Journal Pre-proof

Empowering digital citizenship: An anti-cyberbullying intervention to increase

Children's intentions to intervene on behalf of the victim

Anne Vlaanderen, Kirsten E. Bevelander, Mariska Kleemans

PII: S0747-5632(20)30211-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106459
Reference: CHB 106459

To appear in: Computers in Human Behavior

Received Date: 16 July 2019

Revised Date: 16 April 2020
Accepted Date: 16 June 2020

Please cite this article as: Vlaanderen A., Bevelander K.E. & Kleemans M., Empowering digital
citizenship: An anti-cyberbullying intervention to increase Children's intentions to intervene on behalf of
the victim, Computers in Human Behavior (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106459.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Empowering Digital Citizenship: An Anti-Cyberbullying Intervention to Increase

Children’s Intentions to Intervene on Behalf of the Victim

Anne Vlaanderen1

Kirsten E. Bevelander1,2

Mariska Kleemans1

1
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2
Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University and Medical Centre, The
Netherlands

Corresponding author:

Mariska Kleemans; Address: Communication Science, Radboud University. P.O. Box 9104,
6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Phone: +31 24 3615545. Email:
mariska.kleemans@bsi.ru.nl

Declaration of Interest:

No declaration of interest
 Abstract

Cyberbullying rates among children are worrisome and the consequences of cyberbullying
can be detrimental. Theory-based interventions to reduce cyberbullying are lacking.
Therefore, this study examined whether an online anti-cyberbullying intervention based on
the Theory of Planned Behavior could increase children’s intention to intervene in
cyberbullying incidents on behalf of the victim. An experiment (N = 298, 10 to 12 years old)
was conducted to investigate whether the intervention could positively affect the behavioral
intention to intervene on behalf of the victim via changes in children’s attitude, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control. Results showed that children exposed to the anti-
cyberbullying intervention had more intentions to intervene on behalf of the cyberbully victim
compared to children who were exposed to a non-related intervention. However, no mediation
effects were found for children’s attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.
The effectiveness of the intervention in the current study shows that it is important to develop
theory-based intervention programs that also focus on the role of bystanders.

Keywords: cyberbullying, bystander behavior, intervening behavior, cyberbully victim,

theory of planned behavior, children
 2

1. Introduction
Despite the benefits of social media for children, such as building and maintaining
prosocial relationships (Jacobsen & Forste, 2011; Kiriukhina, 2019; Pea et al., 2012), it also
carries risks by exposing users to cyberbullying (Shakir et al., 2019). Cyberbullying is
commonly defined as intentionally and repeatedly sending or posting electronic messages or
images with hurtful content to cause the victim harm (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010; Tokunaga,
2010). Prevalence rates show that around 30% of the children report being victimized online
at least once during childhood (Ipsos, 2018; Shakir et al., 2019). Cyberbullying victimization
has been related to numerous adverse health consequences such as depression (Kiriukhina,
2019; Kowalski & Fedina, 2011; Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012), self-harming
behavior (Price & Dalgleish, 2010), emotional distress (Fredkove, Gower & Sieving, 2019;
Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri, Gadalla, & Daciuk, 2012) and, in extreme instances, even suicide
attempts (Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012). Hence, cyberbullying is
considered to cause major societal health problems, and thus requires effective interventions.
Bystanders have proven to play a crucial role in contesting bullying (DeSmet et al.,
2014; Kozubal, Szuster, & Barlínska, 2019). For example, bystanders can intervene by
supporting victims, either directly (e.g., confronting the bully or comforting the victim) or
indirectly (e.g., talking about the bullying incidents with adults; DeSmet et al., 2012; DeSmet,
De Bourdeaudhuij, Walrave, & Vandebosch, 2019). In this way, the negative effects of
cyberbullying experiences among victims may be reduced or bullying may even stop (Pepler,
Craig, & O’Connell, 2010; Salmivalli, 2010; DeSmet et al., 2019). Previous research
regarding traditional offline bullying has shown that interventions aimed to increase
intervening behavior among bystanders were successful in reducing offline bullying
(Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001; Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011). These promising
results point to the relevance of investigating whether interventions are also effective in
increasing positive intervening behavior (e.g., defending, comforting, reporting) in online
bullying contexts. Eventually, this may lead to reduced cyberbullying prevalence rates
(DeSmet et al., 2014, 2019; Shakir et al., 2019).
The current study examines whether an online anti-cyberbullying intervention can
increase children’s intentions to intervene on behalf of the victim in a cyberbullying context.
So far, intervention studies have mainly focused on examining the effectiveness of anti-
(cyber)bullying interventions among young adolescents (i.e., 15-19-year-olds; Cleemput et
al., 2014; Espelage & Sung Hong, 2017). This study focuses on 10- to 12- year-olds, because
research has shown that the prevalence rates and impact of cyberbullying is highly
 3

underestimated among this age group. Moreover, interventions to contest cyberbullying are
lacking among this age group (De Castro et al., 2018; Snakenborg, van Acker, & Gable, 2011;
Tokunaga, 2010). Therefore, this study develops and evaluates an anti-cyberbullying
intervention to increase intervening behavior on behalf of the victim. In addition, this study
investigates whether changes in children’s attitude, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral control – following the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) – explain this
effect.

2. Literature review
2.1 The Theory of Planned Behavior in a cyberbullying context
Up to now, studies have focused primarily on the examination of determinants of
cyberbullying behavior (e.g., frequency of ICT use, poor academic performance, and social
support). In addition, previous studies have tried to develop anti-cyberbullying interventions
targeting these determinants to reduce cyberbullying intentions and behavior (Calvete et al.,
2010; Walrave & Heirman, 2011; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Thus, the majority of studies
have focused on empirically testing cyberbullying determinants while falling short in using a
solid theoretical framework. As Snakenborg and colleagues stated (2011): “Most current
cyberbullying programs are based on practical beliefs about prevention and logical
approaches rather than on scientific theories” (p. 94). Furthermore, Tokunaga (2010) stated
that “the indifference of cyberbullying researchers to make use of already established theories
in new technology, mass media, and traditional bullying research is perplexing” (p. 285).
In the current study, we made use of the well-established Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB; Ajzen, 1991) to meet the calls of Snakenborg et al. (2011) and Tokunaga (2010).
The TPB states that people’s intention to perform a certain behavior is the best predictor of
their actual behavior. The behavioral intention, in turn, is predicted by three different
concepts: (1) a person’s attitude toward the behavior, (2) the subjective norm, which is a
person’s perception of what important others think of the behavior, and (3) the perceived
behavioral control, which is the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior.
Previous research examining cyberbullying behavior showed that the TPB is an
effective and useful framework for studying cyberbullying behavior. For example, Heirman
and Walrave (2012) studied whether the TPB could be used to predict adolescents’
perpetration of cyberbullying. Overall, they found strong support for the theoretical utility of
the TPB in cyberbullying research. The theory accounted for 44.8% of the variance in
adolescent’s behavioral intention to cyberbully. Specifically, the study results showed strong
 4

positive relationships between adolescents’ attitudes, subjective norms and perceived

behavioral control toward cyberbullying and their behavioral intention to perpetrate it. Pabian
and Vandebosch (2014) corroborate the strength of using a TPB perspective in studying
cyberbullying. In their survey study, they found that particularly a negative attitude and
subjective norms toward cyberbullying resulted in lower intentions to cyberbully.
Although the TPB has shown to be a useful framework for studying cyberbullying
intentions, these studies only examined the direct intention to cyberbully (Heirman &
Walrave, 2012; Pabian & Vandebosch, 2014). It would be fruitful to study the intention to
intervene in cyberbullying situations on behalf of the victims, because bystanders of
cyberbullying could be crucial in reducing its prevalence rates (DeSmet et al., 2014; Kozubal
et al., 2019). Furthermore, when focusing on positive bystander behavior, an intervention
targets a broader audience than cyberbullies or victims only, as anyone can witness
cyberbullying (Pepler et al., 2010). Thus, children need to be provided with tools to help
stopping the cyberbullying behavior (DeSmet et al., 2012, 2014, 2019; Pepler et al., 2010;
Salmivalli, 2010). The current intervention provides these tools based on the three core
concepts of the TPB. For example (see section 3.4 for detailed information), children are
made aware a) of the importance to intervene (affecting their attitude) and b) that peers think
it is important to intervene (subjective norms). In addition, c) they gain knowledge about how
they can intervene (increasing their perceived behavioral control). Therewith, our intervention
is expected to stimulate children’s willingness to intervene:
H1: Children who are exposed to the anti-cyberbullying intervention are more
willing to intervene in cyberbullying situations compared to children who are
exposed to a non-cyberbullying intervention.

