Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Full length article

Through the magnifying glass: Empathy's differential role in preventing and T

promoting traditional and cyberbullying
Daniel Graf∗, Takuya Yanagida, Christiane Spiel
University of Vienna, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education, and Economy, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010, Vienna, Austria

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Empathy is considered a common protective factor against traditional and cyberbullying. Existing studies have
Bullying only considered broad components of empathy, such as affective and cognitive empathy. However, there are still
Cyberbullying inconclusive results regarding the role of cognitive empathy in (cyber)bullying. Therefore, we examined re-
Cognitive empathy lationships between not only components but also subcomponents of empathy and traditional and cyberbullying
Affective empathy
in order to investigate contextual differences (face-to-face, cyberspace) and unravel the blurry picture regarding
cognitive empathy. A total of 521 students (37.4% girls; Mage = 17.83 years; SD = 2.13) answered ques-
tionnaires during regular school hours on their traditional and cyberbullying involvement, empathy and cov-
ariates (age, gender, social media use, migration background and gaming attitudes). The results for cognitive
empathy revealed no differences in its protective function across contexts. However, the strength of the pro-
tective association was stronger for traditional than for cyberbullying. In contrast, affective empathy was not
related to either form of bullying. Subcomponents of cognitive empathy exhibited positive and negative asso-
ciations with (cyber)bullying. Considering subcomponents of affective empathy revealed differential relation-
ships with traditional and cyberbullying. The functional and quantitative differences in empathy's relation to
bullying across contexts and the results' potential contribution to the development of environment-specific in-
terventions are discussed.

1. Introduction preventing (cyber)bullying is high empathy (Antoniadou & Kokkinos,

Bullying is defined as intended repetitive aggressive behavior that is
characterized by an imbalance of power (Olweus, 1993; Smith &
Ananiadou, 2003). In recent years, with the spread of new information
and communication technologies (ICTs), new practices of engaging in
such aggressive behavior have emerged (e.g., editing and publishing
embarrassing pictures and videos). When considering these new prac-
tices, research largely follows the knowledge gained from traditional
bullying research (Olweus, 2013) and defines bullying through ICTs as
cyberbullying (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher Rusell, & Tippett,
2008; Tokunaga, 2010; Vivolo-Kantor, Martell, Holland, & Westby,
2014). Nevertheless, there is no consensus as to whether bullying in the
two contexts (face-to-face, cyberspace) can be considered in a similar
way (Olweus, 2012).
Given that both forms of bullying entail negative consequences for
mental and physical health (e.g., Juvonen & Gross, 2008), examining
protecting factors is crucial to provide information for prevention and
intervention programs. One widely considered protective factor for
2018; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). However, its association with
(cyber)bullying is still unclear (van Noorden, Haselager, Cillessen, &
Bukowski, 2015). The inconclusive findings may result from dis-
regarding empathy's multifaceted nature on the one hand and from
neglecting differences between different forms of bullying (e.g., face-to-
face, cyberbullying) on the other hand (van Noorden et al., 2015).
Empathy has been suggested to play both a common role (e.g., Casas,
Del Rey, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2013; Del Rey et al., 2016) and differential
roles (e.g., Runions, 2013; Runions & Bak, 2015, Sutton, Smith, &
Swettenham, 1999, 2001) across contexts (face-to-face, cyberspace).
However, empirical investigations are lacking. Therefore, the aim of the
present study was to investigate the relationships between not only
components but also subcomponents of empathy and traditional and
cyberbullying. Furthermore, we investigated whether empathy plays a
differential role for bullying across contexts (face-to-face, cyberspace).
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine sub-
components of affective and cognitive empathy in conjunction with
cyber- and traditional bullying.

