Computers in Human Behavior 109 (2020) 106340

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

The role of self-efficacy in defending cyberbullying victims

Madeleine Clark , Kay Bussey *
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Due to the lasting and pervasive effects of cyberbullying on cybervictims, current literature has examined factors
Cyberbullying which decrease the prevalence of cyberbullying episodes. One factor known to mitigate cyberbullying rates is
Adolescents bystander intervention. However, despite many bystanders witnessing acts of cyberbullying, few bystanders elect
Cyber defending
to intervene. There is currently minimal literature examining which factors influence bystander intervention and
Cyber bystanders
Empathic self-efficacy
therefore which factors can be targeted in interventions. To address this gap in the literature, the present study
Defending self-efficacy examines the role of self-efficacy, specifically defending self-efficacy and empathic self-efficacy and how these
beliefs influence defending behavior while controlling for grade, gender and previous experiences of cyberbul­
lying and cybervictimization. To examine these relationships, 540 Australian students aged 11 to 15 years
completed a questionnaire assessing cyberbullying behavior and self-efficacy beliefs in the past school term.
Results revealed that both defending self-efficacy and empathic self-efficacy were significantly associated with
frequency of defending behavior. Specifically, higher rates of defending self-efficacy and higher levels of
empathic self-efficacy were associated with higher rates of defending behavior during cyberbullying episodes.
Cybervictimization was also significantly associated with higher levels of cyber defending behavior. These results
suggest the importance of cyberbullying interventions targeting defending and empathic skills and beliefs in
bystanders to increase defending behavior and decrease cyberbullying episodes.

