Introduction
Peer-to-peer violence has been increasing globally amongst youth, both inside anutside of school (UNICEF, 2017). Cyberbullying refers to a particular form of violence among peers, which is often considered an extension of bullying, defined as willful and repeated harm imposed through electronic means (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Thus, it can occur anywhere through social media. Cyberbullying may affect adolescents’ mental health and well-being and, in turn, relate tifficulties in school adjustment and performance (UNICEF, 2017). Cyberbullying may be linked to an aggressive communication style, which is an individual factor that may be expressed while communicating with others (Lin et al., 2016). This style of communication seems te related with aggressors’ behavior (Bandura, 1973; Kirchner et al., 1979).
Various theories have brought forth important contributions with regards to the determiners of behavior. According to the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001), personal cognitive factors (e.g., knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and expectations), environmental factors (e.g., social norms, access in community, and influence on others/environment), anehavioral factors (e.g., skills and practice) determine individuals’ behavior. In this study, we understand an aggressive communication style as a personal cognitive factor. Communication styles may be characterized as cognitive processes which entail micrehavior to get literal meaning across from one individual to another, consisting of individuaistinctive features which reflect in the communication act (Agarwal & Gupta, 2018). According to Jakubowski anange (1978), there are three main communication styles which relate to unique forms of verbal and nonverbal communication: assertiveness, passivity, and aggressiveness. Assertiveness refers to the expression of personapinions, thoughts, needs, and feelings in a direct, honest, and adequate way. Passivity consists of denying personal rights and not being able to express personal needs. Finally, aggressiveness entails claiming personal needs anesires without respecting others. Classical studies on aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1973; Kirchner et al., 1979) have connected the combination of deficits in assertiveness and the predominance of an aggressive communication style to aggressors’ behavior. In cyberbullying events, aggressive language is one of the primary means used to communicate with others, provoking embarrassment, hurt, and psychological harm (Lin et al., 2016; Veiga Simão et al., 2018). The most frequent forms of verbal aggression in this phenomenon refer to verbal attacks (e.g., on intelligence and physical appearance), insults, and threats (Francisco et al., 2015; Rachoene & Oyedemi, 2017). Therefore, it is relevant to understand how an aggressive communication style affects adolescents’ intention to engage in cyberbullying.
Behavioral intentions, defined as individuals’ perceived probability that they will engage in certain behavior or achieve certain goals (Lenhart, 2007), play an important role in cyberbullying since they may predict actuaehavior (Ajzen, 1991). Specifically, according to the Theory of Planneehavior, individuals consider the implications of their actions before deciding to act (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Considering that personal cognitive factors may influence behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 2008) anehavior (Bandura, 2001), we argue that an aggressive communication style, as a personal cognitive factor (Agarwal & Gupta, 2018), may determine behavioral intentions, which in turn may influence behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In line with this idea, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: An aggressive communication style will predict adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior, such that those who have this style of communication will report greater intentions to engage in this type of behavior.
An Aggressive Communication Style and its Relation to Emotional Well-being
According to Keyes’s model (2007), positive mental health and well-being can be definey the presence of subjective well-being, which goes beyond the absence of mental illness. In line with this theoretical framework, emotional well-being is one of the three main dimensions contributing to subjective well-being (along with psychological and sociaimensions), referring to the predominance of satisfaction with life and the experience of positive emotions as opposed to negative ones (e.g., anger, sadness, fear; Diener, 1984). Cyberbullying is known to negatively impact this dimension of well-being in adolescents. For instance, students who were aggressors and/or victims of cyberbullying reporteess satisfaction with their lives (UNESCO, 2017), and victims reported more emotional adjustment difficulties, such as depressive, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms anow self-esteem (e.g., Cowie, 2013; Ortega et al., 2012). On the other hand, a state of positive mental health and well-being can act as a protective factor and significantly change the impact of cyberbullying (Brailovskaia et al., 2018). Therefore, emotional well-being seems to play an important role in cyberbullying, especially in terms of the effect it may have on adolescents.