∗
Corresponding author. University of Vienna, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, Universitätsstraße 7,
1010, Vienna, Austria.
E-mail address: daniel.graf@univie.ac.at (D. Graf).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.007
Received 21 September 2018; Received in revised form 30 January 2019; Accepted 7 February 2019
Available online 11 February 2019
0747-5632/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Graf, et al.
2. Theoretical background
Research on aggression usually examines personal (e.g., traits, sex,
beliefs and attitudes) and situational (e.g., aggressive cues, provocation,
frustration) factors as antecedents of aggressive behavior (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). The insights gained are then used to develop inter-
ventions with the aim of reducing aggressive behavior. The role of high
empathy as a personal factor preventing aggressive behavior is broadly
accepted (Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2018; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006):
Understanding and vicariously feeling the emotions of others circum-
vents behavior that is thought to harm another person (Eisenberg &
Miller, 1987). As a result, empathy trainings are implemented in many
prevention and intervention programs tackling aggression in different
settings, such as schools, correctional settings and families (Vachon,
Lynam, & Johnson, 2014). Nevertheless, despite their high cost, such
trainings do not always work as desired (Vachon et al., 2014; van
Noorden et al., 2015). Hence, there is a need to revisit the role of
empathy in aggressive behavior such as (cyber)bullying in order to
enhance the effectiveness of empathy trainings implemented in pre-
vention and intervention programs.
2.1. The role of empathy in bullying research
Several studies have examined the relationships between empathy
and cyber- and/or traditional bullying (e.g., Ang & Goh, 2010; Del Rey
et al., 2016; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Steffgen, König, Pfetsch, &
Melzer, 2011). These studies apply a common conceptualization of
empathy as a personality trait consisting of affective and cognitive
components (e.g., Decety & Jackson, 2006; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006;
Walter, 2012; Zaki & Ochsner, 2012). This conceptualization describes
affective empathy as bottom-up processing involving affect sharing or
vicariously experiencing the emotions of others. On the other hand,
cognitive empathy is seen as top-down processing that involves un-
derstanding others' emotions, including the motivational, intentional
and self-regulative tailoring of empathic experiences. Empathic ex-
periencing is considered a result of both bottom-up and top-down
processing (for more details see Decety & Lamm, 2006; Decety, 2011).
A large body of existing studies have found negative relationships
between both components of empathy and traditional and cyberbul-
lying. For example, a recent meta-analysis found that cyberbullies had
higher odds of scoring low in both cognitive and affective empathy.
However, the authors stated that there were not enough studies to draw
firm conclusions (Zych, Baldry, Farrington, & Llorent, 2018). Further-
more, in a systematic review, van Noorden et al. (2015) reported that
bullying in general, without specifying the context, is negatively asso-
ciated with affective and cognitive empathy. Moreover, the relationship
between bullying and affective empathy seemed clearer than the re-
lationship between bullying and cognitive empathy (van Noorden et al.,
2015). Nevertheless, the authors did not distinguish between cyber- and
traditional bullying, discussing the effects across contexts.
Results concerning the relationship between cognitive empathy and
bullying are controversial (Vachon et al., 2014). For example, Sutton
et al. (1999) criticize the common social skills deficit model, arguing
that understanding the emotions of others is useful for manipulating
and organizing other perpetrators and victims. He and other colleagues
suggest that the ability to adopt another person's perspective facilitates
the achievement of the bully's goals by promoting the application of the
most suitable aggressive behavior in a specific social situation (e.g.,
Sutton et al., 1999, 2001). In sum, more research is needed to unravel
contradictions regarding the relationship between cognitive empathy
and (cyber)bullying as well as a more differentiated construct of em-
pathy, as already called for by Decety (2011).
2.2. A differentiated construct of empathy
Reniers, Corcoran, Drake, Shyrane, and Völlm's (2011)
187
Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195
conceptualization highlights the multifaceted nature of empathy, fol-
lowing the call by Decety (2011) to define empathy more precisely.
They consider cognitive empathy to be a working model that can be
continuously updated on the basis of information such as visual, audi-
tory and situational cues. Furthermore, they distinguish between an
intuitive component of cognitive empathy (perspective taking) and the
more effortful projecting of others' emotions (online simulation; Reniers
et al., 2011). Affective empathy, on the other hand, is defined as a
process elicited immediately by the rapid perception of emotional cues
such as facial expressions, body gestures, and voice prosody, and that
evokes an emotional response reflecting another person's emotional
state (Reniers et al., 2011). This approach relies more on a person's
ability to be sensitive to and vicariously experience the emotions of
others, rather than being aware of them. According to Reniers et al.
(2011), affective empathy consists of three subcomponents: automatic
mirroring of others' emotional states (emotional contagion), the sensi-
tivity to experience affective responses when witnessing others' emo-
tions in a close social context (proximal responsivity) and the sensitivity
to vicariously experience the feelings of another person in a remote
social context, for example when watching a film (peripheral re-
sponsivity; Reniers et al., 2011). At this point, it should be mentioned
that the construct of empathy can be further characterized by the ability
to differentiate oneself from another person (self-other differentiation;
Decety & Meyer, 2008). This allows for the self-aware separation of
oneself from others and includes the ability to acknowledge that the
source of the shared emotion lies with another person (Decety &
Jackson, 2004). In this sense, emotion contagion in and of itself should
be regarded as a precursor of affective empathy. This is because self-
other differentiation is not considered when defining emotion con-
tagion. However, the lower one's ability to differentiate oneself from
another person, the more overwhelming one's own emotions will be
when witnessing someone else in a stressful situation (Decety & Meyer,
2008). This, in turn, may lead one's focus to shift away from the other
person and towards oneself, which is no longer consistent with the
definition of empathy (Decety & Meyer, 2008).
Nevertheless, a differentiated view on empathy's multifaceted
nature allows us to gain insights into the blurry picture regarding the
relationship between cognitive empathy and (cyber)bullying. By con-
sidering two contexts (face-to-face, cyberspace), we are further able to
investigate differences in the strength and/or direction of the re-
lationships between components and subcomponents of empathy and
traditional and cyberbullying.
2.3. Contextual differences between cyber- and traditional bullying
There are a number of substantial differences in the contextual
properties of cyber- and traditional bullying that must be considered
(e.g., Runions, 2013; Runions & Bak, 2015; Suler, 2004). Computer-
mediated communication (CMC) offers the possibility to communicate
anonymously. This means that a significant share of victims do not
know or recognize their perpetrators in cyberspace (Kowalski & Limber,
2007). In addition to more unpleasant feelings for the victims in such
anonymous situations (Mishna, Saini, & Solomon, 2009; Sticca &
Perren, 2013), anonymity may facilitate aggressive behavior such as
bullying due to the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004). More
specifically, anonymous online communication may lead to a separa-
tion of face-to-face behavior and online actions in which online per-
petrators see their communication partner in cyberspace as more an
avatar rather than an actual human being (Suler, 2004; Terry & Cain,
2016). This is in line with social presence theory, which postulates that
CMC affects the perceived salience of others (for a detailed explanation
see Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Gunawardena, 2004). In contrast,
the perceived social context should be closer in face-to-face commu-
nication compared to CMC.
Regarding the influence of contextual properties on the relationship
between empathy and (cyber)bullying, the social information
D. Graf, et al.
processing theory of computer-mediated communication (SIP) is useful
to rely on (Walther, 1992). According to the SIP, a lack of nonverbal
cues in computer-mediated communication (CMC) leads to a
prolonging of the function of communication compared to in a multi-
modal communication environment (Walther, 2011). In other words:
more resources (e.g., time, cognitive capacities) are needed to generate
a sufficient cognitive model of one's communication partners in CMC
(Walther, 2011). According to this assumption, understanding the
emotions of others (cognitive empathy) may also need more resources
in a cyber, compared to a face-to-face context and therefore may be
harder to elicit in a cyber context. Furthermore, the lack of nonverbal
cues (e.g., visual, auditory or situational) in the cyber context may hide
underlying emotional cues (e.g., facial expressions, body gestures, and
voice prosody) that may trigger affective empathy (Runions, 2013).
Consequently, eliciting affective and cognitive empathic responses
might be more difficult in the cyber context, with its paucity of non-
verbal, paralinguistic and semantic social cues (Runions, 2013).
2.4. The present study
The aim of the present study was first to investigate differential
relationships between affective and cognitive empathy and their re-
spective subcomponents with (cyber)bullying and second to examine
differences in empathy's role in bullying across contexts (face-to-face,
cyberspace). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to
examine subcomponents of affective and cognitive empathy in con-
junction with cyber- and traditional bullying.
By examining the relationships between subcomponents of cogni-
tive empathy and bullying in two contexts (face-to-face, cyberspace),
we expect to contribute to explaining contradicting results regarding
the relationship between cognitive empathy and (cyber)bullying.
Moreover, by investigating to what extent components and sub-
components of empathy are similarly or differently related to cyber-
and traditional bullying, the current study additionally contributes to
the discussion of to what extent cyber- and traditional bullying should
be considered in a similar way. We first examined relationships be-
tween components of empathy and both forms of bullying by using the
frequently applied conceptual distinction between cognitive and af-
fective empathy (Model 1), without considering their subcomponents.
We then added age, gender, social media use, migration background
and gaming attitudes as covariates to test the robustness of the observed
pattern of relationships in Model 1 (Model 2). Subsequently, we sub-
divided cognitive and affective empathy into their subcomponents as
suggested by Reniers et al. (2011) for a more detailed analysis (Model
3). Finally, we again added the covariates to test the invariance of the
relation pattern observed in Model 3 (Model 4). In all models, we fur-
ther examined differences in the strength of the relationships between
components and subcomponents of empathy and cyber- and traditional
bullying.
2.4.1. Hypotheses
In this section, we present our hypotheses, sorted by whether they
concern relations between components or subcomponents of empathy
and cyber- and traditional bullying.
2.4.1.1. Components of empathy: affective and cognitive empathy. Based
on previous studies (van Noorden et al., 2015; Zych et al., 2018), we