2.1.1 Attitude toward intervening in cyberbullying situations

The TPB posits that a person’s attitude toward certain behavior is based on one’s
behavioral beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). For example, research on cyberbullying showed that a more
positive attitude toward cyberbullying was related to the belief that it provides a way to vent
negative emotions, such as anger and revenge (König, Gollwitzer, & Steffgen, 2010).
However, disapproval by peers, feelings of guilt, and knowing that it hurts the victim are
associated with a negative attitude and a decline in cyberbullying intentions (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2013; Menesini, Nocentini, & Camodeca, 2013). Importantly, previous research
showed that behavioral beliefs associated with a negative attitude toward cyberbullying are
related to a positive attitude toward intervening in cyberbullying situations to support the
 5

victim (McLaughlin, Arnold, & Boyd, 2005; Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Hence, we argue that
in order to increase these positive attitudes toward intervening in cyberbullying contexts,
children’s knowledge and awareness concerning the negative consequences of cyberbullying
among victims needs to be raised (Doane, Kelley, & Pearson, 2016; Wölfer et al., 2013).
Furthermore, it has been suggested that by inducing empathy toward victims of cyberbullying,
children’s attitudes toward cyberbullying should become more negative (Doane et al., 2016;
Wölfer et al., 2013). Consequently, by providing children with the knowledge and awareness
of the negative consequences of cyberbullying and by raising empathy toward victims of
cyberbullying in the intervention, we expect that children will intervene on behalf of the
victim:
H2a: Children who are exposed to the anti-cyberbullying intervention develop a
more positive attitude toward intervening in cyberbullying situations compared
to children who are exposed to a non-cyberbullying intervention.

Furthermore, based on principles of the TPB (see Figure 1, upper path), we also expect that:
H2b: The effect of the intervention on the intention to intervene in cyberbullying
situations is mediated by a positive change in attitude toward intervening in
cyberbullying situations.

2.1.2 Subjective norms toward intervening in cyberbullying situations

The TPB posits that when someone thinks that important others think one should
perform the behavior, it increases an individual’s motivation to comply with the pressure
exerted by these others (Ajzen, 1991). Research has shown that in the context of traditional
bullying, perceptions about how significant others expected that one should behave predicted
actual intervening behavior in a bullying context (McLaughlin et al., 2005; Rigby & Johnson,
2006). Studies on children and adolescents (i.e., 10-14 years old) showed that especially the
expectations of friends on how to behave in offline bullying situations contributed
significantly to children’s actual behavior during bullying episodes (Mash & Wolfe, 2007;
Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Therefore, it has been emphasized that children need to be provided
with the knowledge that their peers believe (cyber)bullying is unacceptable and that it is
important to intervene in cyberbullying situations (Doane et al., 2016). Furthermore, children
should be made aware of their social responsibility to not intentionally harm others to create
positive subjective norms within their peer groups (Wölfer, 2013). By providing children with
 6

knowledge about the negative norms their peers hold toward cyberbullying and making them
aware of their social responsibility during the intervention, we expect that:
H3a: Children who are exposed to the anti-cyberbullying intervention develop more
positive subjective norms toward intervening behavior in cyberbullying
situations compared to children who are exposed to a non-cyberbullying
intervention.

Furthermore, based on principles of the TPB (see Figure 1, middle path), we also expect that:
H3b: The effect of the intervention on the intention to intervene in cyberbullying
situations is mediated by a positive change in subjective norms to intervene in
cyberbullying situations.

2.1.3 Perceived behavioral control in cyberbullying situations

The TPB also states that perceived behavioral control plays a role in someone’s
intention to perform certain behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Previous studies have found that children
often fail to intervene on behalf of a victim because of their lack of perceived ability to cope
with the situation, and a lack of self-efficacy to intervene (Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe,
2008; Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, & Charach, 1994). Research shows that children are more likely
to intervene in bullying situations when they know which actions they can take to stop the
bullying and when they believe they have the resources to do so (Cramer, McMaster, Bartell
& Dragna, 1988). Therefore, researchers have argued that it is necessary to provide children
with strategies on how to effectively intervene in online bullying contexts (Doane et al., 2016;
Wölfer et al., 2013). By providing children with the knowledge on how to effectively
intervene in cyberbullying situations during the intervention we expect that:
H4a: Children who are exposed to the anti-cyberbullying intervention will develop a
higher perceived behavioral control to intervene in cyberbullying situations
compared to children who are exposed to a non-cyberbullying intervention.

Furthermore, based on principles of the TPB (see Figure 1, lower path), we also expect that:
H4b: The effect of the intervention on the intention to intervene in cyberbullying
situations is mediated by a positive change in perceived behavioral control to
intervene in cyberbullying situations.
 7

Figure 1. Theoretical model underlying the anti-cyberbullying intervention.

3. Method
3.1 Design
A repeated measures mixed-design experiment was conducted to investigate whether
an online anti-cyberbullying intervention was effective in promoting intervening behavior on
behalf of the victim among children between 10 to 12 years old. The between-factor in the
experiment was condition, with the anti-cyberbullying intervention as experimental condition
and a fake news intervention serving as the control condition. In another study, this fake news
intervention served as the experimental condition while the anti-cyberbullying condition
functioned as the control condition. The within-factor of the experiment was time with a pre-
and post-exposure measurement. Children answered a number of questions using an online
questionnaire before (pre-exposure) and three weeks after (post-exposure) the online
intervention. The post-exposure measurement was scheduled three weeks later, to avoid that
children would easily remember their answers to the pre-measurement questions. In addition,
to check the manipulation of the stimulus materials (e.g., the online anti-cyberbullying
intervention), children’s knowledge, awareness, and empathy toward cyberbully victims were
assessed immediately after being exposed to the intervention. The study received approval of
 8

the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Radboud University. The study is
preregistered at the Open Science Framework (see osf.io/hcbw8).

3.2 Sample
Recruitment of participants involved a two-step procedure. First, schools were
approached with the request to contribute to the research. In total, five schools across The
Netherlands agreed to participate. After approval from the director of the school, information
letters were spread among all parents/caretakers of the children in grades 5 and 6. Two
information letters were created, one written for the anti-cyberbullying condition and one for
the fake news condition. This letter informed parents about the goal and procedure of the
study and the specific condition their children would be assigned to. It was emphasized that
all information would be treated confidentially. Parents were asked to give active consent for
participation of their children. Of all the parents, 52 (13.8%) did not gave permission. Prior to
the start of the experiment, children were also asked whether they wanted to participate or
not. Eight children did not want to participate. Furthermore, nineteen children were excluded
because they were not present at either the pre- or the post-exposure measurement. The final
sample consisted of 298 children (M = 10.92, SD = .70, range 10-12 years old), of whom 161
(54.0%) were girls.
A total number of sixteen classes participated in the experiment. Randomization took
place at the school level: all participating classes within one school were assigned to either the
anti-cyberbullying intervention (n = 169; 48.5% girls, Mage = 10.93, SDage = .70) or the fake
news intervention (n = 129; 61.2% girls, Mage = 10.90, SDage = .71). This procedure assured
that children from different classes within the same school were not able to exchange
information about the different interventions with each other, which could have resulted in
biased results. Power analysis using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007)
showed that a total of 286 children was sufficient to detect small effects (α =.05, effect size =
.37, 90% power).

