1

Aggression and Digital Harassment:

The Psychology of Cyberaggression and Cyberbullying

INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of digital harassment or electronic attacking of behavior in cyberspace

has become rampant. Mardianto, et.al. ( 2017) explained that cyber aggression is formed from
interactions between an innate person or personal attributes and external attributes as
dimensions of the environment learning. It originates from individual cyber contexts and
communication characteristics in cyberspace in the form of social media algorithms.

Cyberaggression has become a hot issue of research studies over the past ten years.
Some researchers explain these phenomena in the form of oppressive behavior, harassment and
hatred that occurs in cyberspace. At present, the social-psychological theory approach is still
considered as a precise discipline in explaining the dynamics of cyberaggression and its
predecessor factors. Several theoretical studies and research results have revealed that the
behavior of cyber aggression is another form of traditional aggression behavior, especially verbal
aggression that uses online media or social networking. 

There is growing attention on cyberbullying from media, schools, parents, researchers

and policy makers, though disagreement still exists within the literature on both concept and
definition. There is, however, some agreement on its associated features, such as intentional
behavior towards an individual or group. As dependency on the internet and electronic devices
grows in terms of social interaction, so does a need to identify, understand, and intervene, in
aggressive, hostile, and victimizing situations. There is an argument to widen the net when
examining cyberbullying, through adopting the term ‘cyberaggression’, an inclusive term for the
various forms of hostile, direct and indirect behavior which occur in the online sphere.
Examining these forms through the lens of cyberaggression will allow for a more holistic and
unified approach to understanding victimization in the online environment. (Hyland, Hyland,
Corcocan, 2018)

This review of literature therefore is an attempt to understand cyberaggression as one of

the behavioral forms of aggression.
 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The literature reviews the nature of aggression and cyberaggression manifested through
cyberbullying. The first part defines and describes the forms of aggression and cyberaggression.
It also describes cyberbullying, its features, effects, predictors, risk and protective factors.

Definition and Forms of Aggression

The American Psychological Association (APA) defines aggression as a behavior aimed

at harming others physically or psychologically. It can be distinguished from anger in that anger is
oriented at overcoming the target but not necessarily through harm or destruction. When such
behavior is purposively performed with the primary goal of intentional injury or destruction, it is
termed hostile aggression. Other types of aggression are less deliberately damaging and may be
instrumentally motivated (proactive) or affectively motivated
(reactive). Instrumental aggression involves an action carried out principally to achieve another
goal, such as acquiring a desired resource. Affective aggression involves an emotional response
that tends to be targeted toward the perceived source of the distress but may be displaced onto
other people or objects if the disturbing agent cannot be attacked (see displaced aggression). In
the classical psychoanalytic theory of Sigmund Freud, the aggressive impulse is innate and
derived from the death instinct, but many non-Freudian psychoanalysts and most non-
psychoanalytically oriented psychologists view it as socially learned or as a reaction to frustration.

Social psychologists define aggression as behavior that is intended to harm another

individual who does not wish to be harmed. Because it involves the perception of intent, what
looks like aggression from one point of view may not look that way from another, and the same
harmful behavior may or may not be aggressive depending on its intent. They also agree that
aggression can be verbal as well as physical. Therefore, slinging insults at a boyfriend is
definitely, according to our definition, aggressive, just as hitting someone is. Physical
aggression is aggression that involves harming others physically—for instance hitting, kicking,
stabbing, or shooting them.  Nonphysical aggression is aggression that does not involve physical
harm. Nonphysical aggression includes verbal aggression (yelling, screaming, swearing, and
name calling) and relational  or social aggression, which is defined as intentionally harming
another person’s social relationships, for instance by gossiping about another person, excluding
others from our friendship, or giving others the “silent treatment”. Nonverbal aggression also
occurs in the form of sexual, racial, and homophobic jokes and epithets, which are designed to
cause harm to individuals. Recently, there has been an increase in school bullying
through cyberbullying considered as aggression inflicted through the use of computers, cell
phones, and other electronic devices.
 3