expected negative relationships between affective empathy and
bullying in the cyber as well as in the face-to-face context
(Hypothesis 1). As existing results are inconclusive regarding the
relationship between cognitive empathy and (cyber)bullying, we
formulated an undirected hypothesis and stated that there would be a
relationship between cognitive empathy and bullying in both contexts
(face-to-face, cyberspace) without specifying a direction (Hypothesis 2).
Furthermore, as the lack of nonverbal cues in cyberspace hides
emotional cues, we expected a weaker negative relationship between
188
Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195
affective empathy and cyberbullying than between affective empathy
and traditional bullying (Hypothesis 3). As we assumed that more
resources are needed in cyberspace to elicit cognitive empathy, we
hypothesized a difference in the strength of the relationships between
cognitive empathy and bullying across the two contexts (Hypothesis 4).
Again, we did not specify a direction due to the existence of conflicting
perspectives regarding cognitive empathy's function in (cyber)bullying.
Finally, we expected that the pattern of relations would be invariant
when statistically controlling for covariates (Hypothesis 5).
2.4.1.2. Subcomponents of affective and cognitive empathy. Guided by
our hypotheses concerning higher order components, we also
hypothesized relationships between all subcomponents of affective
empathy and bullying in both contexts (Hypothesis 6). Regarding the
subcomponents of cognitive empathy, we assumed relationships
between all subcomponents of cognitive empathy and both forms of
bullying without specifying a direction (Hypothesis 7). Furthermore,
we postulated differences in the strength of the relationships between
subcomponents of cognitive empathy and bullying in the cyber and
face-to-face context (Hypothesis 8). We postulated these differences due
to assumed differences in available resources (e.g., information to
generate a sufficient cognitive model of others) between contexts (face-
to-face, cyberspace). Regarding affective empathy, we assumed a
stronger negative relationship between peripheral responsivity and
cyberbullying than between peripheral responsivity and traditional
bullying (Hypothesis 9) based on the online disinhibition effect (Suler,
2004) and social presence theory (e.g., Gunawardena, 2004; Short
et al., 1976). On the other hand, we hypothesized a stronger negative
relationship between proximal responsivity and bullying in the face-to-
face context than between proximal responsivity and cyberbullying
(Hypothesis 10). We assumed this due to theoretical considerations that
the perceived social context in face-to-face interaction is closer than in
CMC. Finally, we assumed that the results would be invariant when
statistically controlling for covariates (Hypothesis 11). We did not
specify any hypotheses regarding contextual (face-to-face, cyberspace)
differences for emotion contagion.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and procedure
Students from four Austrian vocational schools participated in the
study. They answered online questionnaires in their school's own
computer lab during regular school hours. Trained research assistants
were present at all times. Participation was voluntary, and participants
provided informed consent. The consent rate was above 99%. Overall,
521 students (37.4% girls; Mage = 17,83 years; SD = 2.13) partici-
pated. 89.1% of students reported that their most frequently used lan-
guage was German.
3.2. Measures
To test our previously selected questionnaire battery, we initially
presented our survey to students falling within our target group. After
providing an introduction about (cyber)bullying, we asked for com-
ments regarding the comprehensibility of the questionnaire. Overall,
the items were easy to understand. Only a few items were slightly
modified to better reflect the every-day language of adolescents without
modifying the semantic content. These students were not part of the
actual sample used in this study.
3.2.1. Empathy
We measured the (sub)components of empathy using the German
version of the 31-item Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective
Empathy (QCAE; Reniers et al., 2011), translated by Georgi, Petermann,
and Schipper (2014). The QCAE is based on existing questionnaires
D. Graf, et al.
measuring cognitive and/or affective empathy (e.g., The Empathy
Quotient; Baron-Cohen, Richler, Bisarya, Gurunathan, & Wheelwright,
2003; The Hogan Empathy Scale; Hogan, 1969; The Interpersonal Re-
activity Index; Davis, 1983). The QCAE encompasses a second-order
structure with two subcomponents related to cognitive empathy: a)
perspective taking (10 items; example item: I can tell if someone is
masking their true emotion) and b) online simulation (9 items; example
item: Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I
was in their place). Three subcomponents were related to affective
empathy: a) emotion contagion (4 items; example item: I am happy
when I am with a cheerful group and sad when the others are glum), b)
proximal responsivity (4 items; example item: It affects me very much
when one of my friends seems upset), and c) peripheral responsivity (4
items; example item: I often get deeply involved with the feelings of a
character in a film, play, or novel). On a 4-point Likert scale (1 = no,
2 = somewhat no, 3 = somewhat yes, 4 = yes), participants had to
agree or disagree with each statement. The QCAE has been found to
exhibit high internal consistency and good validity (Georgi et al., 2014;
Reniers et al., 2011). Assuming that a shorter questionnaire has a
higher probability of participants answering the items reliably and
without dropout, we shortened the questionnaire battery by using four
items per subcomponent. To do so, we selected the four items with the
strongest factor loadings on perspective taking and online simulation
according to Reniers et al. (2011), resulting in 20 items overall. As
shown in Table 1, internal consistency was good for cognitive (ω
= .81) and affective empathy (ω = .84). However, perspective taking
(ω = .62), emotion contagion (ω = .61), and peripheral responsivity
(ω = .69) had an internal consistency below .70.
3.2.2. Cyberbullying and traditional bullying
We assessed self-reported cyberbullying and traditional bullying
behavior using The European Cyberbullying Intervention Project
Questionnaire (ECIPQ; Del Rey et al., 2015). Participants had to in-
dicate whether they had intentionally engaged in cyberbullying or
traditional bullying behavior within the last 2 months. On a 5-point
response scale (1 = no, 2 = yes, one or two times, 3 = yes, one or two
times per month, 4 = yes, approximately one time per week, 5 = yes,
more than once a week) students reported how often they participated
in such behavior (example item for cyberbullying: I hacked into
someone's account and stole personal information; example item for
traditional bullying: I hit, kicked, or pushed someone). The cyberbul-
lying scale includes 11 items and the traditional bullying scale 7 items.
The ECIPQ has been structurally validated in six countries (Del Rey
et al., 2015). As can be seen in Table 1, internal consistency was very
good for both cyberbullying (ω = .96) and for traditional bullying (ω
= .93).
3.2.3. Covariates
Several variables for which relations to empathy and (cyber)bul-
lying have previously been observed were considered as covariates. The
Table 1
Empathy, cyberbullying and traditional bullying: Internal consistency.
Scale # items Ordinal Cronbach's α Ordinal McDonald‘s ω
Cognitive empathy 8 .72 .81
Perspective taking 4 .58 .62
Online simulation 4 .77 .78
Affective empathy 12 .80 .84
Emotion contagion 4 .58 .61
Proximal responsivity 4 .67 .75
Peripheral responsivity 4 .48 .69
Cyberbullying 11 .95 .96
Traditional Bullying 7 .89 .93
Note. Ordinal Cronbach's α and McDonald‘s ω were computed in R (R Core
Team, 2018) using the psych package version 1.8.4 (Revelle, 2018).
189
Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195
first covariate was gender, as research has repeatedly shown greater
engagement in traditional bullying behavior among boys (Kowalski,
Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014) and higher empathy scores
among females (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Furthermore, we
included age as a covariate, as research has shown variations in the
prevalence rates of traditional bullying and cyberbullying depending on
age (Kowalski et al., 2014). To account for findings that cyberbullying
may be a harmful effect of social media use (Best, Manktelow, & Taylor,
2014), we asked participants how often they check social media right
after getting up on a 5-point response scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely,
3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always). As studies suggest that video
games affect empathy and aggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson et al.,
2010; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014), we asked participants to what
extent they would describe themselves as a gamer on a 5-point response
scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = average, 4 = fairly, 5 = very
much). Finally, we measured migration background by asking partici-
pants if their main language at home is German (i.e. the official national
language of Austria), since several studies have suggested higher levels
of traditional bullying among immigrants (e.g., Fandrem, Strohmeier, &
Roland, 2009; Strohmeier, Fandrem, & Spiel, 2012).
3.3. Missing data
In total, 0.08% of data were missing, stemming from 20 incomplete
records. The mean percentage of missing values across the 53 variables
ranged between 0.00% and 2.87%. Pairwise deletion based on the de-
fault setting for using the robust weighted least squares estimator
(WLSMV) in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2018) was applied. Note
that pairwise deletion is not recommended for handling missing data in
general (Enders, 2010), but defensible given the small amount of
missing data.
3.4. Measurement models
First, measurement models based on a first-order factor model for
the subcomponents of cognitive and affective empathy were estab-
lished. Second, measurement models based on a second-order factor
model for cognitive and affective empathy in accordance with the hy-
pothesis that the second-order factors cognitive and affective empathy
account for the relations among the five subcomponents of empathy
were established. Last, measurement models for cyberbullying and
traditional bullying based on a one-factor model were established.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, see Brown, 2016) was conducted
in Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2018) to test the measurement
models. In order to take into account the ordered-categorical nature of
the scale items, CFA with ordered-categorical indicators was applied
using the robust weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV, see Bovaird
& Koziol, 2012). Measurement models were evaluated using the fit in-
dices CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR and common cut-off criteria (see Kline,
2015).
The results revealed a very good model fit of the first-order factor
model for cognitive empathy (CFI = .980, RMSEA = 0.040, and
SRMR = 0.031), with standardized factor loadings ranging from .34 to
.71. The first-order factor model for affective empathy also exhibited a
very good model fit (CFI = .969, RMSEA = 0.046, and SRMR = 0.043).
The standardized factor loadings, however, revealed a negative factor
loading for an item measuring peripheral responsivity. Inspecting the
item content (“It's hard for me to understand why some things make
other people so upset”) revealed that its content contradicted the the-
oretical considerations introduced earlier. First, it contains the word
“understanding”. Since understanding others' emotions is a crucial part
of cognitive empathy, this may have led to confusion. Second, it refers
to “other people”. This does not match the content of the other items,
which measure peripheral responsivity by specifically referring to
persons in a film, novel or play. As a result, this item was omitted from
the measurement model for peripheral responsivity. Re-estimation of
D. Graf, et al. Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195