3.3 Procedure
The experiment took place in March and April 2019 during school hours. The
experiment started with a short introduction to the study. After that, children received the
assent form on which they had to sign whether or not they wanted to participate. After signing
the assent form, children were directed to a website address they could find attached to the
assent form. On this website, children started with the first questionnaire (pre-exposure
 9

measurement), which included general questions measuring their attitudes, subjective norms,
perceived behavioural control and intentions toward intervening behaviour in cyberbullying
situations. We also asked some questions about their news consumption, their knowledge and
awareness of fake news, and their self-efficacy to recognize fake news because this enabled
us to also test the fake news intervention in another, separate study.
After completing the first questionnaire, children were automatically directed to either
the anti-cyberbullying intervention or the fake news intervention (depending on the condition
their school was assigned to). Both the anti-cyberbullying intervention and the fake news
intervention were online e-learning modules in which the children had to read information
about either cyberbullying or fake news, complete tasks, answer questions, and view some
videos. The duration of both interventions was approximately 35 minutes. After exposure to
the intervention, they were automatically directed to the second questionnaire. This
questionnaire captured questions about their knowledge, awareness, and empathy toward
cyberbullying victims (manipulation check measures) and questions assessing their evaluation
of the online intervention.
Three weeks after the intervention, children filled out the online post-exposure
questionnaire during school hours. This questionnaire contained the same questions as the
pre-exposure questionnaire. Additionally, we assessed children’s social desirability biases to
be able to control for this score in the main analyses, when necessary. This last questionnaire
took approximately 15 minutes. After the last question, the researcher thanked the children for
their participation. As a token of appreciation all participating children received a certificate.
The debriefing procedure and presentation of the results took place after the data collection
was completed via an information letter to both the school and the parents of the participating
children.

3.4 Materials
Within the experimental condition, children were exposed to an online anti-
cyberbullying intervention that aimed to increase children’s intervening behavior in
cyberbullying situations (see Figure 2). Within the control condition, children were exposed
to an online fake news intervention that was unrelated to cyberbullying. The fake news
intervention was created in such a way that it was as similar as possible to the anti-
cyberbullying intervention in terms of colors, navigation, number of questions, duration of the
intervention, number of pages and number and duration of videos. Both online interventions
 10

were created using Gomo Learning software (2019). Gomo Learning is a cloud-based
responsive eLearning authoring tool that allows the user to create digital learning content.
The anti-cyberbullying intervention was created based on the Theory of Planned
Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Based on this theoretical model, we aimed to increase children’s
positive attitude toward intervening, positive subjective norms toward intervening, and their
perceived behavioral control to intervene in order to increase their intentions to intervene in
cyberbullying situations by addressing knowledge, awareness and empathy competencies. As
previously mentioned, we specifically addressed knowledge, awareness, and empathy
competencies since these constructs have proven to be highly important in changing people’s
attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control in bullying contexts (Espelage &
Sung Hong, 2017; Williford et al., 2013).
In order to positively change children’s attitudes toward intervening behavior, children
received knowledge about what cyberbullying actually is by providing the three-folded
cyberbullying definition of Smith et al. (2008, p. 376): “An (a) intentional act carried out by
(b) a group or individual, using (c) electronic forms of contact”. Hence, in the intervention
children were provided with knowledge about (1) the intentional character of cyberbullying,
(2) the different groups that are involved in cyberbullying (the bully, the victim, and the
bystanders), and (3) the online nature of cyberbullying. Furthermore, children’s knowledge
was targeted by providing them with a quick quiz containing three cyberbullying cases. For
each of these cases they were asked whether the story described a cyberbullying situation or
not. After children provided an answer, they received detailed feedback on why their answer
was wrong or right. Moreover, in order to change children’s attitudes, children were made
aware of the negative consequences of cyberbullying. Also, their empathy toward victims of
cyberbullying was targeted. We used two video clips for this (lasting 2.33 minutes in total). In
these clips, victims talked about their distress and negative experiences during the time they
were cyberbullied. Lastly, to change children’s attitudes, we tried to increase empathy toward
victims even further by specifically asking children to write down how they would feel when
they would be cyberbullied.
In order to positively change children’s subjective norms toward intervening behavior,
children were asked to write down how many children they thought were bystanders of
cyberbullying instances. After children wrote down a percentage, children were provided with
knowledge about how many children were actual bystanders, namely 50% (Shultz, Heilan, &
Hart, 2014), and how they themselves could be a part of this group. Furthermore, they were
given knowledge about how children of their own age thought about intervening in
 11

cyberbullying incidents by mentioning the cool, brave, and important nature of intervening.
Moreover, to increase children’s subjective norms toward intervening behavior, we targeted
children’s empathy toward victims by exposing them to a video (lasting 1.22 minutes)
displaying children of their own age talking about how they were cyberbullied. All these
children conclude with the statement that it would have helped them a lot when their peers
would have stand up for them to stop the cyberbullying.
In order to positively change children’s perceived behavioral control toward
intervening behavior, children were provided with knowledge about how they could intervene
in cyberbullying situations. For example, during the intervention children were taught how
they could try to comfort the victim, tell their parents or caretakers when something negative
was going on online, or ask their teacher to help them when facing cyberbullying incidents
among classmates. Lastly, children were exposed to a video (lasting 1.45 minutes) that
provided them with knowledge on how they could intervene in cyberbullying, namely by
posting positive comments online on the cyberbully victims’ social media accounts.

Figure 2. Examples of the cyberbullying e-learning intervention, translated from Dutch

3.5 Measures
The measures in this study either related to the manipulation check of the intervention
(i.e., whether the intervention indeed targeted knowledge, awareness, and empathy) or to the
main study (i.e., the dependent variable and potential mediators). Moreover, potential
covariates were measured as well as socially desirable behavior.

3.5.1 Manipulation check measures

For the manipulation check, we investigated whether children who received the anti-
cyberbullying intervention had indeed more knowledge and awareness of cyberbullying,
 12

while also having more empathy toward victims of cyberbullying compared to children who
received the fake news intervention. To this end, children answered a few questions directly
after exposure to either the online anti-cyberbullying intervention or the fake news
intervention. Moreover, we measured their evaluation of the intervention to be able to provide
some general insights into how they experienced the e-learning module.
Knowledge of cyberbullying. To assess children’s knowledge toward cyberbullying,
we adapted six items from Wahab and Yahaya’s (2017) Cyber-bullying Knowledge and
Awareness Instrument (CBKAi). Children answered on a six-point scale (1 = Totally disagree
and 6 = Totally agree) regarding items such as: ‘Creating a fake account on social media just
for fun to target someone is cyberbullying’ and ‘Intentionally excluding a person from an
online group (e.g., WhatsApp group) is cyberbullying’. A principal component analysis
(PCA) of the six items was conducted. The analysis yielded one factor; all items loadings
were > .6 on this factor (Cronbach’s = .824). We calculated a mean score of all the items
assessing knowledge, representing the knowledge variable (M = 4.83; SD = 1.04).
Awareness of cyberbullying. To assess children’s awareness of cyberbullying, we
adapted five items from Wahab and Yahaya’s (2017) CBKai. Children answered on a six-
point scale (1 = Totally disagree and 6 = Totally agree) regarding the items: ‘I think most
victims of cyberbullying are anxious’, ‘I think most witnesses will intervene in cyberbullying
situations’, ‘I think most victims of cyberbullying have the tendency to commit suicide’, ‘I
think cyberbullying will stop if I do not intervene in cyberbullying’, and ‘I think most
witnesses of cyberbullying report cyberbullying to someone else’. A PCA of the five items
was conducted. The analysis yielded three factors; with all items loading > .6 on one of those
factors. However, when creating mean scores for each of the factors, Cronbach’s was too
low ( < .2) for all of the constructed variables. Therefore, we decided to include all items
separately to perform the manipulation check.
Empathy toward victims. To assess children’s empathy toward victims of
cyberbullying, we used a seven-item empathy toward victim scale (Pöyhönen, Kärnä, &
Salmivalli, 2008). Children answered on a six-point scale (1 = Totally disagree and 6 =
Totally agree). The items were translated from an offline bullying context to a cyberbullying
context. Items included for example: ‘When the cyberbullied pupil feels sad, I want to
comfort him/her’ and ‘I can see how the cyberbullied pupil is feeling bad’. A PCA of the
seven items was conducted. The analysis yielded two factors; with all items loading > .6 on
one of the two factors. The first factor represented affective empathy, consisting of items
assessing children’s emotions toward cyberbullied pupils ( = .774). The second factor
 13

represented cognitive empathy, consisting of items assessing children’s understanding of the

emotions and needs of cyberbully victims ( = .677). These two factors were also found in
previous research on empathy and cyberbullying (Ang & Goh, 2010; Pöyhönen et al., 2008).
Therefore, we calculated mean scores for the items on each factor representing an affective
empathy (M = 3.79; SD = 1.15) and cognitive empathy variable (M = 4.85; SD = 1.05).
Evaluation of the intervention. Besides the above-mentioned measures, children were
asked to evaluate the intervention. They were asked to rate how interesting, important, fun,
useless, and difficult they thought the intervention was on a visual analogue scale (0 = totally
disagree, 100 = totally agree). Furthermore, they were also asked whether they had learned a
lot from the intervention and whether they thought the intervention taught them something
they did not know already.

