeonggi	75 (32.1%)
	Incheon	6 (2.6%)
	Kangwon	6 (2.6%)
	Gyeongsang	25 (10.7%)
	Jeolla	11 (4.7%)
Maternal employment status	Full-Time job	101 (43.2%)
	Part-Time job	56 (23.9%)
	Unemployed	77 (32.9%)

Study variables	1	2	3	4	5	M	SD
Maternal anxious rearing behavior	―					2.42	.44
2. Self-Efficacy	-.18^**	―				3.08	.34
3. Moral motivation	.20	.33^***	―			4.75	.72
4. Cyberbullying outsider behavior	.20	.08	-.13^*	―		2.41	.49
5. Cyberbullying defender behavior	-.20^**	.10	.10	-.15^*	―	2.46	.48

Path	B	β	S.E.	C.R.
MARB → SE	-.33	-.53	.09	-3.73^***
MARB → MM	.29	.14	.31	.93
SE → MM	1.93	.59	.69	2.79^**
MARB → COB	.14	.11	.16	.84
SE → COB	.54	.26	.38	1.43
MM → COB	-.18	-.28	.07	-2.44^*
MARB → CDB	-.30	-.24	.17	-2.85^*
SE → CDB	-.40	-.20	.35	-1.15
MM → CDB	-.04	-.06	.06	-0.60

Path	Direct	Indirect	Total	SMC
MARB → SE	-.53^***		-.53^***	.28
MARB → MM	.14	-.31^*	-.17	.28
SE → MM	.59^**		.59^**
MARB → COB	.11	-.09	.02	.09
SE → COB	.26	-.16	.10
MM → COB	-.28^*		-.28^*
MARB → CDB	-.24^*	.11	-.12^*	.06
SE → CDB	-.20	-.04	-.23
MM → CDB	-.06		-.06