1. Introduction
Cyberbullying is defined as an act of recurring and intentional
aggression towards someone less capable of defending themselves using
electronic means (Menesini et al., 2012). Estimates of cyberbullying
prevalence vary greatly depending on the definition used. Some scholars
argue that an act of aggression can qualify as cyberbullying regardless of
whether it is a recurring behavior (DeSmet et al., 2014; Nocentini et al.,
2010) and regardless of its impact (Dredge, Gleeson & Garcia, 2014;
Menesini et al., 2012). As a result, some studies report rates as high as
65% while other studies that adopt a more stringent definition report
cyberbullying rates as low as 5% (Jadambaa et al., 2019). However, the
most commonly reported rate of adolescent cyberbullying victimization
is between 20 and 40% (Tokunaga, 2010). Furthermore, cyberbullying
rates are increasing as adolescents gain greater access to the internet
(Kowalski, Limber, & McCord, 2019). This is concerning given the
extensive and lasting psychological, behavioral, social and academic
effects it has on those who are victimised (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson,
2013; Kim, Colwell, Kata, Boyle & Georgiades, 2017). One factor known
to attenuate cyberbullying and its effects is a bystander or bystanders
intervening and actively defending the victim (Bastiaensens et al., 2015;
Moxey & Bussey, 2019; Salmivalli, 2010). Defending includes
anti-bullying behaviors such as comforting the victim or confronting the
perpetrator (Salmivalli, 1999). In addition to effectively ceasing cyber­
bullying episodes, victims who are defended also report higher rates of
peer acceptance, self-esteem and perceived popularity compared to their
non-defended peers (Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing & Salmivalli, 2010).
Despite playing a significant role as moderators of cyberbullying
episodes (Obermaier, Fawzi & Koch, 2016; Olenik-Shemesh, Heiman &
Eden, 2017) it is estimated that between 9 and 50 percent of bystanders
defend cyberbullying victims (Dillon & Bushman, 2015; Freis & Gurung,
2013; Huang & Chou, 2010; Lenhart et al., 2011). The small percentage
of defenders is surprising given the amplified opportunity to defend
during cyberbullying episodes. For example, it is not necessary for the
bystander to be present during the cyberbullying episode as bystanders
may witness the incident after it has transpired or have the content
directly forwarded to them (Li, Smith & Cross, 2012). The lack of
defending behavior is thought to be explained by uncertainty as to what
constitutes cyberbullying (Alipan, Skues, Theiler & Wise, 2019) along­
side the bystander effect (Machackova, Dedkova & Mezulanikova, 2015;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kay.bussey@mq.edu.au (K. Bussey).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106340
Received 2 August 2019; Received in revised form 5 February 2020; Accepted 11 March 2020
Available online 13 March 2020
0747-5632/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Clark and K. Bussey
Obermaier et al., 2016; You & Lee, 2019). According to Darley and
Latane’s (1968) bystander model, bystanders are less likely to intervene
when other individuals are present due to diffusion of responsibility
(believing the responsibility to act is divided among those present),
evaluation apprehension (worrying that other bystanders will nega­
tively judge your actions) and pluralistic ignorance (observing others
not acting and concluding this is appropriate). This effect is concerning
as passive bystanders provide no support for the victim and their lack of
action may be misperceived by the perpetrator as support for their
cyberbullying behavior (Bastiaensens et al., 2014). Given that poten­
tially large audiences can witness incidences of cyberbullying either at
the time of the occurrence or after it has occurred, it is important to
uncover which factors are associated with those bystanders who defend
cyber victims.
1.1. Social cognitive theory
To investigate the behavior of bystanders during cyberbullying epi­
sodes, Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory was drawn on as this
model highlights the need to consider contextual factors influencing a
person’s behavior. This is particularly relevant for the complex social
context in which bullying occurs whereby both the peer group and the
social networking platform play a pivotal contextual role (Allison &
Bussey, 2016). Social Cognitive Theory which proposes a triadic model
in which personal, behavioral and environmental elements operate by
reciprocally influencing each other has been adapted to the cyberbul­
lying context (Allison & Bussey, 2017). This approach provides a
comprehensive framework for understanding the complexity of bullying
dynamics and the social situations in which they occur. One of the most
pivotal components of social cognitive theory when applied to defend­
ing behavior is personal agency, which refers to an individuals’ ability to
develop and direct their actions towards a task (Bandura, 1986).
Although performance skills play a role in personal agency, the most
central factor is self-efficacy, which, is known to influence an in­
dividual’s actions as well as the skills they acquire (Bandura, 1986,
1997). Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to
organise the motivation, cognitive resources, skills and action required
to execute an undertaking successfully (Bandura, 1997). For individuals
with low self-efficacy beliefs relating to intervening in bullying episodes,
it is predicted that despite a sense of responsibility or desire to intervene,
they will elect to distance themselves from the situation in order to cope
rather than defend the victim (Pozzoli & Gini, 2013).
1.2. Defending self-efficacy
Defending self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s self-perceived
ability to successfully intervene in a bullying episode and help the
victim (Thornberg, Wa €nstro
€m, Hong & Espelage, 2017), is therefore
proposed as a crucial factor involved in predicting a bystander’s
response. Research examining the role of defending self-efficacy in
influencing bystanders’ course of action is unclear, however. While the
majority of literature reports that defending self-efficacy is positively
associated with defending and negatively associated with passive
behavior during traditional bullying episodes (Po €yho
€nen, Juvonen &