3.5.2 Main study measurements

In order to test our hypotheses, several main measures were assessed, all at both pre- and
post-exposure measurement.
Intention to intervene in cyberbullying situations. To assess children’s intention to
intervene in cyberbullying situations, we adapted a scale from an offline bullying context to a
cyberbullying context (Stevens, Van Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2000). We asked children
whether, the next time they witness cyberbullying, they (1) intent to be an active bystander,
(2) seek a teacher’s help, (3) react against cyberbullies, (4) support the victim, and (5) spread
the word that cyberbullying is stupid. Answers were measured using a visual analogue scale
(0 = Totally disagree to 100= Totally agree). A PCA of the five items was conducted for both
the pre- and post-exposure measurement, yielding one factor at both time-points (see Table
1). After calculating mean scores and constructing the intention variables for both the pre- and
post-exposure measurement, a difference score was created by subtracting the post-exposure
measurement of intention from the pre-exposure measurement. This difference score was used
in the main analyses (M = -.79, SD = 14.62).
Attitude toward intervening in cyberbullying situations. To assess children’s attitude
toward intervening in cyberbullying situations, we adapted items from the pro-bully and pro-
victim scale of Stevens et al. (2000). The items were translated from an offline bullying
context to a cyberbullying context. Children were asked to rate on a visual analogue scale (0 =
Totally disagree to 100 = Totally agree) how much they agreed with the nine items. Examples
of the items included: ‘I understand children who cyberbully others’ and ‘Children who
intervene in cyberbullying incidents are brave’. A PCA of the nine items was conducted for
 14

both the pre-exposure and post-exposure measurement (see Table 1). The analysis yielded
three different factors at both measurement moments. Furthermore, three items loaded < .3 on
one or more of the factors and three items double loaded on at least two factors at pre-
exposure measurement. Moreover, the Cronbach’s of the remaining three items was too low
at pre-exposure measurement, namely < .164. At post-exposure measurement, two items
loaded < .3 on one or more of the factors and two items double loaded on at least two factors.
Also, at post-exposure measurement the Cronbach’s was low, namely = .481. Therefore, we
concluded that we did not succeed in measuring children’s attitude toward intervening in
cyberbullying situations and where not able to calculate a mean score representing this
attitude. We therefore decided not to analyze attitude as a mediating variable in the main
analyses.
Subjective norms toward intervening in cyberbullying situations. To assess children’s
subjective norms toward intervening in cyberbullying situations, we adapted 6 items from the
subjective norm scale of Sundstrom et al. (2018). We translated the items from a general
bystander situation to a bystander situation in a cyberbullying context. We asked children
whether their friends, teacher, parents, and others whose opinion matters to the them would
support their decision to be an active bystander in a cyberbullying situation on a visual
analogue scale (0 = Totally disagree to 100 = Totally agree). Furthermore, we asked whether
their friends chose to be an active bystander in cyberbullying situations and whether they
thought their friends would find them brave when they chose to be an active bystander. A
PCA of the six items was conducted for both the pre- and post-exposure measurements,
yielding one factor at both time-points (see Table 1). After calculating mean scores and
constructing the subjective norms variables for both the pre- and post-exposure measurement,
a difference score was created by subtracting the post-exposure measurement of subjective
norms from the pre-exposure measurement of subjective norms. This difference score was
used in the main analyses (M = -1.23, SD = 16.02).
Perceived behavioral control to intervene in cyberbullying situations. To assess
children’s perceived behavioral control toward intervening in cyberbullying situations, we
adapted items from the Defender scales (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). The items were
translated from an offline bullying context to a cyberbullying context. We asked children on a
visual analogue scale (0 = Very difficult for me to 100 = Very easy for me) how difficult or
easy it would be for them to (1) try to make someone else stop the cyberbullying, (2) comfort
the victim of cyberbullying, (3) encourage the victim to tell the teacher about the
cyberbullying, and (4) choose to be an active bystander when someone is cyberbullied. A
 15

PCA of the four items was conducted for both the pre- and post-exposure measurements,
yielding one factor at both time-points (see Table 1). After calculating mean scores and
constructing the perceived behavioral control variables for both the pre- and post-exposure
measurement, a difference score was created by subtracting the post-exposure measurement
of perceived behavioral control from the pre-exposure measurement of perceived behavioral
control. This difference score was used in the main analyses (M = 1.17, SD = 17.09).

3.5.3 Covariates
Children’s sex, age, and grade were assessed as potential covariates. Moreover, we
assessed children’s media use and social desirability as potential covariates.
Media use. Children’s media use was assessed as potential covariate. Children
indicated how often they used (1) the internet (M = 6.75; SD = 1.79), (2) WhatsApp (M =
5.67; SD = 2.69), and (3) social media (M = 4.78; SD = 2.92) on a 7-point scale (0 = Never to
7 = 7 days a week).
Social desirability. Previous research has shown that cyberbullying research is highly
vulnerable to social desirability biases (DeSmet et al., 2014). The potential factor of socially
desirable behavior can lead to over- or under-reporting of cyberbullying and/or victimization
of cyberbullying. Generally, children consider cyberbullying as socially undesirable behavior
and standing up for a victim as socially desirable behavior (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011; Betts,
2016). These considerations lead studies to find a positive association between cyberbullying
and social desirability (Doane, Kelley, Chiang, & Padilla, 2013). It is, therefore, important to
control for social desirability.
We assessed children’s social desirability biases using the adapted 7-item Children’s
Social Desirability Short (CSD-S) scale from Miller et al. (2015). Items included: ‘Do you
always listen to your parents?’ and ‘Have you ever broken a rule?’. Children answered on a
six-point scale (1 = Totally disagree to 6 = Totally agree). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
verified sampling adequacy (.750), and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity agreed that the
correlations between the items were large enough to conduct a PCA: χ2(10) = 453.19; p <
.001. Therefore, a PCA of the seven items was conducted. The analysis yielded one factor (
= .773); all items loading were > .6 on this factor. Therefore, we calculated a mean score
combining all the items in one variable measuring social desirability (M = 2.98; SD = 1.08).

3.6 Strategy of Analysis

 16

Before we started to analyze the hypotheses, we conducted some preliminary analyses.

