CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Testing a first online intervention to reduce conformity to cyber aggression in messaging apps

Bleize, Daniëlle N. M., Anschütz, Doeschka J., Tanis, Martin, Buijzen, Moniek·2022·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0272615PMC PMC9362912
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Early adolescents frequently use mobile messaging apps to communicate with peers. The popularity of such messaging apps has a critical drawback because it increases conformity to cyber aggression. Cyber aggression includes aggressive peer behaviors such as nasty comments, nonconsensual image sharing, and social exclusion, to which adolescents subsequently conform. Recent empirical research points to peer group norms and reduced accountability as two essential determinants of conformity to cyber aggression. Therefore, the current study aimed to counteract these two determinants in a 2 (peer group norms counteracted: yes, no) x 2 (reduced accountability counteracted: yes, no) design. We created four intervention conditions that addressed adolescents’ deficits in information, motivation, and behavioral skills. Depending on the condition (peer group norms, reduced accountability, combination, or control), we first informed participants about the influence of the relevant determinant (e.g., peer group norms). Subsequently, participants performed a self-persuasion task and formulated implementation-intentions to increase their motivation and behavioral skills not to conform to cyber aggression. Effectiveness was tested with a messaging app paradigm and self-report among a sample of 377 adolescents (Mage= 12.99,SDage= 0.84; 53.6% boys). Factorial ANCOVAs revealed that none of the intervention conditions reduced conformity to cyber aggression. Moreover, individual differences in susceptibility to peer pressure or inhibitory control among adolescents did not moderate the expected relations. Therefore, there is no evidence that our intervention effectively reduces conformity to cyber aggression. The findings from this first intervention effort point to the complex relationship between theory and practice. Our findings warrant future research to develop potential intervention tools that could effectively reduce conformity to cyber aggression.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0272615

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Study procedure.
Fig 1 Study procedure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Means for the outcome variables per condition (Error bars representing standard deviations).
Fig 2 Means for the outcome variables per condition (Error bars representing standard deviations).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. II van Driel, 2019, Posten, scrollen, appen en snappen: Jongeren (14–15 jaar) en social media in 2019
  2. D. Aizenkot, 2020, Cyberbullying experiences in classmates‘ WhatsApp discourse, across public and private contexts., Child Youth Serv Rev, 110, 104814, 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104814 · DOI
  3. D Aizenkot, 2018, Cyberbullying in WhatsApp classmates’ groups: Evaluation of an intervention program implemented in Israeli elementary and middle schools., New Media Soc., 20, 4709, 10.1177/1461444818782702 · DOI
  4. S Hinduja, 2019, 2019 Cyberbullying data
  5. V Piccoli, 2020, Cyberbullying through the lens of social influence: Predicting cyberbullying perpetration from perceived peer-norm, cyberspace regulations and ingroup processes., Comput Human Behav, 102, 260, 10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
  6. R. Cohen-Almagor, 2018, Social responsibility on the internet: Addressing the challenge of cyberbullying, Aggress Violent Behav, 39, 42, 10.1016/j.avb.2018.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  7. K Runions, 2015, Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression., Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw., 18, 400, 10.1089/cyber.2014.0670 · DOI · Paper page
  8. K Runions, 2016, Cyber aggression., 10.1007/978-3-319-32132-5_780-1 · DOI
  9. R Ling, 2016, Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps., J Commun., 66, 834, 10.1111/jcom.12251 · DOI
  10. JH Gardella, 2017, A systematic review and meta-analysis of cyber-victimization and educational outcomes for adolescents., Rev Educ Res, 87, 283, 10.3102/0034654316689136 · DOI · Paper page
  11. S Skilbred-Fjeld, 2020, Cyberbullying involvement and mental health problems among late adolescents., Cyberpsychology., 14, 10.5817/CP2020-1-5 · DOI
  12. GW Giumetti, 2022, Cyberbullying via social media and well-being., Curr Opin Psychol, 45, 101314, 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101314 · DOI · Paper page
  13. HTL Nguyen, 2020, Relationships among cyberbullying, parental attitudes, self-harm and suicidal behavior among adolescents: Results from a school-based survey in Vietnam., BMC Public Health, 20, 1
  14. J Bryce, 2013, “It’s common sense that it’s wrong”: Young people’s perceptions and experiences of cyberbullying., Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 16, 783, 10.1089/cyber.2012.0275 · DOI
  15. RB Cialdini, 2004, Social influence: Compliance and conformity., Annu Rev Psychol, 55, 591, 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 · DOI · Paper page