Table 2 by cognitive and affective empathy (Hypotheses 1 & 2). In Model 2, the
Confirmatory factor analysis results: Empathy, cyberbullying and traditional covariates gender, age, migration background, social media use, and
bullying. gaming attitudes were added and statistically controlled for
Scale χ² df CFI RMSEA SRMR (Hypothesis 5). In Model 3, cyberbullying and traditional bullying were
predicted by all five subcomponents of empathy (Hypotheses 6 and 7).
Cognitive empathy, first-order model 35.14 19 .980 0.040 0.031 In Model 4, all covariates were added and statistically controlled for
Perspective taking
(Hypothesis 11).
Online simulation
Affective empathy, first-order model 89.18 41 .975 0.047 0.040 In all models, differences between the face-to-face and cyber context
Emotion contagion in the regression slopes for cognitive and affective empathy as well as
Proximal responsivity the five facets of empathy were tested for statistical significance
Peripheral responsivity
(Hypotheses 3–4 and 8–10). To assure a common metric across cyber-
Cognitive empathy, second-order model 35.14 19 .980 0.040 0.031
Affective empathy, second-order model 89.18 41 .974 0.048 0.040
and traditional bullying, the effect coding method (Little, Slegers, &
Cyberbullying 77.53 41 .985 0.041 0.049 Card, 2006) was used to identify and scale the latent variables.
Traditional Bullying 31.75 11 .985 0.060 0.034 Statistical analyses were conducted using Mplus version 8.1
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2018). Models were estimated using the ro-
bust weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV). We accounted for the
the model showed an increase in model fit (CFI = .975, hierarchical data structure (i.e., students nested in classes) by adjusting
RMSEA = 0.047, and SRMR = 0.040), with standardized factor load- the standard errors using a sandwich estimator taking into account the
ings ranging from .32 to .79. The second-order factor model for cog- non-independence of observations.
nitive empathy exhibited a very good model fit (CFI = .980, All analyses were conducted based on a statistical significance level
RMSEA = 0.040, and SRMR = 0.031), with standardized factor load- α = .05.
ings of .64 for perspective taking and .74 for online simulation.
Likewise, the model fit for the second-order factor model for affective
4. Results
empathy exhibited a very good model fit (CFI = .974, RMSEA = 0.048,
and SRMR = 0.040), with standardized factor loadings of .99 for
4.1. Descriptive statistics
emotion contagion, .97 for proximal responsivity, and .66 for periph-
eral responsivity. The measurement model for cyberbullying exhibited
Correlation coefficients, means and standard deviations of all vari-
a very good model fit as well (CFI = .985, RMSEA = 0.041, and
ables are shown in Table 3. Cyberbullying was negatively related with
SRMR = 0.049), with standardized factor loadings ranging from .63 to
cognitive empathy (r = −.18), online simulation (r = −.23), affective
.93. Similarly, the measurement model for traditional bullying ex-
empathy (r = −.16), emotion contagion (r = −.14), and peripheral
hibited a very good model fit (CFI = .985, RMSEA = 0.060, and
responsivity (r = −.18). No statistically significant relations were
SRMR = 0.034), with standardized factor loadings ranging from .69 to
found for perspective taking and proximal responsivity. Traditional
.80. In sum, the results revealed very good model fit for all scales, in-
bullying was negatively correlated with cognitive empathy (r = −.26),
dicating that all scales had sound measurement properties (see Table 2).
online simulation (r = −.33), affective empathy (r = −.18), emotion
contagion (r = −.17), proximal responsivity (r = −.15) and peripheral
3.5. Analytic strategy responsivity (r = −.10). No statistically significant relation was found
for perspective taking.
A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach based on the
measurement models with ordered-categorical indicators was used to 4.2. Relations between affective and cognitive empathy and cyberbullying
test the study's main hypotheses (see Kline, 2015). More specifically, and traditional bullying (Model 1 and Model 2)
cyber- and traditional bullying were predicted using components and
subcomponents of empathy in order to investigate the proposed re- Model 1 investigating the relationship between affective and cog-
lationships. nitive empathy and cyberbullying and traditional bullying (see Table 4)
In Model 1, cyberbullying and traditional bullying were predicted exhibited a good model fit (χ²(608) = 832.30, CFI = .941,