Then, a randomization check was performed using ANOVA to see whether the two conditions
significantly differed from each other with respect to age, sex, and grade. Second, we
investigated by means of a manipulation check whether children who received the anti-
cyberbullying intervention had indeed more knowledge and awareness of cyberbullying while
also having more empathy toward cyberbully victims compared to children who received the
fake news intervention. We used t-tests to perform the manipulation check. Lastly, to look for
potential covariates, correlations were performed between all study variables.
All main analyses were performed using Hayes’ PROCESS macro for mediation
models in SPSS (Hayes, 2018). This macro provides an analysis of the mediation effects
hypothesized, following the causal steps approach (Baron & Kenny, 1986). All the
hypotheses were tested using Model 4. We performed a within-subject analysis using
PROCESS to be able to see whether the constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior
positively changed over time. In order to do this, we entered the independent variable
(condition), the two difference scores of the mediator variables (subjective norms and
perceived behavioral control), and the difference score of the dependent variable (intention to
intervene), and the control variables (see section 4.2.3 for more information) simultaneously
in a model 4 PROCESS model. Bootstrap confidence intervals (5000 bootstrap samples, 95%
bias-corrected confidence intervals) were produced to test the significance of the direct and
mediated effects (Hayes, 2018). Bootstrap confidence intervals are preferred over p-value
testing because bootstrapping respects the non-normality of the sampling distribution of the
indirect effects.
 Table 1. PCA results for all the model variables.

Measurement Kaiser- Bartlett’s test of sphericity Variable construction

Meyer-
Olkin
df p-value Cronbach’s Mean SD
Pre-exposure intention to intervene .73 382.44 10 <.001 .747 67.81 20.48
Post-exposure intention to intervene .78 394.99 10 <.001 .764 67.02 21.16
Pre-exposure attitude toward intervening .54 170.20 28 <.001 .164 not reliable
Post-exposure attitude toward intervening .69 349.31 28 <.001 .481 not reliable
Pre-exposure subjective norms toward intervening .84 691.92 10 <.001 .872 75.87 22.19
Post-exposure subjective norms toward intervening .84 691.92 10 <.001 .865 74.64 22.84
Pre-exposure perceived behavioral control toward intervening .71 234.55 6 <.001 .712 65.71 19.86
Post-exposure perceived behavioral control toward intervening .78 325.74 6 <.001 .785 66.88 21.02
Note. The mean scores of the pre- and post-exposure measures did not significantly differ for intention to intervene (p = .351, subjective norms
toward intervening (p = .185), and perceived behavioral control toward intervening (p = .239).
 18

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics showed that 32.2% of the children made use of social media
every day, whereas 27.2% of the children reported to never use social media. Furthermore,
44.0% of the children made use of WhatsApp every day, opposed to 16.8% of the children
who never used WhatsApp. On average, children believed that 70.3% of all bystanders
actually intervene in cyberbullying situations, which is higher than it actually is (50%; Shultz
et al., 2014). With respect to the evaluation of the intervention, descriptive statistics showed
that children who received the anti-cyberbullying intervention thought the intervention was
interesting (M = 85.77, SD = 21.43), fun (M = 85.09, SD = 23.36), and important (M = 82.06,
SD = 26.22). Furthermore, children reported to have learned a lot from the intervention (M =
77.91, SD = 26.53), and that the intervention taught them some things they did not already
know (M = 53.01, SD = 36.03). They did not find the intervention useless (M = 10.13, SD =
23.95) or difficult (M = 22.02, SD = 25.83).

4.2 Preliminary Analyses

4.2.1 Randomization Check

A randomization check showed that the two conditions did not differ with regard to
age (F(1, 296) = .131, p = .718) and grade (F(1, 296) = .121, p = .483). However, the two
conditions did differ with regard to sex (F(1, 296) = 4.81, p = .029). Therefore, sex was added
as a control variable in the analyses.

4.2.2 Manipulation Check

Results of t-tests comparing the two interventions showed that children exposed to the
anti-cyberbullying intervention had more knowledge of cyberbullying (M = 4.94, SD = 1.07)
compared to children exposed to the fake news intervention (M = 4.69, SD = .99), t(296) = -
2.03; p = .043. Furthermore, t-tests showed that children receiving the anti-cyberbullying
intervention experienced more affective empathy toward cyberbully victims (M = 3.96, SD =
.99) compared to children receiving the fake news intervention (M = 3.58, SD = 1.29), t(296)
= -2.84; p = .005. However, they did not experience more cognitive empathy (M = 4.77, SD =
1.06) compared to children exposed to the fake news intervention (M = 4.91, SD = 1.04),
t(296) = -1.14; p = .255.
 19

Children in the experimental condition showed more awareness of cyberbullying

compared to children in the control condition. Children in the experimental condition were
more aware of the suicide attempts among victims (M = 3.65, SD = 1.16) compared to
children in the control condition (M = 3.09, SD = 1.33), t(296) = -3.86; p < .001. They were
also more aware of victims anxiousness (M = 5.51, SD = 1.00) compared to children in the
fake news intervention (M = 5.06, SD = .99), t(296) = -3.82; p < .001. Moreover, they showed
more awareness with respect to the lack of bystanders intervening on behalf of cyberbully
victims (M = 3.02, SD = 1.18) compared to children in the control condition (M = 2.61, SD =
1.18), t(296) = -2.98; p = .003. Lastly, children receiving the anti-cyberbullying intervention
were also more aware of the fact that most bystanders do not talk about the cyberbullying
with others (M = 5.08, SD = 1.30) compared to children in the control condition (M = 4.55,
SD = 1.59), t(296) = -3.19; p = .002. Overall, we can conclude based on these t-tests, that the
manipulation between the anti-cyberbullying intervention and the fake news intervention was
successful.

4.2.3 Covariates
With respect to potential covariates, exploratory analyses showed no significant
correlations between age, sex, internet use, social media use, and Whatsapp use and the
dependent variables. However, social desirability was significantly correlated with subjective
norms toward intervening (r = .211, p <.001), perceived behavioral control toward
intervening (r = .111, p = .025), and intention to intervene (r = .203, p <.001). Therefore, the
variable social desirability was included as a control variable in the main analyses. Besides,
based on the randomization check mentioned earlier, we also added sex as a control variable
to the main analyses.

4.3 Main Analyses

The first hypothesis predicted that children who were exposed to the anti-
cyberbullying intervention would become more willing to intervene in cyberbullying
situations compared to children who were exposed to a non-cyberbullying intervention. This
hypothesis was supported. The results (see Figure 3) showed a direct effect of condition on
intention to intervene on behalf of a cyberbully victim (B = 3.45, boot SE = 1.62, BC 95% CI
[0.26, 6.63]).
Hypothesis 3a predicted that children who were exposed to the anti-cyberbullying
intervention would develop more positive subjective norms toward intervening compared to
 20

children who were exposed to the fake news intervention. Results showed that this hypothesis
was not supported (B = .91, SE = 1.92, BC 95% CI [-2.87, 4.68], see Figure 3). Furthermore,
we expected that the effect of the intervention on children’s intention to intervene in
cyberbullying situations was mediated by a positive change in subjective norms to intervene
in cyberbullying situations (H3b). Results showed that the direct effect of the children’s
subjective norms on their intentions to intervene was significant (B = .25, boot SE = .05, BC
95% CI [0.15, .35]). However, there was no indirect effect of the intervention on children’s
intentions to intervene via subjective norms (effect = .23, boot SE = .49, CI [-.77, 1.18], see
Figure 3). Therefore, hypothesis 3b was not supported.
In hypothesis 4a, we predicted that children who were exposed to the anti-
cyberbullying intervention would develop a higher perceived behavioral control toward
intervening in cyberbullying situations compared to children who were exposed to the fake
news intervention. Results showed that this hypothesis was not supported (B = 2.12, boot SE
= 2.05, BC 95% CI [-1.91, 6.15], see Figure 3). We also tested whether the effect of the
intervention on intention to intervene in cyberbullying situations was mediated by a positive
change in perceived behavioral control to intervene in cyberbullying situations (H4b). Results
showed that the direct effect of children’s perceived behavioral control on their intentions to
intervene was significant (B = .16, boot SE = .05, BC 95% CI [0.07, .26]). However, the
results showed that the indirect effect of the intervention on children’s intentions to intervene
via their perceived behavioral control was not significant (effect = .34, boot SE = .39, CI [-
.25, 1.28], see Figure 3), implying that the hypothesis was not supported.
 21

Figure 3. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between the anti-
cyberbullying intervention and intention to intervene as mediated by positive subjective
norms and higher perceived behavioral control using difference scores.
* p <.05; ** p <.001

4.4 Post-hoc analyses

Results of the main analyses showed – in contrast to what we expected – that there
were no mediation effects of children’s subjective norms and perceived behavioral control on
their intentions to intervene in a cyberbullying context. However, the results of the
manipulation check showed that knowledge, awareness, and affective empathy were
successfully targeted in the intervention. Therefore, we performed post-hoc analyses to test
whether knowledge, awareness, and affective empathy might be the underlying mechanisms
explaining the direct effect of the intervention on the positive increase in children’s intentions
to intervene on behalf of a victim. The post-hoc analyses were performed following the same
procedure as the main analyses, using Hayes’ PROCESS analyses Model 4 (Hayes, 2018).
The results of the post-hoc analyses showed that the direct effect of the anti-
cyberbullying intervention on children’s intentions to intervene was not mediated by
children’s knowledge of cyberbullying (B = .11, boot SE = .23, BC 95% CI [-.28, .66]), their
awareness of cyberbullying (B = .04, boot SE = .14, BC 95% CI [-.27, .36]) or their affective
empathy toward cyberbully victims (B = .03, boot SE = .40, BC 95% CI [-.79, .81]). Thus, we
are not able to explain which factors contributed to the direct effect of the intervention on
children’s intentions to intervene.