Cyberaggression

The term cyberaggression is characteristically used to refer to actions that are

intentionally hurtful, offensive, or harmful to any individual or institutions using electronic
communication devices. (Corcoran, McGuckin, & Prentice, 2015) Variations of online
harassment among youth and adults using electronic devices and internet have received
increased attention by researchers in recent years. Cyber aggression is one of them, and has
been empirically linked to multiple maladaptive emotional, psychological, and behavioral
outcomes (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Nowadays, adolescents spend huge time on the internet,
(cited by Rahman, 2020) which may increase the risk of cyberbullying (CB), defined as an
aggressive, intentional act carried out by electronic forms, repeatedly and over time, against a
victim who cannot defend him/herself. Cyber aggression incorporates a variety of intentionally
harmful behaviors like spreading rumors, sending offensive messages, hacking someone’s online
accounts, and impersonating someone else to get others to dislike this person. With the
advancement of technology cyber aggression is increasing day by day. Adolescents are being
victimized mostly because of unawareness about its impact.

Features of cyberbullying

Cyberbullying, or electronic aggression, is unwanted behavior by a student or group of

students that occurs through email, chat rooms, instant message, websites or social media. Like
in-person bullying, cyberbullying presents a serious risk to the psychological, physical and social
safety of students. Research shows that educators, parents and other adults in the community
can help prevent bullying by learning about the harm it can cause, teaching students how to
respond to bullying incidents and creating a school-wide bullying prevention strategy.

Definitions of cyberbullying are varied across studies, although there seems to be some
consensus on at least four criteria including that: 1) the cyberbully has intentions to harm the
victim; 2) a power imbalance exists between the bully and the victim; 3) the aggression by the
bully is usually repeated; and 4) the cyberbully uses electronic devices including mobile phones
and computers to send the harmful communications (Garett, Lord,& Young, 2016). Cyberbullying
has been more loosely defined by others as “deliberately threatening, harassing, intimidating or
ridiculing an individual; placing an individual in reasonable fear of harm; posting sensitive, private
information about another person without his/ her permission; breaking into another person’s
account and/or assuming another individual’s identity in order to damage that person’s reputation
or friendships” (Remond, Kern & Romo, 2015). Cyberbullying is also described as an
interpersonal, aggressive, repeated behavior whose purpose is harming a victim by means of
information and communication technologies and is associated with some psychological, social,
educational, health and family problems that extend to those involved in the phenomena. (Peled,
2019).
 4

Effects of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying effects have included suicidal ideation and attempts, psychiatric symptoms
including depression and anxiety, substance abuse, internalizing and externalizing behavior,
somatic symptoms and frustration at finding solutions. These varied as a function of bullies
versus victims, gender and age group and measures used. A few studies have reported
depression and suicidality among adolescents. In one study, data from the CDC Youth Risk
Behavior Survey on 15,425 high school students revealed that 15% of those cyberbullied
reported making a suicide attempt compared to 5% of those not cyberbullied. In a meta-
analysis, cyber victims were at a greater risk of self–harm and suicidal behaviors than non-victims
(John et.al., 2018)

Cyberbullies were also at greater risk of suicidal ideation and behavior than non-cyber
bullies but to a lesser extent than the cyber victims. The study of Extremera, Quintana-Ortis,
Merida-Lopez & Rey (2018) revealed that suicidal ideation was buffered by emotional
intelligence. In the study involving a sample of 1,660 Spanish adolescents, findings showed that
cyberbullies who had high emotional intelligence scores had both less suicidal ideation and
greater self-esteem than those with lower emotional intelligence scores. Psychiatric symptoms
have also been noted in high school students who have been involved in cyberbullying. For
example, in a study on 1276 Turkish students, high scores on bullying and victimization were
significantly related to higher depression, anxiety, somatization and hostility and lower self-
esteem scores. (Tural & Ercan, 2017)