Table 3
Descriptive statistics: Bivariate Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations.
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

1. Cognitive empathy
2. Perspective taking .73
3. Online simulation .87 .29
4. Affective empathy .43 .28 .41
5. Emotion contagion .29 .16 .28 .83
6. Proximal responsivity .46 .31 .41 .81 .55
7. Peripheral responsivity .30 .20 .27 .75 .41 .38
8. Cyberbullying -.18 -.04 -.23 -.16 -.14 -.06 -.18
9. Traditional bullying -.26 -.04 -.33 -.18 -.17 -.15 -.10 .62
10. Gender -.12 -.08 -.11 -.39 -.23 -.35 -.35 .04 .07
11. Age .02 -.02 .04 -.01 .01 -.08 .04 -.04 -.04 .19
12. Migration background .00 .01 -.01 .02 .00 .05 .02 .09 .11 .04 .08
13. Social media -.05 .07 -.12 .09 .10 .11 .01 .14 .10 -.16 -.08 .04
14. Gamer -.03 .00 -.04 -.17 -.14 -.15 -.11 .04 .01 .37 .04 -.02 -.05

M 2.99 3.20 2.78 2.84 2.74 3.03 2.71 1.19 1.36 0.63 17.83 0.11 3.25 2.70
SD 0.46 0.48 0.66 0.50 0.59 0.57 0.76 0.38 0.49 2.13 1.39 1.47

Note. N = 523; Gender is coded as 0 = females and 1 = males; Migration background is coded as 0 = German and 1 = Other language; Statistically significant results
at α = .05 are in boldface.

190
D. Graf, et al. Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195

Table 4
Structural equation modeling results: Cyberbullying and traditional bullying on empathy.
Model Cyberbullying Traditional Bullying

Est. (SE) Std. Est. Est. (SE) Std. Est.

Model 1: χ²(608) = 832.30, CFI = .941, RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.073

Cognitive empathy −1.13 (0.30) −0.36 −1.50 (0.32) −0.50
Affective empathy 0.01 (0.10) 0.01 0.10 (0.11) 0.07

Model 2: χ²(773) = 1034.76, CFI = .927, RMSEA = 0.025, SRMR = 0.074

Cognitive empathy −1.00 (0.30) −0.31 −1.47 (0.34) −0.49
Affective empathy −0.03 (0.15) −0.02 0.13 (0.15) 0.09
Gender 0.01 (0.14) 0.01 0.14 (0.11) 0.09
Age −0.02 (0.02) −0.04 −0.02 (0.02) −0.05
Migration background 0.21 (0.13) 0.08 0.27 (0.12) 0.11
Social media use 0.08 (0.02) 0.15 0.05 (0.02) 0.10
Gaming attitudes 0.05 (0.03) 0.09 −0.00 (0.03) −0.01

Model 3: χ²(598) = 833.25, CFI = .928, RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.073

Perspective taking 0.44 (0.14) 0.28 0.44 (0.09) 0.29
Online simulation −0.49 (0.12) −0.43 −0.60 (0.11) −0.56
Emotion contagion −0.01 (0.08) 0.00 0.10 (0.08) 0.00
Proximal responsivity 0.16 (0.10) 0.12 −0.15 (0.15) −0.12
Peripheral responsivity −0.28 (0.10) −0.25 0.01 (0.13) 0.01

Model 4: χ²(748) = 1040.86, CFI = .918, RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.071

Perspective taking 0.28 (0.14) 0.18 0.33 (0.10) 0.22
Online simulation −0.49 (0.11) −0.42 −0.61 (0.11) −0.56
Emotion contagion 0.07 (0.08) 0.00 0.15 (0.07) 0.01
Proximal responsivity 0.19 (0.11) 0.14 −0.11 (0.15) −0.08
Peripheral responsivity −0.33 (0.10) −0.29 −0.01 (0.12) −0.01
Gender −0.04 (0.15) −0.03 0.11 (0.10) 0.08
Age −0.00 (0.02) −0.01 −0.02 (0.01) −0.05
Migration background 0.19 (0.14) 0.07 0.26 (0.12) 0.11
Social media use 0.05 (0.03) 0.09 0.03 (0.03) 0.05
Gaming attitudes 0.05 (0.04) 0.09 −0.01 (0.03) −0.02

Note. Est. = Unstandardized estimate; SE = Standard error; Std. Est. = Standardized Estimate; Gender is coded as 0 = females and 1 = males; Migration background
is coded as 0 = German and 1 = Other language; Statistically significant results at α = .05 are in boldface.

RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.073). As expected, the results revealed a
negative relationship between cognitive empathy and cyberbullying ( ˆ
= −1.13, p < .001) as well as traditional bullying ( ˆ = −1.50,
p < .001) while statistically controlling for affective empathy. Affec-
tive empathy was not related to either cyberbullying ( ˆ = 0.01,
p = .930) or traditional bullying ( ˆ = 0.10, p = .343) when statistically
controlling for cognitive empathy. The difference in regression slopes
was statistically significant for cognitive empathy ( ˆ = −0.38,
p = .032), but not for affective empathy ( ˆ = 0.01, p = .188). That is,
the negative relationship between bullying and cognitive empathy is
stronger in the traditional context compared to the cyber context (see
Fig. 1, panel a).
Model 2 investigating the relationship between cyberbullying and
traditional bullying and affective and cognitive empathy while con-
trolling for covariates (see Table 4) exhibited a good model fit (χ²(773)
= 1034.76, CFI = .927, RMSEA = 0.025, SRMR = 0.074). The results
indicated a positive relationship between social media use and cyber-
bullying ( ˆ = 0.08, p < .001) and a positive relationship between
migration background ( ˆ = 0.27, p = .021) and social media use and
traditional bullying ( ˆ = 0.05, p = .037). All other covariates were
statistically insignificant. Statistically controlling for all covariates and
affective empathy, there was a negative relationship between cognitive
empathy and cyberbullying ( ˆ = −1.00, p < .001) as well as tradi-
tional bullying ( ˆ = −1.47, p < .001). Affective empathy was not

(a) (b)

Gender
Traditional Cognitive Traditional
Cognitive -1.47 0.14
- 1.50 bullying empathy bullying
empathy 0.01
0.05
Social
0.27 media use
-1.13 -1.00 0.08

Migration
background

0.10 0.13 -0.00

0.21
Gaming
0.05 attitudes
-0.02
Affective Cyber- Affective -0.03 Cyber- -0.02
0.01 empathy bullying
empathy bullying Age

Fig. 1. Unstandardized estimates: Cyberbullying and traditional bullying on cognitive and affective empathy without and with covariates. Statistically significant
results at α = .05 are in boldface.