5. Discussion
In the current study, we developed and evaluated an anti-cyberbullying intervention
that aimed to increase children’s intervening behavior on behalf of the victim. The anti-
cyberbullying intervention was successful in stimulating children’s intentions to intervene in
cyberbullying incidents. Surprisingly, we could not explain this effect by the three concepts of
the Theory of Planned Behavior nor via knowledge, awareness, or affective empathy.
Nevertheless, the increase in intentions to intervene among children who were exposed to the
cyberbullying e-learning module is important for the field of cyberbullying prevention. In
particular, the findings demonstrate the promise of low-cost, brief (35 minutes) online
cyberbullying intervention programs for children.
 22

Our findings showed that children who perceived higher positive subjective norms had
a higher intent to intervene in online bullying contexts. In addition, we found that higher
perceived behavioral control was associated with higher intentions to intervene in
cyberbullying situations. Although these findings are in line with the TPB and previous
research (Heirman & Walrave, 2012; Pabian & Vandebosch, 2014), these concepts did not
serve as mediators. For subjective norms, involving significant others in prevention programs
to contest cyberbullying might be important. In the current intervention, children mainly
received written information about how many children of their age intervene in cyberbullying
incidents, and how they themselves can be part of this group. Previous research (Heirman &
Walrave, 2012) suggests that it could be more effective to actually expose children to how
their own peers think about intervening in order to positively change their subjective norms.
For example, children can be exposed to a video during the intervention showing peers
rejecting cyberbullying behavior and arguing in favor of intervening on behalf of a victim.
With regard to perceived behavior control, the finding that the current intervention
was not successful in targeting cognitive empathy could have played a role in the absence of a
mediating effect. Previous research showed that children need to be able to understand the
feelings and needs of a cyber victim (e.g., experiencing cognitive empathy) in order to feel
capable of helping this person (Barlinska, Szuster & Winiewski, 2018). To this end –
following the recommendations of Barlinska et al. (2018) –, future research could expose
children to videos of cyberbully victims expressing their needs and how bystanders can fulfill
these in order to strengthen children’s perceived behavioral control.
A related issue regarding our intervention is that the nature of what constitutes
cyberbullying can be ambiguous. Youth typically do not conceptualize cyberbullying as it is
defined. For example, their definitions almost always omit the components of intentionality
and repetition (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). It is because of this ambiguity that children could
experience difficulty with interpreting an event as a call to action. To be more specific, it is
possible that children did not perceive the relevant cues (e.g., hearing derogatory names),
which may have hindered them from noticing events as cyberbullying episodes (Dinkes et al.,
2009; Loewestein & Small, 2007). It is recommended to incorporate more vivid elements in
future intervention studies.
With regard to our theoretical framework, it may be useful to further investigate anti-
cyberbullying interventions in light of another theoretical framework that comprises the
concepts of the TPB. For example, the bystander intervention model of Latané and Darley
(1970) describes five steps one must take in order to become an active bystander during an
 23

event. People have to (1) notice the event, (2) interpret the event as an emergency that
requires help, (3) accept responsibility for intervening, (4) know how to intervene or provide
help, and (5) implement intervention decisions. The three last steps of this model were
incorporated in our intervention program, whereas the first and second step were not.
Although we already found the intervention to be successful by focusing on steps three to
five, the bystander intervention model suggests that step 1 and 2 are prerequisites for an
individual to become an active bystander (Latané & Darley, 1970). Future research should
investigate whether the intervention effect is even stronger when incorporating the first two
steps. In addition, one should test which specific aspects (e.g., providing information,
exposing children to videos, let children perform tasks) are particularly effective in a
cyberbullying context to make explicit recommendations for future developments of
interventions.
Another factor that may have contributed to not finding any mediation effects could be
the three-week timespan between pre- and post-exposure measurement. For example, children
could have experienced cyberbullying situations in the meantime either directly (e.g., being
victimized) or indirectly (e.g., witnessing someone being cyberbullied). By experiencing
cyberbullying incidents, it could be that children were not confident anymore in their abilities
to intervene (e.g., perceived behavioral control). Furthermore, it could be that children saw
that peers did not intervene in online bullying incidents, which could have withheld the
intervention from positively changing children’s subjective norms.
Although the TPB has proven to be a useful framework for studying cyberbullying
related behaviors (Heirman & Walrave, 2012; Pabian & Vandebosch, 2014), an important
limitation needs to be mentioned. The theory has been criticized for excluding subconscious
processes as important influences on behavior (Sheeran, Gollwitzer, & Bargh, 2013;
Sniehotta, Presseau, & Araújo-Soares, 2014). Especially with regard to intervening in
cyberbullying incidents, these processes might be relevant to investigate because several
studies have shown that subconscious processes may come into play when finding oneself in a
bystander position during bullying and cyberbullying incidents (Carter, M’Balla-Ndi, Van
Luyn, & Goldie, 2016; Van den Bos, Müller, & Van Bussel, 2009). For example, the
subconscious process of audience inhibition has proven to play an important role in bullying
bystander behavior. When finding oneself in a bystander situation, audience inhibition posits
that someone is subconsciously driven to not intervene in such a situation as a result of non-
intervening others (Carter et al., 2016). Because subconscious processes can play an
 24

important role in explaining cyberbullying and intervening behavior, future research should
include implicit behavioral measures to further explore these processes.
This study had some practical limitations. Although the intervention was effective as a
whole in positively changing children’s intentions to intervene, it may be that specific aspects
of the intervention were especially effective in accomplishing this positive change. However,
this change remained unknown because children’s knowledge, awareness, and empathy as a
result of the intervention were only measured after the intervention. Therefore, we were not
able to give insight into the possible effect on the intervention itself nor the relationship
between these changes and the mediators of the underlying theoretical model of this study.
With respect to future research, it would be valuable to account for children’s changes in
knowledge, awareness, and empathy. These insights could provide explanations for the effect
found in our study, namely a positive change in children’s intentions to intervene on behalf of
a cyberbully victim due to exposure to the anti-cyberbullying intervention.
Second, this study did not include past cyberbullying behavior and/or cyberbullying
victimization because of the potential negative psychological effects when confronting
children with questions about cyberbullying and/or cyberbullying victimization experiences in
their past. However, it could be that the effectiveness of the intervention differs for bully
victims and bully perpetrators (De Castro et al., 2018). For example, previous research
showed that victims of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying are more inclined to help
another victim, because they sympathize more with this person (Fawzi & Goodwin, 2011). On
the contrary, being a cyberbully has proven to be an important predictor of neglecting to
intervene on behalf of a victim (Fawzi & Goodwin, 2011; Szuster, 2016). Including past
cyberbullying behavior might be relevant to assess to investigate the potential differential
effects between victims and bullies with respect to the effectiveness of interventions
Third, we were not successful in capturing the construct attitude toward intervening
behavior. During the experiment, children asked for clarification on the attitude items in the
questionnaire several times. It is plausible that we could not construct a reliable and valid
scale for attitude because the children did not understand the questions. The items used in the
questionnaire originated from an existing scale targeted at adolescents (Stevens et al., 2000).
It could be that the items were clear to adolescents, but that our target group was too young to
comprehend the items at hand. Future research should therefore try to develop an attitude
scale measuring intention to intervene specifically targeted at children.
Another limitation is that all findings rely on children’s self-reports which are
vulnerable to social desirability biases. However, due to characteristics of cyberbullying such
 25