Anger is a predominant negative emotion sharey adolescents in cyberbullying events and also an important predictor of cyberbullying behavior (Lonigro et al., 2014). Specifically, anger can be expressed through aggressive behavior towarthers (i.e., in aggressors), may be suppresser may turn toward the self (i.e., in victims). In addition, coping negatively with anger seems to result in higher levels of cyberbullying behavior (Den Hamer & Konijn, 2016). Moreover, cyberbullying aggressors seem to reveaower emotional regulation (Lin, 2017) and greater difficulties regulating negative emotions, such as sadness and anger, which seem te related tifferent forms of aggressive behavior (Zeman et al., 2002). Considering the definition of emotional well-being (Diener, 1984), the predominance of negative emotions, such as anger, may lead individuals to experience low emotional well-being.
Anger as a personal factor (i.e., emotion) seems tetermine cyberbullying behavior, which goes in line with a socio-cognitive perspective on the factors determining an individual’s behavior (Bandura, 2001). It is usually directed towards others through words in cyberbullying, since aggressive language is often used to communicate with others in this phenomenon (Veiga Simão et al., 2018). Accordingly, low levels of positive emotions might be related to anger and help explain the relation between cyberbullying and emotional well-being. Thus, we argue that an aggressive communication style may alse related to emotional well-being. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2: An aggressive communication style will predict adolescents’ emotional well-being, such that those who have this style of communication will report less emotional well-being.
An Aggressive Communication Style and the Role of Personal Moraeliefs in Behavioral Intentions
This research considers the social cognitive theory of moral agency (Bandura, 2008) to conceptualize personal moraeliefs as being influencey an aggressive communication style and as determiners of behavioral intentions. According to this perspective, individuals develop agency through self-regulation, which links thought to action (Bandura, 2001). In moral agency, individuals refrain from behaving in ways which violate their moral standards (Osofsky et al., 2005). Self-regulation of harmfuehavior functions at a personaevel and encompasses social aspects. Individuals are not autonomous moral agents, but rather behave morally according to cognitive, affective, and social influences (Bandura, 2008). Moreover, morality is socially founded, thus, moral standards function at individual and sociaevel, and may cause substantial harm if these standards are not within sociaoundaries (Bandura, 2008). An aggressive communication style may be linked to how individuals interpret the world surrounding them and the specific circumstances they experience (Crick & Dodge, 1994). How individuals interpret the world is linked to the attitude they have towards these circumstances (Dill et al., 1997). These attitudes may be determiney other individual factors, such as personaeliefs, which Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) have defined as subjective cognitions about different aspects of life in general (i.e., behavior or attributes). An aggressive communication style is often a sign of someone wanting to protect his/her own ideas anpinions, as well as having them being acceptey others, even if it is at the expense of others (Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). That is, individuals with this communication style tend to interpret situations as if they were battles, which they want to win at all cost. In view of this, this study proposes that an aggressive communication style may be related to adolescents’ personal moraeliefs about cyberbullying. In accordance, we argue that:
Hypothesis 3: An aggressive communication style will predict adolescents’ personal moraeliefs about cyberbullying behavior, such that those who have this style of communication wilelieve that this type of behavior is fair.
There seems te a strong relationship between adolescents’ attitudes towards cyberbullying and their behavioral intention (Heirman & Walrave, 2012). Specifically, attitudes towards cyberbullying seem te a strong predictor of adolescents’ behavioral intention to engage in cyberbullying. To fully understand adolescents’ behavioral intentions, and consequently behavior, it is crucial to understand how personal and social factors influence psychological processes to yielehavioral effects (Bandura, 2005). This study focuses specifically on adolescents’ personal moraeliefs and how these may be related to their intentions to engage in cyberbullying. Social experiences affect behavior in the different contexts in which they unfold and how individuals interact within these situations influences how their moral standards develop throughout time and, therefore, guide their behavior (Bandura, 2005). This theoretical approach may help explain how these processes occur in cyberbullying, which is a social phenomenon (Allison & Bussey, 2017). In line with this, we argue that moraeliefs may determine adolescents’ behavioral intentions and consequently, their behavior. For instance, lower moral standards have been linked to higher levels of cyberbullying behavior (Perren & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012). Thus, we focus on adolescents’ personal moraeliefs about cyberbullying behavior, since these beliefs may influence their actions (Barchia & Bussey, 2011). To specify, adolescents may not intervene or may even interfere in the situation in an aggressive manner if they believe the actions of the aggressor are justifiable, which constitutes a moraisengagement mechanism with regards to the situation (Allison & Bussey, 2017; Barchia & Bussey, 2011). Research has shown how moraisengagement could predict adolescents’ aggressive behavior in cyberbullying (Pornari & Wood, 2010). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4: Adolescents’ personal moraeliefs about cyberbullying behavior will predict their intentions to engage in this type of behavior, such that those who find cyberbullying behavior unfair will have lower intentions to engage in this type of behavior.