Salmivalli, 2010; Po €yho€nen & Salmivalli, 2008; Thornberg & Jungert,
2012) other studies have found no such association (Barchia & Bussey,
2011). Furthermore, some studies have reported that this relationship is
moderated by perceived popularity, so that at low perceptions of
popularity defending self-efficacy did not influence defending behavior
(Po€yho€nen, Juvonen & Salmivalli, 2010).
In addition to these inconsistencies, the role of defending self-
efficacy in relation to intervention in cyberbullying contexts has rarely
been examined. One study by DeSmet et al. (2014) also reported that
low defending self-efficacy was a predictor of bystander behavior when
the bystander perceived low levels of personal social support. Further­
more, DeSmet et al. (2012) reported an association between defending
2
Computers in Human Behavior 109 (2020) 106340
victims of in cyberbullying episodes and self-efficacy to talk with the
bully, although in this study defending self-efficacy was not measured as
a domain construct but instead a global measure of self-efficacy.
Therefore, the role of defending self-efficacy in defending victims in
the cyber context is unclear. It is vital to explore the influence of
self-efficacy on individuals’ defending if their behavior has the potential
for reducing cyberbullying occurrences (Salmivalli, Voeten & Pos­
kiparta, 2011).
1.3. Empathic self-efficacy
A further factor shown to increase a bystander’s willingness to
intervene is empathy (Barlin � ska, Szuster, & Winiewski, 2013). Given
that defending is a challenging situation, it is important that an indi­
vidual not only empathizes with the victim, but that they also have a
strong belief in their capacity to engage in social interactions demanding
such empathy (Di Giunta et al., 2011). Empathic self-efficacy is defined
as an individual’s self-perceived ability to sense the emotions of others
and respond empathetically, including to their distress and hardship
(Eklund, Loeb, Hansen & Andersson-Wallin, 2012). To date, empathic
self-efficacy has not been examined in relation to defending behavior in
the cyberbullying context. This is surprising given that empathy has
been demonstrated as an essential precursor to defending behavior in
traditional bullying episodes (Barchia & Bussey, 2011; Nickerson, Mele
& Princiottta, 2008). Furthermore, it has been shown that empathic
self-efficacy is a better predictor of prosociality than any other
self-efficacy variable examined in the current literature (Caprara, Ales­
sandri, & Eisenberg, 2012; Eklund et al., 2012). Consequently, it is
predicted that it is important that bystanders possess heightened
empathic self-efficacy in order to increase their motivation and likeli­
hood of intervening in a cyberbullying episode.
While the effects of defending self-efficacy and empathic self-efficacy
have been examined within the traditional bullying literature, it cannot
be assumed that the same effects would generalize to the cyber context.
Although there is significant overlap between traditional bullying and
cyberbullying, the two forms of aggression are still arguably unique in
ways which may influence bystander behavior. Specifically, in the
cyberbullying context, individuals including perpetrators and by­
standers are able to remain anonymous which may increase or decrease
the propensity of defending from that observed in offline contexts.
Furthermore, in some cases it is more difficult for authority figures such
as teachers, parents or the police to detect and cease cyberbullying ep­
isodes due to privacy settings (Cassidy et al., 2013). Finally, the role of
bystanders in a cyber context is regarded as more variable and contex­
tually dependent depending on privacy and anonymity factors (DeSmet
et al., 2014). Therefore, it is imperative to examine the influence of these
self-efficacy beliefs in a cyber specific context.
1.4. Research questions and hypotheses
The aim of the present study is to examine the role of defending self-
efficacy and empathic self-efficacy as predictors of defending behavior
during cyberbullying episodes. First, it was hypothesised that defending
self-efficacy will be positively associated with frequency of defending,
such that high levels of defending self-efficacy will be associated with
higher rates of reported defending. Second, it was hypothesised that
empathic self-efficacy will be uniquely and positively associated with
frequency of defending behavior, over and above defending self-
efficacy, such that high levels of empathic self-efficacy will be associ­
ated with higher rates of defending behavior. Third, it was hypothesised
that the positive relationship between defending self-efficacy and
defending behavior will be stronger fo participants with high empathic
self-efficacy. That is, while defending self-efficacy is postulated as
necessary for defending behavior within a cyber context, it is proposed
that this belief is more likely to be acted on at higher levels of empathic
self-efficacy.
M. Clark and K. Bussey
No specific predictions were made for gender and grade differences
in defending behavior due to the inconsistent findings in the literature.
Some studies have reported that girls engage in more defending
behavior than boys (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Olenik-Shemesh et al.,
2017; Mazzone, Camodeca & Salmivalli, 2016), whereas other studies
have found no gender differences in defending behavior (Barlin
� ska et al.,
2013, 2015, 2018). For age differences, some studies have reported that
younger adolescents are more likely to engage in defending behavior
than older adolescents (Allison & Bussey, 2017; DeSmet et al., 2016;
Pozzoli & Gini, 2010) whereas Bussey et al., (2015) found that older
students engaged in more defending behavior than younger students. As
age and gender may be associated with defending behavior, but were not
the focus of this study, these variables will be controlled in analyses
predicting defending behavior.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
A total of 540 students participated in this study, including 344 grade
7 students (194 females, Mage ¼ 12.65 years; SD ¼ 0.42 years) and 196
grade 9 students (110 females, Mage ¼ 14.63 years; SD ¼ 0.45 years). As
this study formed part of a larger, longitudinal project only students in
grade 7 and 9 were invited to participate as students in year 8 and 10
were asked to participate in the following year. This sample was selected
as cyberbullying has been shown to peak during middle school (Suchy &