as its invisibility and anonymity, it is extremely difficult to measure cyberbullying related

behaviors using objective measures (Wölfer et al., 2013). We tried to address this limitation
by assessing and controlling for children’s potential social desirability biases. Also, in the
current study we did not assess children’s actual intervening behavior. However, based on the
TPB and previous research that examined the relationships between the constructs of the TPB
in a cyberbullying context, it is expected that the increase in children’s intentions to intervene
actually leads them, at least to a certain extent, to intervene more in cyberbullying situations
(Heirman & Walrave, 2012; Pabian & Vandebosch, 2014). To address both the social
desirability issues and including actual intervening behavior, future research could follow the
recommendations of Dillon and Bushman (2015), by exposing children to online
cyberbullying incidents in a mediated environment in which one confederate acts as a
cyberbully and another as a victim. In this way, the actual intervening behavior of the child
can be monitored during the experiment.
Although scholars agree on the need for effective interventions to increase intervening
behavior and to reduce cyberbullying rates (Snakenborg et al., 2011; Tokunaga, 2010), some
scholars raised questions about the possible side-effects of such interventions on especially
(cyber)bully victims. For example, De Castro et al. (2018) showed that some widely used
large scale intervention programs produce counter effective results, leading to more
(cyber)bully conflicts instead of less, and possible negative affect in children receiving the
intervention. Nevertheless, we argue that many interventions (Cleemput et al., 2014; Stevens
et al., 2000; Wolfer et al., 2013), including the one in the current study, have substantial
positive effects with respect to contesting cyberbullying, even after a short, one-time
exposure. Furthermore, children in the current study did not express negative affect regarding
the intervention itself. They really enjoyed working on the e-learning and found it very
interesting.
To conclude, this study adheres to the call of Snakenborg et al. (2011) and Tokunaga
(2010) to develop an anti-cyberbullying intervention based on solid theory – in the present
study the Theory of Planned Behavior – to increase children’s intervening behavior. This is,
to our knowledge, the first comprehensive, theory-based cyberbullying intervention aimed at
increasing positive bystander behavior in children. Previous bullying and cyberbullying
interventions showed mixed effects with respect to their effectiveness to reduce
(cyber)bullying (De Castro et al., 2018). The effectiveness of the intervention in the current
study points to the relevance of developing theory-based intervention programs that focus on
the important role of bystanders besides targeting bully’s or victims (DeSmet et al., 2012;
 26

2014; Gini et al., 2008). Given the high prevalence rates concerning cyberbullying among
children and its negative consequences, it is of utmost importance to keep developing and
empirically evaluating intervention programs to reduce cyberbullying. We believe the current
online anti-cyberbullying intervention has the potential to guide future intervention
approaches by providing teachers and schools with helpful educational tools to empower
children to stand up against cyberbullying.
 27

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Akbulut, Y., & Eristi, B. (2011). Cyberbullying and victimisation among Turkish university
students. Australian Journal of Education and Technology, 27, 1155-1170. doi:
10.14742/ajet.910
Ang, R.P., & Goh, D.H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective
and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry of Human Development, 41,
387-397. doi: 10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3
Barlinska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2018). Cyberbullying among adolescent
bystanders: Role of affective versus cognitive empathy in increasing social
cyberbystander behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 799. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00799
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Betts, L. (2016). Cyberbullying: Approaches, consequences and interventions. London:
Springer.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estévez, A., Villardón, L., & Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in
adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5),
1128-1135. doi: 10.16/j.chb.2010.03.017
Carter, M., M’Balla-Ndi, M., Van Luyn, A., & Goldie, D. (2016). Taking a stand against
cyberbullying in higher education. In O. Dreon (Ed.), Handbook of research in
teacher education for ethical professional practice in the 21st century (pp. 197-235).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Castro, de, B.O., Mulder, S., van der Ploeg, R., Onrust, S., van den Berg, Y., Stoltz, S., Buil,
M., de Wit, I., Buitenhuis, L., Cillessen, T., Veenstra, R., van Lier, P., Dekovic, M., &
Scholte, R. (2018). Wat werkt tegen pesten? Effectiviteit van kansrijke programma’s
tegen pesten in de Nederlandse onderzoekspraktijk. [What works against bullying?
The effectiveness of potential program’s against bullying in the Dutch research
practice]. Retrieved from: https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/eindrapport-wat-werkt-
tegen-pesten.pdf
Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., Vandebosch, H, Bastiaensens, S., Poels, K. & Bourdeadhuij, I.
(2014). A systematic review of studies evaluating anti-cyberbullying programs. Paper
 28

presented at Etmaal van Communicatiewetenschap; 3-4 February 2014; Wageningen,

Netherlands. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289488562
_A_systematic_ review_and_metaanalysis_of_the_efficacy_of_cyberbullying_
prevention_programs.
Cramer, R., McMaster, M., Bartell, P., & Dragna, M. (1988). Subject competence and
minimization of the bystander effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(13),
1132- 1148. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01198.x
Dehue, F. (2013). Cyberbullying research: New perspectives and alternative methodologies.
Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 23(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1002/casp.2139
DeSmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H. & De
Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2012). Mobilizing bystanders of cyberbullying: An exploratory
study into behavioural determinants of defending the victim. In B.K. Wiederhold, &
G. Riva (Eds.), Annual Review of Cybertheraphy and Telemedicine 2012: Advanced
technologies in the behavioral, social and neurosciences (pp. 58-63). Amsterdam: IOS
Press. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.051
DeSmet, A., Veldeman, C., Poels, K., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H.,
& De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in
cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social networking, 17(4), 207-215. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0027
DeSmet, A., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Walrave, M., & Vandebosch, H. (2019). Associations
between bystander reactions to cyberbullying and victim’s emotional experiences and
mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(10), 648-656.
doi: 10.1089.cyber.2019.0031
De Soto, C.B., Kuethe, J.L., & Bosley, J.J. (1959). A redefinition of social desirability.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 273-275.
Dillon, K.P., & Bushman, B.J. (2015). Unresponsive or un-noticed?: Cyberstander
Intervention on an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human
Behavior, 45, 144-150. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.009
Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., & Snyder, T.D. (2009). National Center for Education
Statistics: Indicators of school crime and safety: 2007. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov
Doane, A.N., Kelley, M.L., Chiang, E.S., & Padilla, M.A. (2013). Development of the
cyberbullying experiences survey. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 207-218. doi:
 29

10.1177/2167696813479584
Doane, A.N., Kelley, M.L., & Pearson, M.R. (2016). Reducing cyberbullying: A theory of
reasoned action-based video prevention program for college students. Aggressive
Behavior, 42, 136-146. doi: 10.1002/ab.21610
Espelage, D.L., & Sung Hong, J. (2017). Cyberbullying prevention and intervention efforts:
Current knowledge and future directions. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 62(6),
374-380. doi: 10.1177/070674371668479
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
Fawzi, N., & Goodwin, B. (2011). Witnesses of the offense: what influences the behavior
of bystanders in cyberbullying? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
International Communication Associations, TBA, Boston, MA.
Fredkove, W.M., Gower, A.L., & Sieving, R.E. (2019). Association among internal assets,
bullying and emotional distress in eight grade students. Journal of School Health,
89(11), 883-889. doi: 10.1111/josh.12833
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoe, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents’ active
defending and passive bystanding behaviour in bullying. Journal of Adolescence,
31(1) 93- 105. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002
Gleitman, H., Gross, J., & Reisberg, D. (2011). Psychology. London: WW Norton & Co.
Gomo Learning (2019). Gomo cloud-based learning [computer software]. Retrieved from:
https://www.gomolearning.com/
Hawkins, D.L., Pepler, D.J., & Craig, W.M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer
interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10(4), 512-527. doi: 10.1111/1467-
9507.00178
Hayes, A.F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis,
a regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbullying: an
application of the theory of planned behavior. Psicothema, 24(4), 614-620.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle
and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 711-722. doi:
10.007/s10964-012-9902-4
Ipsos (2018). Cyberbullying. A Global Adviser Survey. Retrieved from:
 30