191
D. Graf, et al.
Fig. 2. Unstandardized estimates: Cyberbullying and traditional bullying on subcomponents of cognitive and affective empathy without and with covariates.
Statistically significant results at α = .05 are in boldface.
related to cyberbullying ( ˆ = −0.03, p = .821) or traditional bullying
( ˆ = 0.13, p = .398) when statistically controlling for all covariates
and cognitive empathy. The difference in regression slopes was statis-
tically significant for cognitive empathy ( ˆ = −0.47, p = .010), but
not for affective empathy ( ˆ = 0.16, p = .168). That is, the negative
relationship between bullying and cognitive empathy is also stronger in
the traditional context compared to the cyber context when controlling
for covariates (see Fig. 1, panel b).
4.3. Relations between subcomponents of empathy and cyberbullying and
traditional bullying (Model 3 and Model 4)
Model 3 investigating the relationship between the subcomponents
of empathy and cyberbullying and traditional bullying (see Table 4)
exhibited a good model fit (χ²(598) = 833.25, CFI = .928,
RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.073). The results revealed negative re-
lationships between online simulation ( ˆ = −0.49, p < .001) and
peripheral responsivity ( ˆ = −0.28, p = .004) and cyberbullying and a
positive relationship between perspective taking and cyberbullying ( ˆ
= 0.44, p < .001) while statistically controlling for all other sub-
components of empathy. The relationships between all other sub-
components and cyberbullying were statistically insignificant. Fur-
thermore, a negative relationship between online simulation and
traditional bullying ( ˆ = −0.60, p < .001) and a positive relationship
between perspective taking and traditional bullying ( ˆ = 0.44,
p < .001) were found while statistically controlling for all other sub-
components of empathy. The relationships between all other sub-
components and traditional bullying were statistically not significant.
The differences in regression slopes were statistically significant for
proximal responsivity ( ˆ = −0.30, p = .014) and peripheral re-
sponsivity ( ˆ = 0.29, p = .004), as expected. All other differences in
regression slopes were statistically insignificant (see Fig. 2, panel a).
Model 4 investigating the relationship between cyberbullying and
traditional bullying and the subcomponents of empathy while con-
trolling for the covariates (see Table 4) exhibited a good model fit
(χ²(748) = 1040.86, CFI = .918, RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.071).
For cyberbullying, the results showed a positive relationship with the
covariate social media use ( ˆ = 0.05, p = .050), while all other cov-
ariates were not significant. For traditional bullying, a positive re-
lationship with migration background ( ˆ = 0.26, p = .029) was ob-
served. All other covariates were statistically insignificant.
There was a negative relationship between online simulation ( ˆ =
192
Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195
−0.49, p < .001) and peripheral responsivity ( ˆ = −0.33, p < .001)
and cyberbullying and a positive relationship between perspective
taking and cyberbullying ( ˆ = 0.28, p = .040) while statistically con-
trolling for all other subcomponents of empathy and all covariates.
Furthermore, a negative relationship between online simulation and
traditional bullying ( ˆ = −0.61, p < .001) and positive relationships
between perspective taking ( ˆ = 0.33, p < .001) and emotion con-
tagion ( ˆ = 0.15, p = .039) and traditional bullying were found while
statistically controlling for all covariates and all other subcomponents
of empathy. The relationships between all other subcomponents and
traditional bullying were statistically insignificant. The differences in
regression slopes were statistically significant for proximal responsivity
( ˆ = −0.29, p = .017) and peripheral responsivity ( ˆ = 0.32,
p < .001), as expected. All other differences in regression slopes were
statistically insignificant (see Fig. 2, panel b).
5. Discussion
Empathy is widely considered to be a protective factor preventing
(cyber)bullying (Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2018; Jolliffe & Farrington,
2006). However, its association with (cyber)bullying is still unclear
(van Noorden et al., 2015). As the inconclusive findings may have re-
sulted from solely focusing on cognitive and affective empathy, dis-
regarding empathy's multifaceted nature, and from neglecting to take a
different view of different forms of bullying (e.g., face-to-face, cyber-
bullying; e.g., van Noorden et al., 2015), the present study aims to
overcome these deficits. We investigated differential relationships be-
tween cognitive and affective empathy as well as their subcomponents
(in accordance with Reniers et al., 2011) and traditional and cyber-
bullying while considering several covariates. Thus, the present study
can provide deeper insights into contradicting results regarding the
relationship between cognitive empathy and (cyber)bullying and into
the associations between subcomponents of cognitive and affective
empathy and both forms of bullying. Below, we discuss the results
concerning the two components of empathy (affective and cognitive)
and their relations to cyber- and traditional bullying. In addition, we
discuss associations between subcomponents of affective and cognitive
empathy and cyber- and traditional bullying. Next, we consider the
relationships between covariates and bullying in both contexts (face-to-
face, cyberspace) and discuss the invariance of the results when adding
covariates. Finally, limitations, implications, a summary and conclu-
sions are reported.
D. Graf, et al.
5.1. Components of empathy: affective and cognitive empathy
We found no significant relationships between affective empathy
and cyber- or traditional bullying. Furthermore, no differences were
observed in the strength of these non-significant relationships between
contexts. This contradicts our hypotheses (Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis
3). Despite a significant body of research demonstrating the relation-
ship between affective empathy and (cyber)bullying, we were unable to
find an association on this component level, joining a few studies that
have similarly found a lack of connection (e.g., Gano-Overway, 2013;
Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012). The narrow age span of our sample could be
an explanation for the nonsignificant relationships. For example, Ciucci
and Baroncelli (2013) found that affective empathy only predicted
bullying in 6th graders but not in 8th graders. However, the non-rela-
tion might also be a consequence of the differential relationships be-
tween various subcomponents and (cyber)bullying we observed in our
study. This could have masked the component level effect. Cognitive
empathy, as expected, was negatively related to traditional and cy-
berbullying, with a stronger relation for traditional than for cyberbul-
lying. This is in line with our hypotheses (Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis
4). With respect to cognitive empathy, our results indicate that the
ability to understand vicarious emotions is a protective factor against
both cyber- and traditional bullying. This is in line with existing studies
(van Noorden et al., 2015). Additionally, the protective effect seemed
significantly stronger in the traditional than in the cyber context. This
finding underpins our assumptions as well as Runions' (2013) theore-
tical considerations and indicates that eliciting cognitive empathy may
be more difficult in the cyber context than in the face-to-face context.
5.2. Subcomponents of affective empathy
Although we hypothesized relationships between all subcomponents
of affective empathy and both forms of bullying (Hypothesis 6), we only
found a significant negative relationship between peripheral re-
sponsivity and cyberbullying (Model 3 and Model 4) and a significant
positive relationship between emotion contagion and traditional but
not cyberbullying (Model 4). For all other subcomponents of affective
empathy, there were no significant relationships with either cyber- or
traditional bullying. Nevertheless, in line with our assumptions, the
negative relationship between peripheral responsivity and cyberbul-
lying was significantly stronger than its non-significant relationship
with traditional bullying (Hypothesis 9). That is, higher sensitivity to
cues in a remote social context (e.g., a person perceived as a character
in a film) seems to be a protective factor for cyberbullying but not
traditional bullying. Although the conclusions should be tentative,
these results suggest the presence of contextual differences in in-
formation processing and thus support the online disinhibition effect
(Suler, 2004) and social presence theory (e.g., Short et al., 1976;
Gunawardena, 2004) by demonstrating the importance of the modality
in which communication occurs. Furthermore, in line with our hy-
pothesis (Hypothesis 10), proximal responsivity was more strongly re-
lated to traditional than cyberbullying. However, whether this differ-
ence has practical implications remains questionable, because these
relationships were not statistically significant. The positive relationship
between emotion contagion and traditional bullying is discussed in
Section 5.4.2.
5.3. Subcomponents of cognitive empathy
With respect to the subcomponents of cognitive empathy, we found
negative relationships between online simulation and both forms of
bullying. Moreover, we observed positive relations between perspective
taking and both forms of bullying. This is in line with our hypothesis
(Hypothesis 7). Our results indicate that the ability to understand an-
other person's emotions intuitively may be insufficient to act as a pro-
tection factor against (cyber)bullying. On the contrary, our results
193
Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195
support the conclusions drawn by Sutton et al. (1999, 2001) that the
ability to know the emotions of others can be exploited to harm others.
Our findings further suggest that the willingness and effort to adopt
another person's perspective is a sufficient condition and a setscrew that
should be considered in prevention and intervention programs. Con-
trary to our assumptions, we found no differences in the strength of
these relationships between contexts (Hypothesis 8).
5.4. Covariates
5.4.1. Relationships with traditional and cyberbullying
Contrary to the existing literature (e.g., Kowalski et al., 2014), we
found no relationships between gender and age and self-reported in-
volvement in cyber- or traditional bullying after controlling for em-