Tomasino, 2014). The uneven sample distribution between grades
resulted from disparities in return rates between grades due to greater
academic commitments required of the older students. Participants were
recruited from 14 co-educational independent schools in New South
Wales, Australia and the majority of participants were from
upper-middle class families (Australian Curriculum Assessment and
Reporting Authority, 2016). Most participants identified as Anglo/Celtic
(67.2%), with a substantial minority from European (15.9%) and
East/South East Asian (6.7%) backgrounds.
2.2. Measures
Defending self-efficacy. Barchia and Bussey’s (2011) Defender
Self-Efficacy Scale used in a traditional bullying context was adapted to
measure self-efficacy to engage in common defending strategies
employed in cyberbullying episodes. Participants rated on a 7-point
Likert scale how well they could enact nine specific defending behav­
iors (e.g. “talk to a parent about the situation”). This scale was con­
textualised to incorporate common defending measures employed in
cyberbullying episodes (e.g. report the post). A total score was calcu­
lated by summing all items, with higher scores indicating higher levels
of defending self-efficacy. This scale achieved acceptable reliability (α ¼
0.82).
Empathic self-efficacy. Barchia and Bussey’s (2011) Empathy Index
Scale was adapted to measure self-efficacy to empathize. Participants
rated on a 4-point Likert scale how well they could enact nine specific
empathic behaviors (e.g. “recognize when your friend needs help”). This
scale was adapted to measure self-efficacy using Bandura’s (2005) guide
for constructing self-efficacy scales by asking participants how well they
could engage in these behaviors, rather than using a dichotomous
true/false response scale. A total score was calculated by summing all
items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of empathic
self-efficacy. This scale achieved good reliability (α ¼ 0.82).
Defending Behavior. Allison and Bussey’s (2017) Cyberbullying
Bystanding and Intervention Scale was used to measure defending fre­
quency. Participants rated on a 6-point Likert scale how frequently they
tried to help victims of cyberbullying in the last term that were cyber­
bullied in 14 different ways. A total score was calculated by averaging all
items, with higher scores indicating more frequent defending. This scale
achieved excellent reliability (α ¼ 0.91).
3
Computers in Human Behavior 109 (2020) 106340
Cyberbullying and Cyber victimization. Ga�mez-Guadix, Villa-George
and Calvete’s (2014) Cyberbullying Questionnaire Revised Scale was
used to measure cyberbullying and cyber victimization. Participants
rated on a six-point scale how frequently they had engaged in each of 14
items relating to cyberbullying and 9 items relating to cyber victimiza­
tion. Total scores were calculated by averaging all items in the subscale,
with higher scores indicating more frequent experiences of cyberbully­
ing and cyber victimization. The cyberbullying subscale achieved
excellent reliability (α ¼ 0.97) and the cyber victimization scale ach­
ieved good reliability (α ¼ 0.85).
2.3. Procedure
Ethics approval for this study was granted by the Human Research
Ethics Committee at the authors’ university. Participants aged between
11 and 15 years (grades 7 and 9) were recruited from 14 co-educational
independent schools in NSW. Consent was obtained from the school
principals, parents and students. Approximately 46% of eligible students
participated in the study. The questionnaire was administered in class
groups during term two of the school year with an average group of 19
students under the supervision of teachers and/or researchers present.
Three schools (17.4% of participants) completed a paper version of the
study due to lack of access to electronic devices while the remaining 11
schools (82.6% of participants) completed it online through school
facilities.
Each participant was provided with a unique identification number,
login code and URL code to access the survey. After logging in, partic­
ipants were presented with an online (or paper version for those
completing the paper format of the questionnaire) consent form where
students were required to agree to complete the questionnaire. Students
first completed questions regarding their demographics. Students were
then presented with a brief definition of cyberbullying adapted from
Solberg and Olweus (2003). The remaining measures were presented in
one of two random orders for all students including11 other measures
not used in this study, as this study formed part of a larger, longitudinal
research project examining adolescent cyberbullying. At the completion
of the questionnaire participants were presented with a debrief state­
ment which informed them to indicate if they wished to make an
appointment with their school counsellor to discuss any aspect of the
questionnaire or subsequent distress resulting from participation. Of the
total 540 participants, 14 opted to make an appointment with their
school counsellor. This was then arranged between the researcher, the
school counsellor and the participant.
2.4. Exploratory factor analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the defending self-
efficacy and empathic self-efficacy measures to determine whether the
two scales measure conceptually different constructs (see Table 1) as
these scales were modified from previous research for the cyber context.
All nine items from each measure were included in the factor analysis
with a principal axis extraction and Oblimin rotation selected as corre­
lation between the factors was expected. Results yielded a two-factor
model which loaded onto defending self-efficacy and empathic self-
efficacy. One of the items relating to defending self-efficacy (“ignore
the situation”) demonstrated poor loading onto the defending self-
efficacy factor with a loading below 0.20. This suggested it was not
conceptually meaningful and therefore this item was removed from the
analysis. Both the self-efficacy scales demonstrated good internal con­
sistency, with Cronbach’s alphas of .82 for each scale.
2.5. Data management
Missing Data. Small amounts of data were missing at the item level
ranging from 0.2% to 8.3%. Missing data were imputed at the item level
by using the expectation-maximisation procedure in SPSS where
M. Clark and K. Bussey Computers in Human Behavior 109 (2020) 106340

