Risk and Protective Factors in Cyberbullying: the Role of Family, Social Support and Emotion Regulation

Abstract

Family and peer effects, as well as socio-emotional skills, are considered to have an essential role in cyberbullying. Although the dynamics of social factors and socio-emotional processes underlying cyberbullying are still open for research to further understand the direct and indirect relationships among the social factors (e.g., peers and family), socio-emotional skills (e.g. emotion regulation) and cyberbullying engagement. Thus, the aim of our study was to test models of cyberbullying perpetration and cybervictimization based on the role of family dynamics (cohesion, adaptability and communication), social support (from family and friends) and emotion regulation difficulties. One thousand, one hundred and five students (552 males, aged 11–19 years) participated in our research. We used self-report questionnaires to measure cyberbullying perpetration and cybervictimization, family functioning, perceived social support and emotion regulation difficulties. Our main findings support the crucial role of family and peers in cyberbullying engagement during adolescence. Perceived support from friends and family serve as protective factors against cybervictimization. Further, perceived support from friends and balanced family cohesion are protective factors against cyberbullying perpetration. On the other hand, emotion regulation difficulties appear to increase the risk of both cyberbullying perpetration and cybervictimization. Our findings confirm and extend the research on the role of family and peer effects, as well as emotion regulation in cyberbullying engagement. Moreover, our results have important implications for prevention and intervention programs involving family and peer support.

The role of family support and conflict in cyberbullying and subjective well-being among Chilean adolescents during the Covid-19 period

“…Similar effects have been observed regarding family support, understood as both emotional and instrumental support received from any member of the family that makes the child feel protected and cared for ( Rees et al., 2020 ), with findings from different studies showing an association with less cybervictimization ( Arató et al., 2021 ; Fanti et al., 2012 ; Kowalski et al., 2014 ; Martins et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2009 ).…”

“…Previous studies have demonstrated the relevance of the family environment on adolescents' life satisfaction ( Alfaro et al., 2019 , 2021a ; Oyarzún et al., 2019 ; Lee and Yoo, 2015 ), and its role in the prevention of cyberbullying has also been demonstrated ( Arató et al., 2021 ; Buelga et al., 2016 ; Kowalski et al., 2014 ; Ortega-Baron et al., 2016 ).…”

Can Acting Out Online Improve Adolescents’ Well-Being During Contact Restrictions? A First Insight Into the Dysfunctional Role of Cyberbullying and the Need to Belong in Well-Being During COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Contact Restrictions

“…It is positively linked to peer rejection (being disliked by peers) and negatively linked to social preference (being liked by more peers than disliked; Card and Little, 2006 ). While social support by peers has been identified as a protective factor against cyberbullying perpetration (e.g., Fanti et al, 2012 ; Arató et al, 2021 ), it is known from offline bullying research that the pure number of friends increases the risk of being a bully (e.g., Barboza et al, 2009 ; Wang et al, 2009 ; Meland et al, 2010 ). Contact restrictions might impact the quality of social relationships and reduce their positive and protective effects.…”

“…This could be due to a close bivariate relation of emotion regulation problems with well-being, but not with cyberbullying. This later finding is surprising, given that several studies found a negative relation of emotion regulation problems with cyberbullying perpetration (Baroncelli and Ciucci, 2014;Gianesini and Brighi, 2015;Den Hamer and Konijn, 2016;Arató et al, 2020Arató et al, , 2021. Possibly, because of the strain due to contact restrictions and distance learning, emotion regulation problems were widely spread in our sample (as indicated by high standard deviations: lack of clarity M = 2.40, SD = 1.27, impulse control problems M = 2.07, SD = 1.12, limited strategies M = 2.55, SD = 1.10), so the values did not co-vary systematically with the values of cyberbullying.…”

“…This effect was stable even after controlling for offline bullying and indicates that cyberbullies seem to have emotion regulation problems. Over and above low friend support and family cohesion, impulse control difficulties and lack of emotional clarity positively predicted cyberbullying perpetration ( Arató et al, 2021 ). Additionally, in a structural equation model, the interaction of anger and negative emotion regulation (like other-blame, or rumination) predicted cyberbullying perpetration positively.…”