pathy and all other covariates. One explanation for this finding could lie
in the nature of our sample, which represented a relatively narrow age
range and a slightly asymmetric gender distribution. Nevertheless, this
should not have affected our main results since we focused on global
relationships on a variable and not an individual level. Furthermore,
contrary to our assumptions (e.g., Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014),
gaming attitudes were not related to either cyber- or traditional bul-
lying. We suspect that this nonsignificant result was caused by the fact
that we didn't control for the type of video games played. However,
since this was not part of our main questions, further studies should
investigate this relationship in greater detail.
In line with our assumptions, we found a positive relationship be-
tween social media use and cyberbullying in Model 2 investigating
components of empathy. While traditional bullying was also positively
related to social media use in this model, this association disappeared in
Model 4 (investigating subcomponents of affective and cognitive em-
pathy). For cyberbullying, the positive relation remained in Model 4.
We were able to replicate existing findings regarding the assumed po-
sitive relation between migration background and traditional bullying
(e.g., Fandrem et al., 2009; Strohmeier et al., 2012). This finding re-
mained stable across Models 3 and 4. No relations were found between
migration background and cyberbullying.
5.4.2. Invariance of relationships between components and subcomponents
of empathy and both forms of bullying
Regarding the components of empathy, the pattern of relationships
remained stable after considering and controlling for covariates
(Hypothesis 5). With respect to the subcomponents of cognitive and
affective empathy (Hypothesis 11), including covariates revealed a
positive relationship between emotion contagion and traditional but
not cyberbullying. All other relationships were invariant. This finding
indicates that emotion contagion as a precursor of affective empathy
may be a unique risk factor for traditional bullying. More specifically, a
lack of ability to make self-other distinctions may lead to more stressful
reactions to negative emotions among others, which could in turn lead
to aggressive behavior and, if this process repeats, bullying. Our results
suggest that stressful reactions to others' emotions may be more evident
in the traditional than in the cyber context. Further research should
address this assumption.
5.5. Limitations
Although empathy should be considered a precursor of (cyber)bullying
(Zych et al., 2018), our cross-sectional data does not allow for such a
causal interpretation. Longitudinal and experimental research is needed to
substantiate our findings. Furthermore, in terms of methodological issues,
our data relies on self-report measures, which may result in an under-
representation of reported bullying involvement due to social desirability
(Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham & Rick, 2012). Further research should use a
mixed-method approach involving different forms of data collection such
as peer nominations or ratings and information from other persons such as
parents or teachers to overcome this limitation. Moreover, our sample was
D. Graf, et al.
characterized by a relatively narrow age range and a slightly asymmetric
gender distribution. Further research should investigate the stability of our
findings across a wider age span and among different age groups. Future
research should also investigate whether there are differences in the pat-
terns of relations in different subgroups (e.g., bully-victims, see Smith,
1991; or reinforcers, see Salmivalli, 1999). Finally, we recommend that
future research apply a person-oriented approach and corresponding sta-
tistical methods, such as latent class analysis or cluster analysis (von Eye &
Spiel, 2010). In our study, we only applied a variable oriented approach.
5.6. Theoretical contribution and practical implications
Empathy was repeatedly reported as a common predictor of both
traditional and cyberbullying (e.g., Ang & Goh, 2010; Del Rey et al.,
2016; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Steffgen et al., 2011). However,
studies investigating the relationship between empathy and (cyber)
bullying mostly neglected empathy's multifaceted nature and assessed
the construct more broadly. The current study investigated the roles of
empathy (sub)components in relation to bullying, while at the same
time considering the different contexts (face-to-face, cyberspace) in
which bullying occurs. This approach revealed differential relationships
between subcomponents of empathy, traditional and cyberbullying.
Moreover, quantitative differences in the strength of the associations
between (sub)components and (cyber)bullying occurred. Although
there was some overlap with traditional bullying, independent features
were observable for cyberbullying with respect to empathy.
While several limitations apply to the reported results, prevention
and intervention programs tackling (cyber)bullying are advised to
consider the context (face-to-face, cyberspace) in which bullying ap-
pears. Based on our findings with respect to affective empathy, per-
ipheral responsivity may be seen as a protective factor against cyber-
bullying but not traditional bullying. Programs focusing primarily on
cyberbullying may benefit from focusing on tackling the online disin-
hibition effect (Suler, 2004). This may be achieved by targeting self-
awareness, particularly concerning the effects of one's own aggressive
behavior on real human beings. Thus, fostering online awareness might
be helpful to counteract subconscious psychological processes asso-
ciated with the online disinhibition effect (Terry & Cain, 2016).
In contrast, emotion contagion might be a unique risk factor for
traditional bullying. Training the ability to differentiate oneself from
others might help diminishing reactions of empathy-related stress and
thereby stress-related aggressive behavior.
Based on our results, cognitive empathy trainings might be seen as a
more universal approach to prevent both cyber- and traditional bul-
lying, with a potentially larger effect in the context of traditional bul-
lying. However, exclusively training perspective taking (i.e. the un-
derstanding of others' emotions) may be contraindicated. This is due to
the assumption that bullies might exploit their perspective taking-
ability to bully their victims more effectively. Instead, focusing on on-
line simulation (i.e. the effort to adopt another person's perspective and
to mentally represent another person's emotional state) might be a
promising approach to combat both traditional and cyberbullying.
Further studies are advised to investigate other factors related to
bullying while considering different bullying contexts. For example,
considering underlying risk factors such as sensation seeking and ag-
gression motivation might provide us further in-depth information on
how cyberbullying differs from traditional bullying.
5.7. Summary and conclusion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of empathy
in (cyber)bullying by accounting for empathy's multifaceted nature and
two contexts in which bullying appears (face-to-face, cyberspace). By
examining not only components but also subcomponents of empathy
and their relations to cyber- as well as traditional bullying, our study
provides insights into functional and quantitative differences and
194
Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195
commonalities in empathy's role in bullying across contexts (face-to-
face, cyberspace). Although a large body of literature suggests that
empathy plays an exclusively protective role in (cyber)bullying, we
were able to reveal not only just protecting but also promoting func-
tions of empathy in (cyber)bullying by examining relationships be-
tween subcomponents of affective and cognitive empathy and cyber- as
well as traditional bullying. In our study, online simulation was nega-
tively associated with both forms of bullying and peripheral re-
sponsivity was negatively related to cyberbullying; on the contrary,
perspective taking was positively related to both forms of bullying and
emotion contagion was positively related to traditional bullying. Thus,
on the one hand, our study contributes to the discussion of how cog-
nitive empathy relates to (cyber)bullying. On the other hand, we de-
monstrate differential roles of subcomponents of affective empathy in
traditional and cyberbullying.
Furthermore, by investigating differences in the strength of the re-
lationships between components and subcomponents of empathy and
cyber- as well as traditional bullying, we contribute to discussions re-
garding differences between cyber- and traditional bullying with re-
spect to empathy. On a component level, we found that the protective
role of cognitive empathy seemed quantitatively stronger in traditional
than in cyberbullying. Further, peripheral responsivity was more
strongly negatively related to cyberbullying and proximal responsivity
was more strongly negatively related to traditional bullying.
Our findings provide a basis for the development of environment-
specific prevention and intervention programs and contribute to current
discussions regarding the role of empathy in cyber- and traditional
bullying.
Conflicts of interest
There are no competing interests.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grants from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology,
53(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231.
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., ...
Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial
behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 136(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018251.
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective
and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(4),
387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3.
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2018). Empathy in traditional and cyber bullying/
victimization involvement from early to middle adolescence: A cross sectional study.
Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 8(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.
5539/jedp.v8n1p153.
Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N., & Wheelwright, S. (2003). The
systemizing quotient: An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high-func-