Table 1 SPSS to investigate potential clustering effects of response methodology

Factor structure and factor loadings for defending self-efficacy and empathic (paper format versus online format). Results indicated no random effects
self-efficacy items. for response format methodology.
Factor
Scale Items Loadings 3.3. Grade and gender effects
1 2

1. Defending Self-Efficacy
A MANOVA was run to examine grade and gender effects for each of
Talk to a parent about the situation .71 the measures in order to control the Type 1 error rate. Descriptive sta­
Tell a teacher about the situation .72 tistics are displayed in Table 2. Results revealed that grade seven stu­
Talk to a friend about the situation .56 dents reported higher levels of defending self-efficacy than did grade
Ignore the situation .16
nine students. Additionally, males reported more frequent cyberbullying
Tell the bully to stop .71
Provide comfort to the kid who is being cyberbullied .62 and lower empathic self-efficacy than did females. No grade by gender
Tell the bully that what they are doing is not okay .75 interactions were significant for any of the measures. Due to the grade
Defend the kid who is being cyberbullied by being mean to the bully .53 and gender main effects, grade and gender were controlled for in sub­
Report the post .62 sequent analyses.
2. Empathic Self-Efficacy
Know what your friends would like when they are upset .66
Feel the same way that a person in trouble feels when they are .57 3.4. Correlations among measures
experiencing it
Understand the effect your actions have on others feelings .63 Partial Pearson’s correlational analyses were run to examine the
Quickly find out things that new people you meet like and dislike .53
Recognize when someone wants comfort and emotional support .73
strength of relationship between the variables while controlling for the
Recognize when a person likes you .51 effects of grade and gender. Results are displayed in Table 3. Defending
Recognize whether a person is annoyed with you .58 self-efficacy, empathic self-efficacy and defending were all significantly
Recognize when a person is scared .67 and positively correlated with each other. Cyber victimization was
Recognize when a friend needs your help .73
significantly and positively correlated with defending. Cyberbullying
was significantly and positively correlated with cyber victimization and
imputation was based on individual items being used as predictors. The defending and significantly and negatively correlated with empathic
expectation-maximisation procedure was selected as it has been self-efficacy.
demonstrated as the preferred method when imputing data that is not
missing completely at random, compared to methods such as list-wise 3.5. Hierarchical regression analyses
deletion, pair-wise deletion or means substitution (Alison, 2002;
Enders, 2001; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Hierarchical regression analyses were run to examine the relation­
ships between self-efficacy beliefs (defending self-efficacy and empathic
3. Results self-efficacy) and their interaction with defending behavior. The results
are presented in Table 4. A five-step model was created in which grade
3.1. Data analytic plan and gender were entered at step one as control variables, as the MAN­
OVA results had indicated differences between these groups for multiple
The results of this study are presented in three sections. First, a variables. Cyberbullying and cyber victimization were entered at step
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was completed to examine two due to their observed correlations with variables of interest.
grade and gender effects for each measure. Second, correlational ana­ Defending self-efficacy was entered at step three, empathic self-efficacy
lyses were computed. Third, hierarchical regression analyses were un­ was entered at step four and the interaction term for defending self-
dertaken to examine the relationships between self-efficacy beliefs efficacy with empathic self-efficacy was entered at step five. Prior to
(defending self-efficacy, empathic self-efficacy and their interaction conducting the regression analyses the independent and control vari­
term) and frequency of defending behavior during cyberbullying ables were all mean-centred. Preliminary analyses demonstrated that no
episodes.
Table 3
Correlations analyses of independent and dependent variables controlling for
3.2. Clustering effects grade and gender.
1 2 3 4 5
Prior to examining grade and gender effects preliminary analyses
using the linear mixed model procedure in SPSS were conducted to 1. Cyberbullying – .50** -.02 -.15** .28**
2. Cyber victimization -.06 -.05 .54**
investigate potential clustering effects of responses within schools. This
–
3. Defending Self-Efficacy – .38** .14**
was done as the data presented are nested (students within grades within 4. Empathic Self-Efficacy – – .14**
schools). Results indicated no random effects for schools and therefore 5. Defending Frequency –
school effects were not controlled for in any subsequent analyses.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
Furthermore, a linear mixed model procedure was also conducted in

Table 2
Estimated marginal means and standard errors of all measures by gender and by grade.
Males Females F Grade 7 Grade 9 F Total number of items α
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

1. Cyberbullying 1.25 (.03) 1.07 (.03) 14.95*** 1.17 (.03) 1.15 (.04) .11 14 .97
2. Cyber victimization 1.31 (.04) 1.28 (.03) .50 1.29 (.03) 1.30 (.04) .04 9 .85
3.Defending Self-efficacy 35.69 (.66) 36.63 (.58) 1.13 37.16 (.53) 35.16 (.71) 5.13* 9 .82
4. Empathic Self-efficacy 26.38 (.30) 27.69 (.26) 10.92** 27.15 (.24) 26.92 (.32) .32 9 .82
5. Defending Behavior 1.47 (.04) 1.44 (.04) .29 1.43 (.03) 1.47 (.04) .55 14 .91

Note. M ¼ mean; SD ¼ standard deviation; α ¼ Cronbach’s alpha. *p < .05 **p < .005 ***p < .0005.