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-06/ cyberbullying
_june2018.pdf
Jacobsen, W.C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: academic and social outcomes of
electronic media use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275
280. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0135
Kiriakidis, S.P., Kavoura, A. (2010). Cyberbullying. A review on the literature on harassment
through the Internet and other electronic means. Family & Community Health, 33(2),
82-93. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181d593e4
Kiriukhina, D.V. (2019). Cyberbullying among young users of social networks. Journal of
Modern Foreign Psychology, 8(3), 53-59. doi: 10.17759/jmfp.2019080306
König, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Steffgen, G. (2010). Cyberbullying as an act of revenge?
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 210-224. doi:
10.1375/ajgc.20.2.210
Kowalski, R.M., & Fedina, C. (2011). Cyberbullying in ADHD and Asperger syndrome
populations. Research in Autism Spectrum disorders, 5(3), 1201-1208. doi:
10.1016/j.rasd.2011.01.007
Kozubal, M., Szuster, A., Barlínska, J. (2019). Cyberbystanders, Affective empathy and
Social norms. Studia Psychologica, 61(2), 120-131. doi: 10.21909/sp.2019.02.777
Latané, B., & Darley, J.M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Loewestein, G., Small, D.A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: the vicissitudes of
human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112-126.
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112
Machmutow, K., Perren, S., Sticca, F., & Alsaker, F.D. (2012). Peer victimization and
depressive symptoms: Can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of
cybervictimization? Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 17(3-4), 267-274. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2010.00002
Mash, E., & Wolfe, D. (2007). Abnormal child psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McLaughlin, C., Arnold, R., & Boyd, E. (2005). Bystanders in schools: What do they do and
what do they think? Factors influencing the behaviour of English students as
bystanders. Pastoral Care, 23(2), 17-22. doi: 10.1111/j.0264-3944.2005.00327.x
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Camodeca, M. (2013). Morality, values, traditional bullying,
and cyberbullying in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
31(1), 1-14. doi: 10.111/j.2044-835X.2011.02066.x
 31

Miller, P.H., Baxter, S.D., Royer, J.A., Hitchcock, D.B., Smith, A.F., Collins, K.L., Guinn,
C.H., Smith, A.L. (2015). Children’s social desirability: effects of test assessment
mode. Personal Individual Differences, 83, 85-990. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.039
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M. Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for
involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and Youth
Services Review, 34(1), 63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032.
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(4), 463-477. doi:
10.1080/17405629.2013.858626
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., Nass, M., et al. (2012).
Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being
among 8- to 12- year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 327-336. doi:
10.1037/a0027030
Pepler, D., Craig, W., & O’Connell, P. (2010). Peer processes in bullying. Informing
prevention and intervention strategies. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L.
Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. An International perspective (pp.
469-479). New York, Oxon: Routledge.
Pepler, D., Craig, W., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an anti-bullying
intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health,
13(2), 95- 110. doi: 10.7870/cjcmh-1994-0014
Pöyhönen, V., Kärnä, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). New directions in research and practice
addressing bullying: focus on defending behavior. In D. Pepler & W. Craig (Eds.),
An international perspective on understanding and addressing bullying (pp. 26-43).
Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse
Price, M., & Dalgleish, J. (2010). Cyberbullying, experiences, impacts and coping strategies
as described by Australian young people. Youth Studies Australia, 29(2), 51-59.
Retrieved from: https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn
=213627997089283;res=IELHS
Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of Australian school children to act as
bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 26(3), 425-440. doi: 10.1080/01443410500342047
 32

Sakellariou, T., Caroll, A., & Houghton, S. (2012). Rates of cybervictimization and bullying
among male Australian primary and high school students. School Psychology
International, 33(5), 533-549. doi: 10.1177/0143034311430374
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 15(2), 112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and
behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
28(3), 246-258. doi: 10.1080/01650250344000488
Schneider, S.K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R.W.S. (2012). Cyberbullying, school
bullying, and psychological distress: a regional census of high school students.
American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171-177. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2011.300308.
Shakir, T., Bhandari, N., Andrews, A., Zmitrovich, A., McCracken, C., Gadomski, J., Morris,
C.R., & Jain, S. (2019). Do our adolescents know they are cyberbullying victims?
Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 18(1), 93-101. doi:
10.1080/15289168.2018.1565004
Sheeran, P., Gollwitzer, P.M., & Bargh, J.A. (2013). Nonconscious processes and
health. Health Psychology, 32(5), 460-473. doi: 10.1037/a0029203
Shultz, E., Heilamn, R., & Hart, K.J. (2014). Cyber-bullying: An exploration of
bystander behavior and motivation. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, 8(4), article 3. doi: 10.5817/CP2014-4-4
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russel, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.10846.x
Snakenborg, J., Van Acker, R., & Gable, R.A. (2011). Cyberbullying: prevention and
intervention to protect our children and youth. Preventing School Failure, 55, 88-95.
doi: 10.1080/1045988X2011
Sniehotta, F.F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned
behavior. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2013.869710
Stevens, V., van Oost, P., & de Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2000). The effects of an anti-bullying
intervention programme on peers’ attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Adolescence,
23, 21-34. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0296
Sundstrom, B., Ferrara, M., DeMaria, A.L., Gabel, C., Booth, K., & Cabot, J. (2018). It’s
 33

your place: development and evaluation of an evidence-based bystander

intervention campaign. Health Communication, 33(9), 1141-1150. doi:
10.1080/10410236.2017.1333561
Szuster, A. (2016). Crucial dimensions of human altruism. Affective vs. conceptual factors
leading to helping or reinforcing others. Frontiers of Psychology, 7(519). doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00519
Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277-
287. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, P., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., et al. (2008).
Bullying: are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486-495. doi:
10.1177/0165025408095553
Van den Bos, K., Müller, P.A., & Van Bussel, A.A.L. (2009). Helping to overcome
intervention inertia in bystander’s dilemmas: behavioral disinhibition can improve the
greater good. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 873-878. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.014
Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimization and
perpetration. Children & Society, 25(1), 59-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-
0860.2009.00260.x
Wahab, N.A., & Yahaya, W.J.W. (2017). Developing cyber-bullying knowledge and
awareness instrument (CBKAi) to measure knowledge and perceived awareness
towards cyber-bullying among adolescents. CRINN, 2, 339-346.
Williford, A., Elledge, C.L., Boulton, A.J., DePaolis, K.J., Little, T.D., & Salmivalli, C.
(2013). Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on cyberbullying and
cybervictimization frequency among Finnish youth. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 42(6), 820-833. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2013.787623
Wölfer, R., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Zagorscak, P., Jäkel, A., Göbel, K., & Scheithauer, H.
(2013). Prevention 2.0: targeting cyberbullying @ school. Society for Prevention
Research, 15(6), 879-887. Doi: 10.1007/s11121-013-0438-y
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressor and targets: a
comparison of youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
45(7), 1308-1316.
Highlights:

• A cyberbullying e-learning increased children’s intention to intervene on behalf of a

victim.
• Knowledge, awareness and empathy were positively affected by a cyberbullying e-
learning.
• Contrary to the theory of planned behavior, no mediation for subjective norms and
perceived behavioral control was found.
• A cyberbully e-learning tool empowers children to stand up against cyberbullying.
• Incorporating the role of bystanders in cyberbullying research is of utmost importance.
Author Contributions

Vlaanderen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal Analysis, Investigation,

Resources, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Project
Administration. Bevelander: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft,
Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision. Kleemans: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing,
Supervision.