How individuals interact in face-to-face contexts is different from online environments, especially since pseudonymity and anonymity enable them te more disinhibited (Bandura, 2004). Furthermore, online contexts enable individuals tisguise their identity anetach themselves from the physical worlue to the lack of personal and social sanctions for injurious behavior. Therefore, individuals may feel a moraisconnection more easily when engaging in hurtfuehavior and find it more difficult to regulate their moral conduct. In line with this, we argue that adolescents’ personal moraeliefs help explain the nature of the relationship between an aggressive communication style and their intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5: Adolescents’ personal moraeliefs about cyberbullying behavior will mediate the relationship between an aggressive communication style and their intentions to engage in this type of behavior, such that the indirect effect wile lower than the direct effect.
In conclusion, this paper intends to achieve a better understanding of the role of a verbal aggressive communication style in cyberbullying. Thus, we studied the relationship with different individual variables, which may be associated with this phenomenon. Specifically, the aims of this study are to assess the relationship between an aggressive communication style and intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior. We also tried to understand the role of an aggressive communication style on adolescents’ emotional well-being. Furthermore, we intended to understand how this communication style influences adolescents’ personal moraeliefs about cyberbullying, since they enable individuals to gain controver their thoughts, feelings, motivation, and actions (Bandura, 2006). Finally, to understand the specific role of personal moraeliefs as potentiaeterminers of individuals’ actions (Bandura, 2006), another aim of this study was tetermine the mediating effects of personal moraeliefs in the relationship between an aggressive communication style and adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying. Figure 1 presents our conceptual model.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1 An aggressive Communication Style Predicting Emotional Well-being, Personal Moraeliefs, a Mediator Variable, and Intentions to Engage in Cyberbullying Behavior.
Method
Participants
A convenience sample of 218 9th graders (Mage = 14.67, SD = 0.84, 53% girls) from three public schools in Lisbon participated in this study. Student participation in data collection dependen students’ own volunteerism and parental consent. Specifically, all students from the schools were contacted. However, only those who had parental consent and gave their own consent participated in the study. The final sample was therefore not chosen by the research team, as this could create bias in the participation, but rather, only basen parental and students’ own consent.
Instruments
During the initiaevelopment of the measures used in the present study within our research projects on cyberbullying (SFRH/BPD/110695/2015; PTDC/MHC-PED/3297/2014), facial validity was tested with three adolescents any a panef seven experts to understand whether the items of assessment instruments were appropriate for the specific constructs and assessment objectives (Hardesty & Bearden, 2004).
Aggressiveness in Interpersonal Communication (AIC). This instrument is a 10-item task and was developeasen Jakubowski anange’s (1978) theory of communication styles, specifically with regards to aggressiveness. As this resource is a performance task, and not a questionnaire, we decided to assess its internal structure and reliability with the Item Response Theory (IRT) approach by computing Rasch analysis with the Winsteps program (Linacre, 2013), which measured its unidimensionality, as well as participants’ scores of aggressiveness in hypothetical situations. Participants were asked to respond taily life situations of adolescents (e.g., “A friend says to you "Your shirt is really horrible!". How likely do you respond?; "What’s that got to with you?;"”). In doing so, they should position themselves in each situation and respond in the manner presented in terms of likelihood from 1 (not likely at all) to 5 (very likely). Winsteps enabled us to estimate participants’ scores on a one-dimensionaogit scale and evaluate the properties of the AIC.
We used Rasch polytomous methodology to examine the instrument and participants’ scores. All items were assessed to understand whether they had excessive infit anutfit mean square residuals. None of the items showed infit/outfit higher than 1.5, as well as z statistic > 2.00, as suggested in the literature (Bond & Fox, 2007). We considerether reliability indicators from Rasch measures for AIC, including Cronbach’s alpha, Person separation reliability (PSR), and item separation reliability (ISR) (Smith, 2001). AIC revealed a Cronbach’s α of .72, a PSR of .69, and an ISR of .99. These scores indicate good internal consistency reliability (Fox & Jones, 1998), even though the PSR revealeifficulty on participants’ behalf. After removing subjects with excessive infit/outfit, PSR was .70, ISR remained stable (.99), and Cronbach’s α increased to .73.
