Family Emotional Expressiveness and Adolescents' Cyberbullying Bystanders: The Mediating Role of Empathy.

Hanfang Zhou, Qingyin Li, Zhijun Liu, Keman Li, Xiaomin Geng, Xiaoyi Fang
Author Information
  1. Hanfang Zhou: Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
  2. Qingyin Li: Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
  3. Zhijun Liu: School of Education, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, People's Republic of China.
  4. Keman Li: Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
  5. Xiaomin Geng: State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
  6. Xiaoyi Fang: Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.

Abstract

Background: The significant influence of family emotional expressiveness (FEE) on adolescents' face-to-face social interactions is well-established. However, there has been limited investigation into potential links between FEE and adolescents' online social behaviors, especially cyberbullying bystander behaviors, which are pivotal in cyberbullying incidents. This study aimed to assess the relative importance of different aspects of FEE (positive FEE vs. negative FEE vs. the Positive-to-Negative ratio) in predicting adolescents' cyberbullying bystander behaviors, and the mediating roles of affective and cognitive empathy in these relationships.
Methods: A sample of 1,952 adolescents ( = 14.18, = 1.33) completed questionnaires, including the Family Emotional Expressiveness Questionnaire, Basic Empathy Scale, and Cyberbullying Bystander Behavior Scale. SPSS 26.0 and M 8.3 were used for analysis.
Results: (1) Positive FEE exhibited a positive association with protective behavior and a negative association with indifferent behavior. Conversely, negative FEE showed positive associations with reinforcing and indifferent behaviors. However, the Positive-to-Negative ratio did not exhibit significant associations with any of the three bystander behaviors. (2) Negative FEE emerged as relatively more significant than both positive FEE and the Positive-to-Negative ratio in predicting reinforcing and indifferent behaviors. (3) Affective empathy mediated the relationship between positive FEE and reinforcing behavior, while cognitive empathy mediated the relationship between positive FEE and protective and indifferent behaviors. Moreover, cognitive empathy exerted a more influential role than affective empathy in this mediation process.
Conclusion: Various aspects of FEE demonstrated distinct relationships with three cyberbullying bystander behaviors, with affective and cognitive empathy playing an important mediating role in the association. This finding holds substantial implications for the development of cyberbullying prevention strategies. Such strategies could target the reduction of negative emotional expression within adolescent families and the cultivation of both cognitive and affective empathy.

Keywords

References

  1. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2015 Apr;18(4):241-4 [PMID: 25802977]
  2. J Adolesc. 2011 Feb;34(1):59-71 [PMID: 20202677]
  3. Am Psychol. 2005 Oct;60(7):678-86 [PMID: 16221001]
  4. Dev Psychol. 2017 May;53(5):873-932 [PMID: 28459276]
  5. J Interpers Violence. 2021 Sep;36(17-18):NP9272-NP9298 [PMID: 31200608]
  6. Psychol Bull. 2003 Jan;129(1):10-51 [PMID: 12555793]
  7. Dev Psychol. 2023 Jan;59(1):69-83 [PMID: 36074588]
  8. Aggress Behav. 2012 Mar-Apr;38(2):150-65 [PMID: 25363639]
  9. J Appl Psychol. 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903 [PMID: 14516251]
  10. J Exp Child Psychol. 2017 Jun;158:32-45 [PMID: 28189885]
  11. Aggress Behav. 2014 Sep-Oct;40(5):383-96 [PMID: 24838667]
  12. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 26;17(17): [PMID: 32859073]
  13. Dev Psychol. 2020 Mar;56(3):403-417 [PMID: 32077713]
  14. Behav Modif. 1997 Oct;21(4):470-86 [PMID: 9337602]
  15. Psychol Inq. 1998;9(4):241-273 [PMID: 16865170]
  16. J Affect Disord. 2020 Aug 1;273:274-279 [PMID: 32421613]
  17. Aging Ment Health. 2011 Sep;15(7):882-93 [PMID: 21562989]
  18. Dev Psychol. 2016 Jan;52(1):88-101 [PMID: 26524382]
  19. Child Dev. 2012 Jul-Aug;83(4):1213-28 [PMID: 22497273]
  20. J Adolesc. 2006 Aug;29(4):589-611 [PMID: 16198409]
  21. Front Psychol. 2018 May 30;9:799 [PMID: 29899715]
  22. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021 Jul;121(1):115-136 [PMID: 33492155]
  23. J Youth Adolesc. 2021 Jul;50(7):1308-1318 [PMID: 33991274]
  24. Am Psychol. 2013 Dec;68(9):814-22 [PMID: 23855895]
  25. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018 Oct;174:29-40 [PMID: 29886340]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0FEEbehaviorsempathycyberbullyingpositivebystandercognitivenegativeratioaffectiveindifferentsignificantemotionaladolescents'Positive-to-Negative1associationbehaviorreinforcingfamilyexpressivenesssocialHoweveraspectsvspredictingmediatingrelationships=FamilyEmotionalExpressivenessEmpathyScaleCyberbullying3protectiveassociationsthreemediatedrelationshiprolestrategiesadolescentBackground:influenceface-to-faceinteractionswell-establishedlimitedinvestigationpotentiallinksonlineespeciallypivotalincidentsstudyaimedassessrelativeimportancedifferentrolesMethods:sample952adolescents141833completedquestionnairesincludingQuestionnaireBasicBystanderBehaviorSPSS260M8usedanalysisResults:PositiveexhibitedConverselyshowedexhibit2NegativeemergedrelativelyAffectiveMoreoverexertedinfluentialmediationprocessConclusion:VariousdemonstrateddistinctplayingimportantfindingholdssubstantialimplicationsdevelopmentpreventiontargetreductionexpressionwithinfamiliescultivationAdolescents'Bystanders:MediatingRolepositive-to-negative

Similar Articles

Cited By