  16. WA Brechwald, 2011, Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes., J Res Adolesc, 21, 166, 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x · DOI
  17. T Olthof, 2008, Bullying and the need to belong: Early adolescents’ bullying-related behavior and the acceptance they desire and receive from particular classmates., Soc Dev., 17, 24, 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00413.x · DOI
  18. M Tarrant, 2006, Friendship group identification, multidimensional self-concept, and experience of developmental tasks in adolescence., J Adolesc, 29, 627, 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.012 · DOI
  19. L Steinberg, 2007, Age differences in resistance to peer influence., Dev Psychol, 43, 1531, 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531 · DOI
  20. D Wegge, 2016, Popularity through online harm: The longitudinal associations between cyberbullying and sociometric status in early adolescence., J Early Adolesc, 36, 86, 10.1177/0272431614556351 · DOI
  21. OL Steer, 2020, “I feel like everyone does it”- adolescents’ perceptions and awareness of the association between humour, banter, and cyberbullying., Comput Human Behav, 108, 106297, 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106297 · DOI
  22. M Huizinga, 2011, Age-related changes in executive function: A normative study with the dutch version of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)., Child Neuropsychol, 17, 51, 10.1080/09297049.2010.509715 · DOI
  23. S Erreygers, 2016, Helping behavior among adolescent bystanders of cyberbullying: The role of impulsivity., Learn Individ Differ., 48, 61, 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.03.003 · DOI
  24. P Valkenburg, 2017, Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth., 10.12987/yale/9780300218879.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  25. M Naezer, 2021, Only sluts love sexting: Youth, sexual norms and non-consensual sharing of digital sexual images., J Gend Stud, 30, 79, 10.1080/09589236.2020.1799767 · DOI · Paper page
  26. D Cross, 2016, Longitudinal impact of the Cyber Friendly Schools program on adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior., Aggress Behav, 42, 166, 10.1002/ab.21609 · DOI
  27. D Aizenkot, 2020, The effectiveness of safe surfing intervention program in reducing WhatsApp cyberbullying and improving classroom climate and student sense of class belonging in elementary school., J Early Adolesc, 41, 550, 10.1177/0272431620931203 · DOI
  28. JD Fisher, 1992, Changing AIDS-risk behavior., Psychol Bull., 111, 455, 10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.455 · DOI · Paper page
  29. WA Fisher, 2009, The Information‐Motivation‐Behavioral Skills Model: A general social psychological approach to understanding and promoting health behavior, 82
  30. AL Duffy, 2009, Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior., Soc Dev, 18, 121, 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00484.x · DOI
  31. S Bastiaensens, 2016, From normative influence to social pressure: How relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying., Soc Dev, 25, 193, 10.1111/sode.12134 · DOI · Paper page
  32. B Laursen, 2021, Toward understanding the functions of peer influence: A summary and synthesis of recent empirical research., J Res Adolesc, 31, 889, 10.1111/jora.12606 · DOI
  33. M Giletta, 2021, A meta-analysis of longitudinal peer influence effects in childhood and adolescence., Psychol Bull., 147, 719, 10.1037/bul0000329 · DOI
  34. SR Sumter, 2008, The developmental pattern of resistance to peer influence in adolescence: Will the teenager ever be able to resist?, J Adolesc., 32, 1009, 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.010 · DOI
  35. S Bastiaensens, 2014, Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully., Comput Human Behav., 31, 259, 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.036 · DOI
  36. I Oh, 2009, Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying., Sch Psychol Int, 30, 291, 10.1177/0143034309106499 · DOI
  37. D Cross, 2015, A social–ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviours., Aggress Violent Behav, 23, 109, 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.016 · DOI
  38. KL Mason, 2008, Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel., Psychol Sch, 45, 323, 10.1002/pits.20301 · DOI
  39. L McGuire, 2015, Peer group norms and accountability moderate the effect of school norms on children’s intergroup attitudes., Child Dev, 86, 1290, 10.1111/cdev.12388 · DOI
  40. K Rudnicki, 2022, Systematic review of determinants and consequences of bystander interventions in online hate and cyberbullying among adults., Behav Inf Technol., 1, 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2027013 · DOI
  41. DNM Bleize, 2021, The effects of group centrality and accountability on conformity to cyber aggressive norms on WhatsApp: Two messaging app experiments., Comput Human Behav, 120, 106754, 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106754 · DOI
  42. M Popovac, 2018, An intervention using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model: Tackling cyberaggression and cyberbullying in South African adolescents, 225
  43. E. Aronson, 1999, The power of self-persuasion., Am Psychol, 54, 875, 10.1037/h0088188 · DOI
  44. P Briñol, 2012, Self-generated persuasion: Effects of the target and direction of arguments., J Pers Soc Psychol, 102, 925, 10.1037/a0027231 · DOI