Personal moraeliefs about cyberbullying behavior. This instrument is a 9-item one-dimensional questionnaire that asks adolescents (on a Likert-type scale from 1 = fair to 6 = unfair) to think about whether the specific behavior of cyberbullying is fair or unfair (“I think seeing someone being threatenenline is fair/unfair” α = .81). After an exploratory factor analysis explaining 59% of the variance, the values of a confirmatory factorial analysis were good according to the literature in a previous study (Hooper et al., 2008), namely, χ2(22) = 26.55, p > .05, χ2/df = 1.21, CFI = .98, GFI = .93, IFI = .98, RMSEA = .02 ".00, .04", SRMR = .04, AIC = 72.55 (see Veiga Simão et al., 2018).
Behavioral intentions in cyberbullying is a two-dimensional questionnaire. This instrument asks adolescents (on a Likert scale of 1 = not probable to 5 = very probable) to indicate their behavioral intentions regarding cyberbullying behavior. After an exploratory analysis explaining 85% of the variance, confirmatory factorial analysis values were good according to the literature in a previous study (Hooper et al., 2008), namely χ2(134) = 296.06, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.20, CFI = .91, IFI = .91, RMSEA = .04 ".03, .05", SRMR = .09, AIC = 370.06. We only used “intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior” (α = 0.91), which asked adolescents whether they would engage in cyberbullying behavior in the next six months (i.e., “If in the next six months I see someone threatening someone on the Internet, there is a possibility that I wilo the same.”).
Emotional well-being sub-scale. This instrument is a 3-item sub-scale of the Portuguese version of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form for adolescents (Matos et al. 2010), which evaluates the predominance of positive emotions and quality of life (e.g., ‘‘How often have you felt happy?;’’ α = .79) on a 6-point Likert type scale (varying from 0 = never to 5 = every day). A confirmatory factorial analysis revealed good values according to the literature (Hooper et al., 2008), namely χ2(72) = 194.15, p <, χ2/df = 2.697, CFI = .93, IFI = .93, RMSEA = .06 ".05, .08", SRMR = .05, AIC = 260.15.
Procedure
In a first phase, we requested and were granted authorization to conduct this study by the Ministry of Education of Portugal, the Portuguese National Commission of Data Protection, the Deontology Committee of the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon, schools’ boards of directors, teachers, parents, and adolescent participants. The instruments were administered to adolescents in a classroom context with computers with Internet access in their own schools by researchers of this study. Prior to filling out the instruments and performing the AIC task, all students were informed that their participation was basen confidentiality and their data would remain anonymous, and that they could have psychological support (i.e., with a professional psychologist) if they needed to talk to someone during or after participating. Moreover, we informed all students that they could quit at any time they wished to. All the students in the final sample chose to participate.
Data Analysis
Database was previously treated for missing values by transforming raw data into z scores any removing outliers. Before performing structural equation modeling, we computed Pearson correlations of the variables included in our structural equation model. We evaluated the significance of regression coefficients with AMOS (v. 23, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Parameters were estimated through the asymptotically distribution-free methoue to the non-normaistribution of data, which is characteristic of cyberbullying data. Normality of variables was evaluated with the univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis. We used χ2 tests to assess the significance of the total, direct and indirect effects (Marôco, 2010). Moreover, effects p < .05 were considered significant. Also, we used the bootstrapping method (2,000 samples, CI 90%) to test for mediation effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Results
Table 1 shows correlations between variables in our hypotheses. An aggressive communication style was negatively related to personal moraeliefs regarding cyberbullying behavior and emotional well-being, and positively related to adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
All predictor variables were tested (direct and indirect effects individually) in the model and were significant, as suggested in the literature (Preacher & Hayes 2008). An aggressive communication style predicted adolescents’, personal moraeliefs negatively (β = -.29 with an effect size of .08), their emotional well-being negatively (β = -.20 with an effect size of .04) and their intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior positively (β = .15 with an effect size of .03). Also, adolescents’ personal moraeliefs predicted their intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior negatively (β = -.23 with an effect size of .05). Those whelieved cyberbullying behavior was unfair reporteower intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior.