tioning autism, and normal sex differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 358(1430), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1206.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of
adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differ-
ences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175. https://doi.
org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00.
Beran, T. N., Rinaldi, C., Bickham, D. S., & Rich, M. (2012). Evidence for the need to
support adolescents dealing with harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence,
progression, and impact. School Psychology International, 33(5), 562–576. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0143034312446976.
Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and
adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services
Review, 41, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001.
Bovaird, J. A., & Koziol, N. A. (2012). Measurement models for ordered-categorical in-
dicators. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.). Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 495–511).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
D. Graf, et al.
Casas, J. A., Del Rey, R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying:
Convergent and divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3),
580–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.015.
Ciucci, E., & Baroncelli, A. (2014). The emotional core of bullying: Further evidences of
the role of callous–unemotional traits and empathy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 67, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.033.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a mul-
tidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113.
Decety, J. (2011). Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emotion Review,
3(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374662.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1534582304267187.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2006.00406.x.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience.
The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146–1163. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.221.
Decety, J., & Meyer, M. (2008). From emotion resonance to empathic understanding: A
social developmental neuroscience account. Development and Psychopathology,
20(04), 1053–1080. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000503.
Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Smith,
P., et al. (2015). Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European
cyberbullying intervention Project questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065.
Del Rey, R., Lazuras, L., Casas, J. A., Barkoukis, V., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Tsorbatzoudis, H.
(2016). Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender
and nationality affect this relationship? Learning and Individual Differences, 45,
275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.021.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related be-
haviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.
1.91.
Enders, C. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
von Eye, A., & Spiel, C. (2010). Conducting person-oriented research. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 218, 151–154. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-
3409/a000024.
Fandrem, H., Strohmeier, D., & Roland, E. (2009). Bullying and victimization among
native and immigrant adolescents in Norway: The role of proactive and reactive
aggressiveness. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(6), 898–923. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0272431609332935.
Gano-Overway, L. A. (2013). Exploring the connections between caring and social be-
haviors in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 84(1), 104–114.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.762322.
Georgi, E., Petermann, F., & Schipper, M. (2014). Are empathic abilities learnable?
Implications for social neuroscientific research from psychometric assessments. Social
Neuroscience, 9(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.855253.
Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-
analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167213520459.
Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Designing the social environment for online learning: The
role of social presence. In D. Murphy, R. Carr, J. Taylor, & T. Wong (Eds.). Distance
education and technology: Issues and practice (pp. 255–270). Hong Kong: Open
University of Hong Kong Press.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 33(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027580.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and
bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20154.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?-bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1746-1561.2008.00335.x.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Boca
Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2012). The relationship between bullying, victimization,
trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social
Psychology of Education, 15(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the
digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.
Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school stu-
dents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2007.08.017.
Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and
scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13,
59–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_3.
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth's
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222–1228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2018). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
van Noorden, T. H. J., Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bukowski, W. M. (2015).
Empathy and involvement in bullying in children and adolescents: A systematic re-
view. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/
195
Computers in Human Behavior 96 (2019) 186–195
s10964-014-0135-6.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.
682358.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
clinpsy-050212-185516.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The
QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 93(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484.
Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston,
Illinois, USA: Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=
psychVersion=1.8.4.
Runions, K. C. (2013). Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-
aggression: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(5), 751–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9936-2.
Runions, K. C., & Bak, M. (2015). Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-
aggression. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(7), 400–405. https://
doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0670.
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for inter-
ventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.
0239.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social Psychology of telecommunications.
London: Wiley Press.
Smith, P. K. (1991). The silent nightmare: Bullying and victimization in school peer
groups. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 4(6), 243–248.
Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness
of school-based interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5(2),
189–209. https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1022991804210.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.
2007.01846.x.
Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic?
Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(11), 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0445.
Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying?
Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the per-
ceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 739–750. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3.
Strohmeier, D., Fandrem, H., & Spiel, C. (2012). The need for peer acceptance and af-
filiation as underlying motive for aggressive behaviour and bullying others among
immigrant youth living in Austria and Norway. Anales de Psicología/Annals of
Psychology, 28(3), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.28.3.155991.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(3),
321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social
inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
17(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151099165384.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2001). Bullying and ‘theory of mind’: A critique
of the ‘social skills deficit’ view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development, 8(1),
117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00083.
Terry, C., & Cain, J. (2016). The emerging issue of digital empathy. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 80(4), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80458.
Tokunaga, R. S. (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.
Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). The (non)relation between empathy
and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3),
751–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035236.
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Martell, B. N., Holland, K. M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic
review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.
06.008.
Walter, H. (2012). Social cognitive neuroscience of empathy: Concepts, circuits, and
genes. Emotion Review, 4(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911421379.
Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer- mediated communication and interpersonal
relations. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Eds.). The handbook of interpersonal commu-
nication (pp. 443–479). (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated
interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x.
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and
promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3085.
Zych, I., Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Llorent, V. J. (2018). Are children involved in
cyberbullying low on empathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of research on
empathy versus different cyberbullying roles. Aggression and Violent Behavior. in press
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.004.