Early adolescents’ involvement in anonymous relational and cyber aggression: An evolutionary perspective.

Abstract

This study used an evolutionary psychological perspective to investigate early adolescents' involvement in indirect relational and cyber aggression that was perpetrated anonymously. Relations with the functions and targets of aggression, and victims' perceptions of harm, were examined to consider whether anonymous indirect aggression may be used selectively in a manner that could be conditionally adaptive. In a sample of 378 students (11-14 years; M = 12.87, SD = .84), anonymous aggression was most consistently associated with impression management functions (status and mate seeking), especially for girls, concordant with their greater risk aversion and concerns about reputation for reciprocity and trustworthiness. Moreover, both cyber and relational forms of anonymous aggression and victimization were associated with bullying against less powerful peers, whereas only anonymous cyber aggression and victimization were associated with adversarial aggression against equally or more powerful targets, likely because anonymity in cyberspace can mitigate the risks of targeting powerful rivals. Finally, anonymous victimization was associated with victim perceptions of harm when controlling for victimization by known perpetrators, albeit only for girls in cyber form. Results are discussed from an evolutionary perspective to suggest that anonymous indirect aggression, when used selectively in appropriate forms against suitable targets for relevant functions, may be a conditionally adaptive means for some individuals to inflict costs on targets while mitigating social, reputational and retaliatory costs. Implications for interventions are also discussed.

The Bystander Effect: Why Do Witnesses Refrain from Acting in Cyberbullying Cases?

“…Furthermore, the contextual features of CMC perpetuate pluralistic ignorance in bystanders' nonintervention. In an online environment where visual anonymity and group norms are salient, individuals are more willing to conform to a group norm rather than insisting on their individual beliefs (Lapierre & Dane, 2022;Wingate et al, 2013). In addition, the most common type of cyberbullying is verbal and is often mis-conceptualized and mis-rationalized by witnesses as a "mild" form of bullying in the anonymous online environment.…”

“…In addition, the most common type of cyberbullying is verbal and is often mis-conceptualized and mis-rationalized by witnesses as a "mild" form of bullying in the anonymous online environment. Because witnesses cannot see the facial expressions of others, it is difficult to evaluate the exact feelings of victims and other witnesses about the verbal attack (Rivers & Smith, 1994), so once the witnesses perceive that no one has reacted to the cyberbullying, they may assume that nonintervention is a normative response (Lapierre & Dane, 2022;Wingate et al, 2013).…”

Balance of Power in Peer Victimization: The Role of Rivalry and Vulnerability

“…Although risky, aggression against high-status victims has been shown to yield substantial rewards, with aggression against more prestigious targets being associated with greater social prestige gains than aggression directed toward less prestigious individuals (Andrews et al, 2017). Furthermore, indirect forms of attack may minimize the risk of adversarial aggression (e.g., Lapierre & Dane, 2023). Therefore, in accordance with evolutionary perspectives, adolescents may inflict costs on rivals of equal or greater power (e.g., derogate to damage reputations) to compete for evolutionarily relevant and highly valued social resources such as dominance, status, or dating opportunities (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Dane et al, 2022; Dawes & Malamut, 2020; Morgan et al, 2022).…”

“…Consequently, the vast majority of past research on victimization has not differentiated being bullied from victimization perpetrated by an individual with equal or less power than the victim. The latter has been called adversarial victimization , as the targets appear to be selected due to competition and rivalry (Dane et al, 2022; Lapierre & Dane, 2022, 2023 see Figure 1). Recent research, albeit scant, has shown that adversarial victimization is associated with aggressive competition against rivals as well as aggression and victimization by anonymous perpetrators (Dane et al, 2022; Lapierre & Dane, 2022, 2023).…”

“…The latter has been called adversarial victimization , as the targets appear to be selected due to competition and rivalry (Dane et al, 2022; Lapierre & Dane, 2022, 2023 see Figure 1). Recent research, albeit scant, has shown that adversarial victimization is associated with aggressive competition against rivals as well as aggression and victimization by anonymous perpetrators (Dane et al, 2022; Lapierre & Dane, 2022, 2023).…”