In a longitudinal study on 2480 teenagers in the UK, 14% reported being cybervictims,
8% reported being cyberbullies and 20% reported being cyberbullies and victims. (Fahy et.al.,
2016) Cybervictims and cyberbullies were significantly more likely to report symptoms of social
anxiety and depression than non-involved adolescents. In a scoping review of 36 social media
studies, the median prevalence of cyberbullying was 23%. Meta-analysis was not conducted due
to heterogeneity of the studies’ methods and outcomes. Cyberbullying was significantly
associated with depression due most commonly to relationship issues. Students reported that
they had no confidence that anything could be done to solve the cyberbullying problem.
Externalizing and internalizing symptoms have also been reported. (Waasdorp & Bradshaw,
2015)
 5

Cyberbullying effects have also varied by gender. The study of Kim and others in 2018
which involved a sample of 31,148 students in grades 6-12 and utilized structural equation
analyses yielded cyberbullying as a significant predictor of emotional problems for females and
behavioral problems for males. This association is not surprising as male students more often
report cyberbullying, and cyberbullying has been more frequently associated with behavioral
problems like aggression and delinquent behavior. Age level and status can also affect the impact
of cyberbullying. For example, in one of the few studies that assessed adult cyberbullying,
university faculty and students were sampled ( Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2017). In this
study, students were cyberbullied by other students but faculty were cyberbullied by both
students and fellow faculty. Both groups expressed frustration about not “finding solutions” and
both groups experienced mental and physical health effects, although faculty felt a greater impact
on their professional lives. Cyberbullying among adults has rarely been studied although it has
anecdotally occurred on online dating sites, for example, in the form of harassment and stolen
identities. Risk factors/predictors of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying Predictors or Risk Factors

Recent literature on predictors or risk factors for cyberbullying is inconclusive. The risk
variables that have been studied include gender, being a member of a minority group, previous
cyberbullying behavior, child sexual abuse, excessive Internet use, exposure to online violence,
angry emotions, aggressiveness, social anxiety, narcissism, lack of empathy and authoritarian or
permissive parenting. Gender and being a member of a minority group have been significant
predictors of cyberbullying. In one of the only studies on cyberbullying in grade school children
(N=1278), the predictors for bullying, victimization and bully/victims included gender, self-esteem,
social adjustment and disruptiveness (Garcia, Romera, Ortega, 2015).

Previous history of cyberbullying and child sexual abuse have, not surprisingly, predicted
cyberbullying. A 2015 study of Garett which involved 96 adolescents from the U.S. completed
measures of cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors four times across the school year. Logistic
regressions showed that cyberbullying attitudes and previous cyberbullying were unique risk
factors for later cyberbullying behavior. In a Canadian study, 8194 adolescents completed
measures on child sexual abuse and maternal support, and six months later they were assessed
for cyberbullying, traditional bullying and mental health variables (self-esteem, psychological
distress and suicidal ideation. (Hebert et.al. , 2016). Cyberbullying rates were twice as high in
sexually abused adolescents. In a mediator model, cyberbullying and bullying were mediators
between child sexual abuse and mental health variables. Cyberbullying rates were lower among
those adolescents who received greater maternal support. Excessive internet use has, not
surprisingly, contributed to cyberbullying in several studies. In a Taiwanese study of Chao and Yu
in 2017 participated by 13,864 students from 150 high schools, a structural equations analysis
 6

revealed Internet use during the timeframe 10 am to 3pm as the most significant predictor of
cyberbullying behavior, suggesting that cyberbullying occurred most frequently during school
hours

In a longitudinal study, 888 adolescents completed self – report measures at two times
Problematic Internet use at time one predicted increased cyberbullying six months later at time
two. Although impulsivity and– irresponsibility were also assessed, they were not significant
predictors. Social media, game time, antisocial media and meeting strangers are predictors of
excessive internet use and cyberbullying. (Gamez-Guadix, Borrajo, Almendros, 2016)

