Normative beliefs about aggression and cyber aggression among young adults: A longitudinal investigation
Abstract
This longitudinal study examined normative beliefs about aggression (e.g., face-to-face, cyber) in relation to the engagement in cyber aggression 6 months later among 126 (69 women) young adults. Participants completed electronically administered measures assessing their normative beliefs, face-to-face and cyber aggression at Time 1, and cyber aggression 6 months later (Time 2). We found that men reported more cyber relational and verbal aggression when compared to women. After controlling for each other, Time 1 face-to-face relational aggression was positively related to Time 2 cyber relational aggression, whereas Time 1 face-to-face verbal aggression was positively related to Time 2 cyber verbal aggression. Normative beliefs regarding cyber aggression was positively related to both forms of cyber aggression 6 months later, after controlling for normative beliefs about face-to-face aggression. Furthermore, a significant two-way interaction between Time 1 cyber relational aggression and normative beliefs about cyber relational aggression was found. Follow-up analysis showed that Time 1 cyber relational aggression was more strongly related to Time 2 cyber relational aggression when young adults held higher normative beliefs about cyber relational aggression. A similar two-way interaction was found for cyber verbal aggression such that the association between Time 1 and Time 2 cyber verbal aggression was stronger at higher levels of normative beliefs about cyber verbal aggression. Results are discussed in terms of the social cognitive and behavioral mechanisms associated with the engagement of cyber aggression.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals who hold stronger views around the acceptability of cyberaggression were also more likely to engage in cyberaggression perpetration.
“Furthermore, individuals who hold stronger views around the acceptability of cyberaggression were also more likely to engage in cyberaggression perpetration (113–115).”
From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [115]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 117
- Authors
- Wright, M. F., & Li, Y.
- Affiliations
- DePaul University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wright, Michelle F.
- Li, Yan
- Venue
- Aggressive Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-02-25
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 161-170
- ISSN
- 0096-140X (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2337
- OpenAlex
- W1637082990
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 11.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Aggressive Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- online aggression, normative beliefs, relational aggression, verbal aggression, young adults, gender differences, behavioral mechanisms
- MeSH terms
- Aggression, Culture, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Internet, Electronic Mail, Young Adult, Bullying, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review