4
M. Clark and K. Bussey Computers in Human Behavior 109 (2020) 106340

Table 4
Hierarchical regression analysis of the associations between defending self-efficacy, empathic self-efficacy and defending.
Frequency of Defending Behavior
Variable
Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 3 β Step 4 β Step 5 SE 95% CI
β

Grade .02 .02 .03 .02 .01 .02 [-.02, .07]

Gender -.02 .01 .01 -.01 -.01 .04 [-.09, .08]
Cyberbullying .07 .06 .09 .08 .08 [.46, .75]
Cyber victimization .58*** .60*** .59*** .59*** .11 [-.11, .34]
Defending self-efficacy .01** .01* .01* .00 [.00, .01]
Empathic self-efficacy .02** .02** .01 [.01, .03]
Defending self-efficacy x Empathic self-efficacy .00 .00 [-.00, .00]
Total R2 .00 .28 .32 .33 .33

Note. Based on centred and bootstrapped continuous variables. Gender was coded as 0 ¼ Male and 1 ¼ Female; Grade was coded as 0 ¼ Grade 7 and 1 ¼ Grade 9.
*p < .05 **p < .005 ***p < .0005.

assumptions of regression were violated except, the P–P plots which
indicated non-normal distribution of the residuals. The frequency of
defending behavior scale was positively skewed while both self-efficacy
scales were negatively skewed. To take account of this, bootstrapping
analyses were completed to provide confidence intervals and bias-
corrected p-values. Bootstrapping was conducted because it has been
shown to produce robust results for data where the assumption of
normality is not met and is preferred over other methods such as
transformations and relying on the robustness of F-tests and t tests (Field
& Wilcox, 2017).
Results from the hierarchical regression analysis indicate that the
overall model was highly significant (F (7, 532) ¼ 37.59, p < .0005). In
the final model, cyber victimization, defending self-efficacy and
empathic self-efficacy were all significant predictors of defending fre­
quency. Furthermore, defending self-efficacy was uniquely, significantly
and positively associated with defending over and above empathic self-
efficacy and at all levels of empathic self-efficacy. The interaction be­
tween defending self-efficacy and empathic self-efficacy was not
significant.
4. Discussion
The present study builds on the established literature by extending
the examination of the relationship between defending self-efficacy,
empathic self-efficacy and frequency of defending behavior to cyber­
bullying episodes. The results of this study supported both the first and
second hypothesises. Specifically, defending self-efficacy and empathic
self-efficacy were each positively associated with frequency of defending
behavior in the cyberbullying context. Furthermore, empathic self-
efficacy was uniquely associated with defending behavior over and
above the effects of defending self-efficacy, suggesting both defending
self-efficacy and empathic self-efficacy uniquely contributed to
defending behavior. These results are consistent with findings from the
traditional bullying literature which report that defending self-efficacy
(Po€yho€nen, Juvonen & Salmivalli, 2010; Po €yho €nen & Salmivalli,
2008; Thornberg & Jungert, 2012) and empathic self-efficacy (Barchia
& Bussey, 2011; Nickerson, Mele & Princiottta, 2008) are positively
associated with defending behavior.
These results are also consistent with Bandura’s (1986) social
cognitive theory, which, proposes that higher levels of self-efficacy
result in higher levels of motivation to act which in turn results in
higher rates of behavioral engagement. Previous experiences with cyber
victimization also emerged as a significant predictor of defending
behavior. These results align with research which reports a positive
association between previous experiences with cyber victimization and
defending (Van Cleemput et al., 2014) and may be linked to greater
empathy activation, which has been shown to be a strong predictor of
defending behavior in previous research (Van Cleemput et al., 2014).
These results highlight the importance of cyber victims having high
defending self-efficacy in order to ensure they effectively intervene and
cease the cyberbullying cycle.
By contrast, the results of this study did not support the third hy­
pothesis, where the positive relationship between defending self-
efficacy and defending behavior was not observed to be significantly
stronger in participants with higher empathic self-efficacy. Instead, the
results show that defending self-efficacy is related to defending behavior
at all levels of empathic efficacy. Taken together, the results of this study
suggest that while the effect of each of these self-efficacy domains is not
contingent on the other, defending self-efficacy and empathic self-
efficacy both have independent effects on defending behavior.
These results revealed several practical implications. Given the
impact of both defending self-efficacy and empathic self-efficacy on
defending behavior, it would be important for intervention programs to
target these beliefs. Bandura (1986) proposes four sources of
self-efficacy, which, should be targeted in order to increase defending
and empathic self-efficacy. These are: enactive attainment (personal
mastery experiences), vicarious experiences (observing similar in­
dividuals perform certain behaviors where their success or failure will
impact on one’s self - efficacy to perform the same behavior.), verbal
persuasion (attempting to persuade someone they have the skills and
capabilities to achieve their desired goal) and physiological state (when
people interpret their physiological state such as somatic arousal as in­
dicators of vulnerability to dysfunction and failure) (Zimmerman,
2000). Therefore, intervention programs should include verbal persua­
sion discussing the benefits of intervening and role play exercises tar­
geting mastery and vicarious experiences in defending as well as
reduction in physiological stressors via means of exposure exercises.
4.1. Strengths
This study was the first to examine the relationships between
defending self-efficacy, empathic self-efficacy and frequency of
defending behavior within a cyberbullying context. Moreover, it did so
while controlling for the effects of grade, gender and previous experi­
ence of cyberbullying and cyber victimization. These relationships were
examined using pre-validated measures relevant to self-efficacy beliefs
and the cyberbullying context. This study also consisted of a large
sample size including both males and females and therefore provided
adequate statistical power to conduct formal tests of regression.
4.2. Limitations
The present study is not without limitations, however. Firstly, there
are limitations within the study design. Namely, the study relied on self-
report data, meaning the validity of information may have been
compromised by a number of factors including careless responding,
acquiescence, social desirability effects and deliberately exaggerated
responses (Chan, 2009). Future research should seek to include reports
from multiple sources including teachers, parents and peers to improve
the validity of the supplied data. Furthermore, the study design was