Another study involving 5,590 Greek students of 30 middle and 21 high schools looked
into Internet addiction along with information on cyberbullying experience. (Tsimtsiou, Z, et. al.,
2017) Findings revealed that cyberbullying was associated with Internet addiction, and the hours
spent online on a mobile phone was a major factor. The victims were more likely to be older,
female Facebook and chat room users while the bullies were more likely to be older, male
Internet users and fans of pornographic Lack of empathy and callous behavior as well as covert
narcissism could be grouped as uncaring behaviors that have been associated with cyberbullying.
In one of the quasi-experimental dyadic interaction paradigms, the lack of emotional congruence
was found to be a predictor of cyberbullying behavior Emotional congruence was defined as the
match of the target’s and perceiver’s self-reported emotions and was the only significant predictor
in a multiple regression analysis on cyberbullying. Emotion-related personality traits including
callousness and uncaring behavior have been explored along with perceived popularity and
cyberbullying in 529 preadolescents from an Italian middle school.

Protective Factors Against Cyberbullying

Several factors have been considered as protective against cyberbullying. These include
personality variables like resilience, self-confidence, decision-making skills, conflict resolution
skills, and communication style. Social relationships and self-disclosure have also been notable
ways to cope with cyberbullying. Behaviors like blocking the sender and not using avoidance
coping strategies have also ameliorated negative effects of cyberbullying. Social support
variables have included parental monitoring, parental mediation and family dinners. Individual
personality variables have received the most attention. These are revealed in a number of
studies.

In a study on a national sample of 1204 U.S. adolescents, resilience was shown to be a

potent protective factor (Hinduja and Patchin, 2017). Like so many other studies, however, this
variable was the focus of the study without it being assessed in the context of other potentially
protective variables. When the Delphi method was used in another study, 20 experts were first
asked to list relevant protective factors and then 70 experts scored these protective factors. The
 7

primary protective variables included adjustment upon feedback, self-confidence, communication

style, personality, decision-making skills, conflict resolution skills, personal resilience training,
social relationships and self-disclosure. Impulsivity and rumors were considered negative factors.
Simply blocking the sender was noted as the most effective coping strategy in a sample of 282
university students (Orel et.al., 2015)

Furthermore, avoidance coping strategies had notably negative effects in a sample of

121 cyberbullied victims Family variables have also been researched including parental
monitoring and mediation. In a study on individual, family and neighborhood characteristics of
cyberbullying, parental monitoring was noted to moderate the effects of the bullies’ impulsivity
and their experience of neighborhood violence (Na and Park, 2015; Khoury-Kassabri, Mishna,
Massarwi, 2016).

In another study of Chang and others (2015) on 1808 junior high school students,
parental restrictive mediation was associated with less cyberbullying as well as less internet
addiction. Cyberbullying and internet addiction appear to be inter-related in most of the
cyberbullying research. Although cyberbullies are typically internet addicted, it is not clear that
internet addiction leads to cyberbullying, Restrictive mediation, but not active mediation, was
predictive of cyberbullying in both genders in a study using longitudinal growth models. Family
dinners were noted to be effective in at least one study. Cyberbullying was related to
internalizing, externalizing and substance use problems but was more closely related to problems
in adolescents who had fewer family dinners.

Synthesis

The literatures presented considered cyberbullying as aggression inflicted through the

use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. The term cyberaggression is
characteristically used to refer to actions that are intentionally hurtful, offensive, or harmful to any
individual or institutions using electronic communication devices. (Corcoran, McGuckin, &
Prentice, 2015) and has been empirically linked to multiple maladaptive emotional, psychological,
and behavioral outcomes (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). There is some consensus that there are at
least four criteria: 1) the cyberbully has intentions to harm the victim; 2) a power imbalance exists
between the bully and the victim; 3) the aggression by the bully is usually repeated; and 4) the
cyberbully uses electronic devices including mobile phones and computers to send the harmful
communications (Garett, Lord,& Young, 2016).