Then, we tested a model with the independent variable an aggressive communication style, the twependent variables, including emotional well-being and intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior, and the “personal moraeliefs” mediator variable. The model revealed a good fit with significant direct and indirect paths of an aggressive communication style in interpersonal relations on adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior through personal moraeliefs ann their emotional well-being, χ2(2) = .41, p > .05, χ2/df = .84, CFI = 1.00, GFI = .99, IFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 ".00, .08", SRMR = .01, AIC = 16.41.
The standardized total effect of aggressiveness on adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior was .15, 90% CI ".05, .24", -.20, 90% CI "-.31, -.07" on their emotional well-being, and -.27, 90% CI "-.41, -.16" on their personal moraeliefs. The standardized total effect of adolescents’ personal moraeliefs on their intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior was -.21, 90% CI "-.33, -.08".
While an aggressive communication style had a negative direct effect on personal moraeliefs, -.28, 90% CI "-.42, -.17", it had a positive effect on adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior, .09, 90% CI "-.01,.17". This means that those who revealed an aggressive communication style tended telieve that cyberbullying behavior was fair and to report greater intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior. Personal moraeliefs had a negative direct effect on adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior, -.18, 90% CI "-.30, -.07".
The indirect effect of an aggressive communication style on adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior through personal moraeliefs was lower than the direct effect, .05, 90% CI ".02, -.10". This means that adolescents’ personal moraeliefs diminished the effect of this negative communication style on their intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior. The model we present also showed a significant, but negative direct effect of an aggressive communication style on adolescents’ emotional well-being, -.29, 90% CI "-.46, -.11".
Discussion
Results regarding H1 support the notion that harmfuehavior may be determiney personal factors (Bandura, 2004). Specifically, these results suggest that an individual’s aggressive communication style may influence his/her behavioral intentions in relation to cyberbullying. This, in turn, highlights the importance of working styles of communication when intervening with adolescents in this phenomenon. Results which concern H2 help explain previous findings about the negative effects of cyberbullying on adolescents’ emotional adjustment and well-being (Cowie, 2013; Ortega et al., 2012; UNESCO, 2017), since using verbal aggression to communicate with others is usually present in cyberbullying situations (Veiga Simão et al., 2018). Specifically, these results suggest that an aggressive communication style may be one of the individual factors contributing to a decrease in adolescents’ emotional well-being when they get involved in cyberbullying, considering the relation between cyberbullying and anger, as a negative emotion predominant in this type of violent events and an important predictor of cyberbullying (Lonigro et al., 2014). Accordingly, if there is a predominance of negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, fear) insteaf positive ones (e.g., happiness, joy, contentment) this reflects low emotional well-being (Diener, 1984; Keyes, 2007). Finally, results regarding H3 reinforce the idea that an aggressive communication style may be associated with how individuals interpret their surrounding environment, as well as the specific situations they are involved in (Crick & Dodge, 1994), which is inevitably related to the attitude (i.e., basen personal moraeliefs) they have towards these circumstances (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Dill et al., 1997). Hence, these results highlight the role of an aggressive communication style in personal moraeliefs which affect an individual’s attitudes in relation to cyberbullying. This is particularly relevant considering that this communication style may lead to the consideration that cyberbullying is fair, thus affecting how adolescents intend to act towards that behavior.
Accordingly, results concerning H4 revealed that those whelieved cyberbullying behavior was unfair reporteower intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior. This result complements results found in previous studies demonstrating that adolescents’ personal moraeliefs predicted the appropriation of verbal aggressions they witnessed in cyberbullying situations to communicate with others online (Veiga Simão et al., 2018). Specifically, adolescents who may find cyberbullying behavior unfair (i.e., with high personal moraeliefs) may use less of the language they witnessed in cyberbullying situations. These beliefs may alse related to their intentions to engage in cyberbullying situations, and potentially with expressions and words they saw being used in these incidents, which in turn may contribute to an increase of aggressive interactions.
