When peer norms work? Coherent groups facilitate normative influences on cyber aggression.
class
cyberbullying
entitativity
group norm
Journal
Aggressive behavior
ISSN: 1098-2337
Titre abrégé: Aggress Behav
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7502265
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
07
01
2020
revised:
24
07
2020
accepted:
26
07
2020
pubmed:
5
8
2020
medline:
30
10
2020
entrez:
5
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to the impersonal and anonymous nature of cyberspace, past work underscored the pivotal role of social influence processes in cyberbullying among adolescents. However, there was also evidence revealing the weak influences that some referent groups yield on youth. The current study argues that the strength of normative influences on cyberbullying depends on the properties of the referent groups. In the school context, we examined whether class entitativity-the extent to which a class is a unified and coherent group, rather than a mere aggregation of students-moderated the relationship between class norms and cyberbullying. A total of 474 adolescent students responded to measures of descriptive and injunctive class norms about cyberbullying, perceived class entitativity, and cyberbullying. The results indicated that pro-cyberbullying descriptive and injunctive class norms were positively correlated with cyber aggression. Most importantly, higher levels of pro-cyberbullying class norms predicted increases in cyber aggression when students perceived their classes as highly entitative. In contrast, this effect was not significant when students perceived their classes having low entitativity. These findings promote an understanding of how peer norms work and provide an alternative strategy for interventions into cyber aggression in schools.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
559-569Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401862
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M. S., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In P. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (1, pp. 438-459). London, UK: Sage.
Ang, R. P., Tan, K. A., & Talib, M. A. (2011). Normative beliefs about aggression as a mediator of narcissistic exploitativeness and cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2619-2634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510388286
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Bastiaensens, S., Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., … De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2016). From normative influence to social pressure: How relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development, 25, 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12134
Bicchieri, C., & Mercier, H. (2014). Norms and beliefs: How change occurs. The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 63, 60-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05308-0_3
Brewer, G., & Kerslake, J. (2015). Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy, and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.073
Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Pyzalski, J., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P. K., Tsormpatzoudis, C., Barkoukis, V., et al. (2012). European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (unpublished manuscript).
Brochado, S., Soares, S., & Fraga, S. (2017). A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(5), 523-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016641668
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estévez, A., Villardón, L., & Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors' profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1128-1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Sciences, 3, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103
Casas, J. A., Rey, R. D., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent and divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 580-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.015
Cavazza, N., Pagliaro, S., & Guidetti, M. (2014). Antecedents of concern for personal reputation: The role of group entitativity and fear of social exclusion. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 36, 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.925453
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
Dang, J., Liu, L., & Du, Y. (2019). Benefits of a highly entitative class for adolescents' psychological well-being in school. School Mental Health, 11, 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09319-z
Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., & Ortega, R. (2016). Impact of the ConRed program on different cyberbullying roles. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21608
Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P., … Plichta, P. (2015). Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European cyberbullying intervention project questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065
Doane, A. N., Kelley, M. L., & Pearson, M. R. (2014). Predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among college students: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 154-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.051
Doane, A. N., Kelley, M. L., & Pearson, M. R. (2016). Reducing cyberbullying: A theory of reasoned action-based video prevention program for college students. Aggression Behavior, 42, 136-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21610
Effron, D. A., & Knowles, E. D. (2015). Entitativity and intergroup bias: How belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 234-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000020
Eriksson, K., Strimling, P., & Coultas, J. C. (2015). Bidirectional associations between descriptive and injunctive norms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.011
Fenaughty, J., Harr, & Niki (2013). Factors associated with distressing electronic harassment and cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 803-811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.008
Festl, R., (2016). Perpetrators on the Internet: Analyzing individual and structural explanation factors of cyberbullying in school context. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.017
Festl, R. & Quandt, T. (2013). Social relations and cyberbullying: The influence of individual and structural attributes on victimization and perpetration via the Internet. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01442.x
Festl, R., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2013). Peer influence, internet use and cyberbullying: A comparison of different context effects among German adolescents. Journal of Children & Media, 7, 446-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2013.781514
Festl, R., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2015). The individual or the group: A multilevel analysis of cyberbullying in school classes. Human Communication Research, 41, 535-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12056
Fosse, G. K., & Holen, A. (2006). Childhood maltreatment in adult female psychiatric outpatients with eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 7, 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2005.12.006
Goldberg, S. C. (1954). Three situational determinants of conformity to social norms. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 325-329. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056249
Hamilton, D. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1077-1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.436
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.336
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceptions of groups: The importance of entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler & C. A. Inski (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbullying: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Psicothema, 24, 614-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12004
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 711-722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9902-4
Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x
Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T., & Moffitt, G. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 13-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.008
Hutson, E., Kelly, S., & Militello, L. K. (2018). Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 15(1), 72-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21608
Ip, G. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Wan, C. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait- versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 90, 368-381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.368
Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 100, 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021470
Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Mcauliffe, B. J. (2002). “We're all individuals”: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.65
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x
Kawabata, Y., Nakamura, M. S., & De Luna, M. J. F. (2020). A mediation model for relational aggression, victimization, attachment, and depressive symptoms in Guam: A gender-informed approach. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, e8-278. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.4
Lai, M. H. C., & Kwok, O. M. (2015). Examining the rule of thumb of not using multilevel modeling: The “design effect smaller than two” rule. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.907229
Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2010). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15, 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 1777-1791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.78.2.223
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyberbullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children & Youth Services Review, 34, 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 55, 602-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007
National Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Tabulation of the 2010 population census of the People's Republic of China. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm
Nixon, C. L. (2014). Current perspectives: The impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 5, 143-158. https://doi.org/10.2147/ahmt.s36456
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2014). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand cyberbullying: The importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.858626
Pfetsch, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Füllgraf, F. (2019). Does the information about classroom norms change the individual injunctive norms about cyberbullying? A minimal intervention study. International Journal of Developmental Science, 12(3-4), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-180250
Piccoli, V., Carnaghi, A., Grassi, M., Stragà, M., & Bianchi, M. (2020). Cyberbullying through the lens of social influence: Predicting cyberbullying perpetration from perceived peer-norm, cyberspace regulations and ingroup processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.001
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Sacrifice, cohesion, and conformity to norms in sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.3.231
Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.025
da Silva Frost, A., & Ledgerwood, A. (2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, e14-e278. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.7
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2010). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49, 376-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004001
Statista. (2020). Annual per capita disposable income of urban households in China in 2018. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/377878/available-per-capita-income-in-china-by-income-group/
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776-793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296228002
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (2000). Attitude-behavior relations: Social identity and group membership. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Applied social research. Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 67-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164149
Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2009). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and perpetration. Children and Society, 25(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.10990860.2009.00260.x
Werner, N. E., Bumpus, M. F., & Rock, D. (2010). Involvement in Internet aggression during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 609-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9419-7
White, K. M., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Greenslade, J. H., & Mckimmie, B. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 135-158. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X295207
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14-S21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). Normative beliefs about aggression and cyber aggression among young adults: A longitudinal investigation. Aggressive Behavior, 39(3), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21470
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.007
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Castano, E., Leyens, J. P., & Paladino, M. P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup: The interplay of entitativity and identification. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (11, pp. 257-295). Chichester, UK: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772043000059