Cyberbullying effects have included suicidal ideation and attempts, psychiatric symptoms
including depression and anxiety, substance abuse, internalizing and externalizing behavior,
somatic symptoms and frustration at finding solutions. Cyberbullies were also at greater risk of
 8

suicidal ideation and behavior than non-cyber bullies but to a lesser extent than the cyber victims,
and suicidal ideation was buffered by emotional intelligence.(Extremera, Quintana-Ortis, Merida-
Lopez & Rey, 2018) Psychiatric symptoms have also been noted in high school students who
have been involved in cyberbullying with studies revealing that bullying and victimization were
significantly related to depression, anxiety, somatization and hostility and lower self-esteem
scores. (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015;Tural & Ercan, 2017)

Literature on predictors or risk factors for cyberbullying is inconclusive. The risk variables
included gender, minority group membership, previous cyberbullying behavior, child sexual
abuse, excessive Internet use, exposure to online violence, angry emotions, aggressiveness,
social anxiety, narcissism, lack of empathy and authoritarian or permissive parenting. (Garcia,
Romera, Ortega, 2015; . Hebert et.al. , 2016; Gamez-Guadix, Borrajo, Almendros, 2016;
Tsimtsiou, Z, et. al., 2017 ).

A number of variables were found to be protective factors against cyberbullying. These

include personality traits like resilience, self-confidence, decision-making skills, conflict resolution
skills, and communication style. Social relationships and self-disclosure have also been notable
ways to cope with cyberbullying. Behaviors like blocking the sender and not using avoidance
coping strategies have also ameliorated negative effects of cyberbullying. Social support
variables have included parental monitoring, parental mediation and family dinners. Individual
personality variables have received the most attention. These are revealed in a number of studies
(Hinduja and Patchin, 2017; Orel et.al., 2015; Na and Park, 2015; Khoury-Kassabri, Mishna,
Massarwi, 2016; Chang et.al., 2015).
 9

References

Barlett, C. (2015). Predicting adolescent’s cyberbullying behavior: A longitudinal risk analysis.

Journal of Adolescence Psyhcology; 41: 86-95.

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., Jackson, M. (2017) Adversity in University: Cyberbullying and its
impacts on students, faculty and administrators. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 14: 888.

Chang, F. et al. (2015). The relationship between parental mediation and internet addiction
among adolescents, and the association with cyberbullying and depression.
Comprehensive Psychiatry.57: 21-28. Retrieved from : https://tinyurl.com/y9togm52

Chatzakou, D. e.al. (2019). Detecting Cyberbullying and Cyberaggression in Social Media. ACM
Transactions on the Web. Volume 13 No. 3. Article No.: 17 pp 1–51. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1145/3343484

Corcoran, L., Mc Guckin, C., & Prentice, G. (2015). Cyberbullying or cyber aggression? A review
of existing definitions of cyber-based peer-to-peer aggression. Societies, 5, 245–255.
https://doi. org/10.3390/soc5020245

Extremera, N., Quintana-Ortis, C., Merida-Lopez S., Rey L. (2018) Cyberbullying victimization,
self-esteem and ideation in adolescence: Does emotional intelligence play a buffering
role? Front Psychology.

