Differences in Participant Behaviors in Cyber Bullying according to the Psychological Characteristics of Bystanders in Offline Bullying among Adolescents

Profiles of participant roles in offline bullying and cyberbullying and normative beliefs among Korean adolescents

“…Studies using the PRQ distinguish four bystander roles: assistants of the bully, reinforcers of the bully, outsiders, and defenders of the victim (Gini, 2006; Salmivalli et al, 1998; Sutton & Smith, 1999). As assistants and reinforcers play an active role in reinforcing bullying, these two roles have been assigned as one factor based on factor analysis, such that bystanders’ responses can be categorized into follower, outsider, and defender, with the roles of assistants and reinforcers combined to form the follower category (Baek, 2014; Goossens et al, 2006; Heo, 2019; Seo, 2015).…”

“…Researchers have also identified specific bullying roles in the cyber context and found that most adolescents engage in at least one of these roles (Ko, 2016; Seo, 2020; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). However, due to the differences between offline and cyber contexts, assessment of roles in cyberbullying differs from assessment of offline bullying (Baker, 2014; Heo, 2019; Ko, 2016; Quirk & Campbell, 2015). While an offline bully harasses a victim in a physical act or by saying something nasty, a cyber bully sends nasty messages (Twemlow et al, 2004).…”

“…For example, one of the outsider behaviors exhibited in cyberbullying episodes is where outsiders do nothing in a chat room, such as reading and not commenting on the messages of the bully harassing the victim (Seo, 2020), but such a response cannot occur when there is offline bullying. Despite the difference of bullying behaviors in offline and cyber contexts, cyberbullying roles, like those in offline bullying, have been broadly classified into the roles of bully, bystander (involving follower, outsider, and defender roles), and victim (Baker, 2014; Heo, 2019).…”

“…These studies have shown that experiences with offline bullying and cyberbullying are linked among bullies and victims. Furthermore, studies have reported correlation between the roles of bystanders in offline and cyber contexts (Heo, 2019); for example, adolescents who supported the victim in an offline context tended to do so in a cyber context as well (Machackova & Pfetsch, 2016). Co-construction theory posits that individuals construct their cyber world in similar ways to their non-cyber environment (Subrahmanyam et al, 2006).…”

“…Thus, it is necessary to explore profiles of participant roles that integrate offline bullying and cyberbullying. However, previous classifications of bullying roles have taken conventional variable-based approaches, such as mean-based cut-off values (e.g., bully, victim, and bystander scales) to determine which types of involvement were present in the sample, and to later assign bullying roles (Francisco et al, 2022; Goossens et al, 2006; Heo, 2019; Salmivalli et al, 1996; Seo, 2008). This classification method using arbitrary cutoffs reveals that even in the same sample, assignment proportions differ according to the various criteria.…”