  45. PM Gollwitzer, 1999, Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans., Am Psychol, 54, 493, 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493 · DOI · Paper page
  46. AL Duckworth, 2011, Self-regulation strategies improve self-discipline in adolescents: Benefits of mental contrasting and implementation intentions., Educ Psychol., 31, 17, 10.1080/01443410.2010.506003 · DOI
  47. ER Mutter, 2019, An online randomised controlled trial of mental contrasting with implementation intentions as a smoking behaviour change intervention, Psychol Heal, 35, 318, 10.1080/08870446.2019.1634200 · DOI
  48. BB Brown, 1986, Early adolescents’ perceptions of peer pressure., J Early Adolesc, 6, 139, 10.1177/0272431686062005 · DOI
  49. M Koutamanis, 2015, Adolescents’ comments in social media: Why do adolescents receive negative feedback and who is most at risk?, Comput Human Behav, 53, 486, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.016 · DOI
  50. A DeSmet, 2018, The efficacy of the Friendly Attac serious digital game to promote prosocial bystander behavior in cyberbullying among young adolescents: A cluster-randomized controlled trial., Comput Human Behav, 78, 336, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.011 · DOI
  51. AG Greenwald, 1968, Acceptance and recall of improvised arguments., J Pers Soc Psychol, 8, 31, 10.1037/h0021237 · DOI
  52. T Mussweiler, 2000, Sources of mental contamination: Comparing the effects of self-generated versus externally provided primes., J Exp Soc Psychol, 36, 194, 10.1006/jesp.1999.1415 · DOI
  53. JGB Loman, 2018, Self-persuasion on facebook increases alcohol risk perception, Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw., 21, 672, 10.1089/cyber.2018.0235 · DOI
  54. S Wittleder, 2019, Mental contrasting with implementation intentions reduces drinking when drinking is hazardous: An online self-regulation intervention., Heal Educ Behav, 46, 666, 10.1177/1090198119826284 · DOI · Paper page
  55. D Álvarez-García, 2017, Validation of the Cybervictimization Questionnaire (CYVIC) for adolescents., Comput Human Behav., 70, 270, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.007 · DOI
  56. D Santor, 2000, Measuring peer pressure, popularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school performance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse., J Youth Adolesc, 29, 163, 10.1023/A:1005152515264 · DOI · Paper page
  57. GA Gioia, 2000, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
  58. RM Ryan, 2017, Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness., 10.1521/978.14625/28806 · DOI · Paper page
  59. R Schwarzer, 2013, Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience, 139
  60. M Walrave, 2011, Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and perpetration., Child Soc, 25, 59, 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00260.x · DOI
  61. CR Müller, 2018, Does media use lead to cyberbullying or vice versa? Testing longitudinal associations using a latent cross-lagged panel design., Comput Human Behav, 81, 93, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.007 · DOI
  62. RM Kowalski, 2014, Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth., Psychol Bull., 140, 1073, 10.1037/a0035618 · DOI · Paper page
  63. A Field, 2012, Discovering Statistics Using R
  64. R Slonje, 2013, The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention., Comput Human Behav., 29, 26, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024 · DOI · Paper page
  65. A Schnauber-Stockmann, 2019, The process of forming a mobile media habit: Results of a longitudinal study in a real-world setting., Media Psychol., 22, 714, 10.1080/15213269.2018.1513850 · DOI
  66. CP Barlett, 2014, Cross-cultural differences in cyberbullying behavior: A short-term longitudinal study., J Cross Cult Psychol, 45, 300, 10.1177/0022022113504622 · DOI
  67. ANM Leung, 2019, Testing the effectiveness of an e-course to combat cyberbullying., Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw., 22, 569, 10.1089/cyber.2018.0609 · DOI
  68. R Kowalski, 2019, A developmental approach to cyberbullying: Prevalence and protective factors., Aggress Violent Behav, 45, 20, 10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009 · DOI · Paper page
  69. CP Barlett, 2021, Cross-cultural similarities and differences in the theoretical predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: Results from a seven-country study., Aggress Behav., 47, 111, 10.1002/ab.21923 · DOI · Paper page
  70. MF Wright, 2015, Indian adolescents’ cyber aggression involvement and cultural values: The moderation of peer attachment., Sch Psychol Int., 36, 410, 10.1177/0143034315584696 · DOI
  71. JD Shapka, 2013, Does one size fit all? Ethnic differences in parenting behaviors and motivations for adolescent engagement in cyberbullying., J Youth Adolesc., 42, 723, 10.1007/s10964-013-9928-2 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bleize, D. N. M., Anschütz, D. J., Tanis, M., & Buijzen, M.
ORCID
Bleize, Daniëlle N. M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2022-08-09
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
e0272615
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0272615
PMC
PMC9362912
Cited by
7
References
6
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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