Moreover, we found that adolescents’ personal moraeliefs explained the nature of the relationship between an aggressive communication style and their intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior (H5). Specifically, these personal moraeliefs diminished (or controlled) the effect of a negative communication style on their intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior. Therefore, these beliefs serve as a mediator between this communication style and adolescents’ intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior. These results reinforce the fact that moraehavior is guided and regulatey the continuous exercise of evaluative self-influence (Bandura, 2004). Specifically, individuals may intend to engage in injurious behavior, as is the case of cyberbullying, but their evaluative self-influence, which may be in the form of personal moraeliefs, hinders them from doing so (Osofsky et al., 2005). This self-directedness encompasses adolescents’ moral agency, through self-regulatory processes of moral reasoning regarding cyberbullying behavior, which then lead tehavioral intentions and actions (Bandura, 2001). This reflection emphasizes the socio-cognitive approach of moral agency with regards to cyberbullying intentions anehavior, and how it directs the self in changing moral reasoning into action through self-regulatory processes (Bandura, 2001). This evidence is of substantial importance because of the influence an aggressive communication style may have on the pre-processes of cyberbullying behavior (i.e., before it occurs), which involve behavioral intentions. The role of personal moraeliefs in adolescents’ engagement in cyberbullying behavior may be better understood if we consider the particularities of online contexts, namely the possibility to assume pseudonyms or anonymous profiles and the physicaistance in virtual interactions. These aspects altogether may contribute to the creation of a detachment from the impact of harmfuehavior towards others, leading individuals more easily to morally disengage from cyberbullying perpetration (Bandura, 2004). Accordingly, if an individual perceives injurious behavior as morally fair, this may also help explain a lower activation of self-regulatory mechanisms, particularly regarding aggressive communication.
These results were basen a rather small convenience sample of 218 students, which could constitute a limitation of this study for the generalization of findings. However, it provides as important contribution for future larger-scale studies. Accordingly, taking these findings into account, understanding how this communication style may be changed is imperative, as it may have an impact on the consequences of cyberbullying (i.e., emotional adjustment and well-being), as well as on its perpetuation amongst adolescents. For instance, using aggressive language may lead towards greater intentions to engage in cyberbullying behavior, as we hypothesized. However, whether adolescents believe this type of behavior is fair or unfair may determine if they in fact, have those intentions, which may lead to cyberbullying behavior itself. Such results seem to make sense according to the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001), since they emphasize the determining role of personaeliefs in behavior. Also, results emphasize the relevance of personal moraeliefs in explaining adolescents’ behavioral intentions concerning cyberbullying events, in line with the Theory of Planneehavior (Ajzen, 2008).
The findings presented in this study contribute to a better understanding of the determinants of cyberbullying behavior, but they also contribute to the scientific knowledge regarding educational interventions which address this phenomenon. Specifically, they give relevance to communication as a main area to intervene with adolescents. Promoting a more assertive style of communication amongst adolescents shoule a must in the design of intervention programs against cyberbullying. This could, consequently, contribute to positive mental health and well-being, which can act as a protective factor in relation to cyberbullying (Brailovskaia et al., 2018).
Conflict of Interest
The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.
Conflict of Interest
The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.
Conflict of Interest
The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.
Cite this article as: Pereira, N., Ferreira, P., Veiga Simão, A. M., Paulino, P., Oliveira, S., & Mora-Merchán, J. A. (2021). Aggressive communication style as predictor of cyberbullying, emotional well-being, and personal moraeliefs in adolescence. Psicología Educativa, 28(2), 111-116. https://doi.org/10.5093/psed2021a11
Agarwal, U. A., & Gupta, M. (2018). Communication styles of millennials: Trends & relevance for the industry. Indian Journaf Industrial Relations, 53(3), 504-518.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planneehavior. Organizationaehavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2008). Consumer attitudes anehavior. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Cardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 525-548). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting sociaehavior. Prentice- Hall.
Allison, K., & Bussey, K. (2017). Individual and collective moral influences on intervention in cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.019
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A sociaearning analysis. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2004). Selective exercise of moral agency. In T. A. Thorkildsen & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Nurturing morality (pp. 35-57). Kluwer Academic.
Bandura, A. (2005). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 1-43). Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (Vol. 1, pp. 167-196). Praeger/Greenwood.
Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011) Predictors of student defenders of peer aggression victims: Empathy and social cognitive factors. International Journaf Behavioraevelopment, 35(4), 289-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410396746
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Erlbaum.