Fahy, A., Stanfeld, S., Smuk, M., Smith, N., Cummins, S, et al. (2016). Longitudinal associations
between cyberbullying involvement and adolescent mental health. J Adolescence Health.
59: 502-509. Retrieved from .: https://tinyurl.com/ybjenjky

Gamez-Guadix, M., Borrajo, E., Almendros, C. (2016). Risky online behaviors among
adolescents: Longitudinal relations among problematic internet use, cyberbullying
perpetration and meeting strangers online. J Behavioral Addiction. 5: 100-107

Garcia, C, Romera, F. and Ortega, R. (2015) Explicative factors of face-to-face harassment and
cyberbullying in a sample of primary students. Psicothema. 27: 347-353

Garett, R. Lord, L., Young, S. (2016). Associations between social media and cyberbullying: A
review of the literature. M health; 2: 46. Ref.: https://tinyurl.com/y9mpvn4p

Hinduja, S., Patchin, J. (2017). Cultivating youth resilience to prevent bullying and cyberbullying
victimization. Child Abuse; 73: 51-62
 10

Hebert, M., Cenat, J., Blais, M., Lavoie, F., Guerrier, M. (2016). Child sexual abuse, bullying,
cyberbullying, and metal health problems among high school students: A moderated
mediated model. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2016; 33: 623-629

Hyland J.M., Hyland P.K., Corcoran L. (2018) Cyber Aggression and Cyberbullying: Widening
the Net. In: Jahankhani H. (eds) Cyber Criminology. Advanced Sciences and
Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham.

John, A., Glendenning, A., Marchant, A, Montgomery, P., Stewart, A., et al. (2018). Self-harm,
suicidal behaviors, and cyberbullying in children and young people: Systematic review. J
Med Internet Res.; 20: e129. Retrieved from : https://tinyurl.com/y7a4vgfo

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Mishna, F., Massarwi, A. (2016). Cyberbullying perpetration by Arab

youth: The direct and interactive role of individual, family, and neighborhood
characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Vol. 2 No. 2

Kim, S., Colwell, S., Kata, A., Boyle, M., Georgiades, K. (2018). Cyberbullying victimization and
adolescent mental health: Evidence of differential effects by sex and mental health
problem type. J Youth Adolescence. 2018; 47: 661-672.

Mardianto, et.al. (2017). Understanding Cyber Aggression in Social Media Users with the Social
Psychology Paradigm. Retrieved from https://www.series.gci.or.id/article/387/17/pstrs

Na, H., Dancy, B., Park, C. (2015). College student engaging in cyberbullying victimization:
Cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and psychological adjustments. Psychiatric
Nursing.; 29: 155-161. Retrieved from.: https://tinyurl.com/ydxgqz8q

Orel, A, Campbell, M, Wozencroft, K., Leong, E., Kimpton, M. (2015) Exploring university
students’ coping strategy intentions for cyberbullying. J Interpers Violence. 2015. Retrieved
from.: https://tinyurl.com/y7dev6s8

Peled Y.(2019). Cyberbullying and its influence on academic, social, and emotional
development of undergraduate students. Heliyon. 2019;5: e01393. pmid:30963126

Rahman, J. et.al. (2020) Effect of Cyber Aggression on Cyber Victimization among High School
Children: Parental Rejection as a Predictor. International Journal of the Asia Pacific School
Psychology Jan 2020, Vol. 01, No. 2, 185-191

Remond, J., Kern L, Romo, L. (2015) . A cyberbullying study: Analysis of cyberbullying,

comorbidities and coping mechanisms. Encephale; 41: 287-294. Retrieved from.:
https://tinyurl.com/yanzfqxf

Tsimtsiou, Z, et. al. (2017) Pathological internet use, cyberbullying and mobile phone use in
adolescence: A school-based study in Greece. International Journal of Adolescent
Medicine and Health.

Tural, S., Ercan, F. (2017). Traditional and cyberbullying co-occurrence and its relationship to
psychiatric symptoms. Pediatrics International; 59: 16-22.

Vismara MFM, Toaff J, Pulvirenti G, Settanni C, Colao E, et al. (2017) Internet use and access,
behavior, cyberbullying, and grooming: Results of an investigative whole city survey of
adolescents. Interactive Journal Med Res.; 6: e9. Retrieved from .:
 11

https://tinyurl.com/y72wztjw