5
M. Clark and K. Bussey
cross-sectional thereby limiting directional inferences regarding the
relationship between the self-efficacy factors and defending behavior.
Future research should seek to explore these relationships employing
longitudinal methodology. Additionally, the sample of students included
in this study were all recruited from independent schools within
Australia, therefore the geographical and socioeconomic attributes of
the participants may limit the generalisability of the findings. Future
research should seek to use a cross-national sample.
4.3. Conclusion
Despite these limitations, the study is firmly embedded in the theo­
retical framework of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, p. 1997)
and the results of this study represent a significant contribution to the
literature on defenders of cyberbullying victims. In sum, the current
findings suggest that both defending self-efficacy and empathic
self-efficacy are vital beliefs required for maximising frequency of
bystander intervention during cyberbullying episodes. This study
therefore provides a strong foundational basis for further empirical
research as well as designing future intervention programs aimed at
promoting defending of cyberbully victims.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Madeleine Clark: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing - original draft. Kay Bussey: Conceptualization, Method­
ology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.
References
Alipan, A., Skues, J., Theiler, S., & Wise, L. (2019). Defining cyberbullying: A
multifaceted definition based on the perspectives of emerging adults. International
Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00018-6.
Allison, K., & Bussey, K. (2017). Individual and collective moral influences on
intervention in cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 7–15. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.019.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). My school website.
Retrieved from www.myschool.edu. (Accessed 20 February 2019).
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011). Predictors of student defenders of peer aggression
victims: Empathy and social cognitive factors. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 35(4), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410396746.
Barli�nska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among adolescent
bystanders: Role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/
10.1002/casp.2137.
Barli�nska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2015). The role of short- and long-term
cognitive empathy activation in preventing cyberbystander reinforcing
cyberbullying behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(4),
241–244. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0412.
Barli�nska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2018). Cyberbullying among adolescent
bystanders: Role of affective versus cognitive empathy in increasing prosocial
cyberbystander behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.00799.
Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De
Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental
study into bystanders’ behavioral intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully.
Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2013.10.036.
Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De
Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2015). ‘Can I afford to help?’ How affordances of communication
modalities guide bystanders’ helping intentions towards harassment on social
network sites. Behavior & Information Technology, 34(4), 425–435. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0144929x.2014.983979.
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosociality: The Contribution of
traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 1289–1303. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025626.
6
Computers in Human Behavior 109 (2020) 106340
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A
comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and
application to policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34(6), 575–612.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313479697.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. Lance, &
R. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine,
verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (1st ed., pp. 309–333). New
York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Darley, J. M., & Latan�e, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of re-
sponsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0025589.
DeSmet, A., Bastiansens, S., VanCleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., & De
Bourdeaudhu, I. (2012). Mobilizing bystanders of cyberbullying: An exploratory
study into behavioral determinants of defending the victim. Studies in Health
Technology and Informatics, 181, 58–63. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-121-
2-58.
DeSmet, A., Veldeman, C., Poels, K., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H.,
et al. (2014). Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in cyberbullying
incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17
(4), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0027.
Di Giunta, L., Eisenberg, N., Kupfer, A., Steca, P., Tramontano, C., & Caprara, G. (2011).
Assessing perceived empathic and social self-efficacy across countries. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-
5759/a000012.
Dillon, K., & Bushman, B. (2015). Unresponsive or un-noticed?: Cyberbystander
intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human Behavior,
45, 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.009.
Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., & de la Piedad Garcia, X. (2014). Cyberbullying in social
networking sites: An adolescent victim’s perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,
36, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.026.
Eklund, J., Loeb, C., Hansen, E. M., & Andersson-Wallin, A. C. (2012). Who cares about
others?: Empathic self-efficacy as an antecedent to prosocial behavior. Current