Brailovskaia, J., Teismann, T., & Margraf, J. (2018). Cyberbullying, positive mental health and suicide ideation/behavior. Psychiatry Research, 267, 240-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.05.074
Cowie, H. (2013). Cyberbullying and its impact on young people’s emotional health and well-being. Psychiatrist, 37(5), 167-170. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.112.040840
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychologicaulletin, 115(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
Den Hamer, A. H., & Konijn, E. A. (2016). Can emotion regulation serve as a tool in combating cyberbullying?; Personality and Individuaifferences, 102(11), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.033
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychologicaulletin, 95(3), 542-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., & Deuser, W. E. (1997). Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journaf Research in Personality, 31(2), 272-292. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2183
Francisco, S. M., Veiga Simão, A. M., Ferreira, P. C., & Martins, M. J. (2015). Cyberbullying: The hidden side of college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.045.
Fox, C. M., & Jones, J. A. (1998). Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. Journaf Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.30
Hardesty, D., & Bearden, W. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journaf Business Research, 57(2), 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbullying: An application of the theory of planneehavior. Psicothema, 24(4), 614-620. http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/4062.pdf
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journaf Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/6596/
Jakubowski, P., & Lange, A. (1978). The assertive option: Your rights and responsibilities. Research Press Company.
Keyes, C. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.2.95
Kirchner, E. P., Kennedy, R. E., & Draguns, J. G. (1979). Assertion and aggression in adult offenders. Behavior Therapy, 10(4), 452-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7894(79)80050-7
Lenhart, A. (2007). Cyberbullying annline teens. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/216/report_display.asp
Lin, M. T. (2017). Risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among Taiwanese children. Texas Medical Center Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/dissertations/AAI10126751
Lin, Y., Durbin, J. M., & Rancer, A. S. (2016). Perceived instructor argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and classroom communication climate in relation to student state motivation and math anxiety. Communication Education, 66(3), 330-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1245427
Linacre, J. M. (2013). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program user’s guide. Winsteps.com.
Lonigro, A., Schneider, B. H., Laghi, F., Baiocco, R., Pallini, S., & Brunner, T. (2014). Is cyberbullying related to trait or state anger?; Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 46(3), 445-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0484-0
Marôco, J. (2010). Análise de equações estruturais: fundamentos teóricos, software and aplicações "Structural equation analyses: Theoretical foundations, software and applications" (ReportNumber, Lda.).
Matos, A. P., André, R. S., Cherpe, S., Rodrigues, D., Figueira, C., & Pinto, A. M. (2010). Preliminary psychometric study of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form for youth, in a sample of Portuguese adolescents. Psychologica, 53, 131-156. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-8606_53_7
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Smith, P. K., Thompson, F., & Tippett, N. (2012). The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: A European cross-national study. Aggressive Behavior, 38(5), 342-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21440
Osofsky, M. J., Bandura A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). The role of moraisengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 371-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-4930-1
Patchin, J., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyber bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286288
Perren, S., & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditionaullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moraisengagement, moral emotions, and moral values. European Journaf Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.643168
Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: The role of moraisengagement, hostile attribution bias, anutcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20336
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Rachoene, M., & Oyedemi, T. (2017). From self-expression to social aggression: Cyberbullying culture among South African youth on Facebook. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 41(3), 302-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2015.1093325
Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among schooullies, victims, anully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.90004
Smith, E. V. (2001). Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: A Rasch measure perspective. Journaf Applied Measurement, 2(3), 281-311. https://doi.org/10.1680/cehlattv.28760.0010
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF, 2017). A familiar face: Violence in the lives of children and adolescents. UNICEF.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culturarganization Educational, Scientific and Culturarganisation (UNESCO, 2017). School violence anullying: Global status. UNESCO.
Veiga Simão, A.M., Ferreira, P., Francisco, S., Paulino, P., & Souza, S. (2018). Cyberbullying: Shaping the use of verbal aggression through normative moraeliefs and self-efficacy. New Media & Society. 20(12), 4787-4806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818784870
Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Suveg, C. (2002). Anger and sadness regulation: Predictions to internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children. Journaf Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31(3), 393-398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3103_11
Nádia Pereira1, Paula Ferreira2, Ana M. Veiga Simão2, Paula Paulino1, Sofia Oliveira2, and Joaquín A. Mora-Merchán3
1Research Center for Psychological Science - CICPSI, Portugal; 2University of Lisbon, Portugal; 3Universidad de Sevilla, Spain
© 2022. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es_ES (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.