Research in Social Psychology, 2, 31–41.
Freis, S., & Gurung, R. (2013). A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online
bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0030239.
G�amez-Guadix, M., Villa-George, F., & Calvete, E. (2014). Psychometric properties of the
cyberbullying questionnaire (CBQ) among Mexican adolescents. Violence & Victims,
29(2), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00163r1.
Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among
junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6),
1581–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005.
Jadambaa, A., Thomas, H., Scott, J., Graves, N., Brain, D., & Pacella, R. (2019).
Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents
in Australia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 53(9), 878–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0004867419846393.
Kim, S., Colwell, S., Kata, A., Boyle, M., & Georgiades, K. (2017). Cyberbullying
victimization and adolescent mental health: Evidence of differential effects by sex
and mental health problem Type. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(3), 661–672.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0678-4.
Kowalski, R., Limber, S., & McCord, A. (2019). A developmental approach to
cyberbullying: Prevalence and protective factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45,
20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens,
kindness and cruelty on social network sites. Washington, DC: Pew Research Centre.
Li, Q., Smith, P. K., & Cross, D. (2012). Research into cyberbullying: Context. In Q. Li,
D. Cross, & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from
international perspectives (pp. 3–12). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., & Mezulanikova, K. (2015). Brief report: The bystander
effect in cyberbullying incidents. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 96–99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.010.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B., Fris� en, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R., et al.
(2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six
European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9),
455–463. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0040.
Moxey, N., & Bussey, K. (2019). Styles of bystander intervention in cyberbullying
incidents. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42380-019-00039-1.
Nickerson, A., Mele, D., & Princiotta, D. (2008). Attachment and empathy as predictors
of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School
Psychology, 46(6), 687–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.002.
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., &
Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviors and definition in three
European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 129–142.
https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129.
Obermaier, M., Fawzi, N., & Koch, T. (2016). Bystanding or standing by? How the
number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media
& Society, 18(8), 1491–1507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814563519.
Olenik-Shemesh, D., Heiman, T., & Eden, S. (2017). Bystanders’ behavior in
cyberbullying episodes: Active and passive patterns in the context of personal-socio-
emotional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0886260515585531.
P€
oyh€ onen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to stand up for the
victim of bullying?: The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 56(2), 143–163, 1353/mpq.0.0046.
M. Clark and K. Bussey
P€
oyh€onen, V., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). New directions in research and practice
addressing bullying: Focus on defending behavior. In D. J. Pepler, & W. M. Craig
(Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. 26–42).
Bloomington: Author House.
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A
multidimensional model. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(3), 315–340. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0272431612440172.
Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). Victims and their
defenders: A dyadic approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2),
144–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410378068.
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for
interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jado.1999.0239.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 15(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations be-
tween reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15374416.2011.597090.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the
Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ab.10047.
Computers in Human Behavior 109 (2020) 106340
Suchy, C. M., & Tomasino, K. K. (2014). Types of defending behaviors among late
elementary and middle school students. In Paper presented at the national conference
of undergraduate research. Lexington: University of Kentucky.
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2012). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic
moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of
Adolescence, 36(3), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.003.
Thornberg, R., W€ anstr€
om, L., Hong, J., & Espelage, D. (2017). Classroom relationship
qualities and social-cognitive correlates of defending and passive bystanding in
school bullying in Sweden: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 63,
49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.002.
Tokunaga, R. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and
contextual factors that determine “helping,” “joining in,” and “doing nothing” when
witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 383–396. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ab.21534.
You, L., & Lee, Y. (2019). The bystander effect in cyberbullying on social network sites:
Anonymity, group size, and intervention intentions. Telematics and Informatics, 45,
101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101284.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016.