TYPE Editorial
PUBLISHED 03 August 2022
DOI 10.3389/fcomm.2022.961993
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Diyako Rahmani,
Massey University, New Zealand
REVIEWED BY
Eva M. Romera,
University of Cordoba, Spain
*CORRESPONDENCE
Leslie Ramos Salazar
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Culture and Communication,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Communication
RECEIVED 05 June 2022
ACCEPTED 18 July 2022
PUBLISHED 03 August 2022
CITATION
Ramos Salazar L, Cabrera JMG,
Navarro R and Schultze-Krumbholz A
(2022) Editorial: Examining bias-based
cyberaggression and
cybervictimization from a
cross-cultural perspective.
Front. Commun. 7:961993.
doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.961993
COPYRIGHT
©2022 Ramos Salazar, Cabrera,
Navarro and Schultze-Krumbholz. This
is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction
in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is
cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which
does not comply with these terms.
Editorial: Examining bias-based
cyberaggression and
cybervictimization from a
cross-cultural perspective
Leslie Ramos Salazar1*, Joaquín Manuel González Cabrera2,
Raúl Navarro3and Anja Schultze-Krumbholz4
1Department of Computer Information and Decision Management, West Texas A&M University,
Canyon, TX, United States, 2Department of Educational Psychology and Psychobiology, Universidad
Internacional De La Rioja, Logroño, Spain, 3Department of Psychology, University of Castilla La
Mancha, Cuenca, Spain, 4Department of Educational Psychology, Technische Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
KEYWORDS
cyberaggression, cybervictimization, cross-cultural communication, cross-cultural
psychology, cyberbullying
Editorial on the Research Topic
Examining bias-based cyberaggression and cybervictimization from a
cross-cultural perspective
During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals relied heavily on computer mediated
communication technologies to perform personal and professional activities (Meier et al.,
2021). Because individuals relied heavily on their electronic devices and the Internet,
this made them more vulnerable to cyberaggression and cybervictimization (Wang
et al., 2022), which lead to negative effects such as depression, suicide ideation, and
low wellbeing (Kowalski et al., 2014; Keipi et al., 2018; Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque,
2018). Cyberaggression includes cyberbullying perpetration (Zych et al., 2015), cyberhate
(Bedrosova et al., 2022), cybergossip (Romera et al., 2018), and cybercrime, such as
cyberstalking (Mikkola et al., 2020) along with other aggressive behaviors that occur in
computer-mediated contexts.
Cyberaggression and cybervictimization studies have emphasized the prevalence
rates across countries, especially when examining gender (Kowalski et al., 2014;
Sorrentino et al., 2019). European studies report higher prevalence among Bulgarian
youth in comparison to other countries such as Greek, Italian, Polish, and Spanish
youth (Livingstone et al., 2011; Athanasiades et al., 2015; Sorrentino et al., 2019).
Research examining the prevalence of cybervictimization and cyberbullying in Austria,
Cyprus, and Romania, found that multi-item scales are more effective when engaging
in cross-national comparisons (Yanagida et al., 2016). Another study found that
cellphone ownership moderated the relationship between factors such as gender
and cybervictimization among adolescents from Canada (Shapka et al., 2018).
When examining cyberbullying and cybervictimization across 8 European countries,
Sorrentino et al. (2019) found that boys were more likely to become perpetrators across
Frontiers in Communication 01 frontiersin.org
Ramos Salazar et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2022.961993
all countries, and cybervictimization was more likely to occur
in Bulgaria and Hungary. In a cross-cultural comparison of
college students between USA and Japan, US males were more
likely to report higher levels of cyberbullying than Japanese
males (Barlett et al., 2014). It’s also been found that compulsive
Internet use partially mediates the positive relationship between
cyberaggression and impulsivity across Finland, Spain, and the
United States (Zych et al., 2021). Further, a study comparing
adolescents and young adults from Estonia, Italy, Germany and
Turkey showed that the severity of cyberbullying is perceived
differently across countries (Palladino et al., 2017). While
studies have initiated the work in examining cross-national
comparisons of cyberaggression and cybervictimization using
survey and experimental methods and validating measures
(e.g., Del Rey et al., 2015) and classification approaches (e.g.,
Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2014) across countries, a gap in
the literature has been examining these issues from a cross-
cultural perspective using various methodological perspectives.
To address this gap, this collection will highlight the findings of
cyberaggression and cybervictimization studies that will extend
previous research.
This Research Topic
The objective of this special issue was to highlight
cyberaggression and cybervictimization research from a cross-
cultural perspective. This Research Topic compiled the following
four research articles that address cyberbullying victimization
across cultures.
Peker and Ümit Yalçin conducted a descriptive
bibliographical approach to map cross-cultural research
and cyberbullying victimization. Findings highlight the cross-
cultural studies of cybervictimization across 74 countries and
found that the countries that contributed the most literature
of cross-cultural cyberbullying victimization were USA, Spain,
England, China, and Canada. A total of 8 cooperation clusters
were identified around the world. Cross-collaborations across
institutions and authors were also illustrated to highlight the
cross-cultural nature of cyberbullying as a global issue.
In their study, Nagar et al. compared youth from Canadian
and Iranian cultural contexts in regards to their bystander
behavior against cyberbullying perpetration. Because most
cyberbullying research on bystanders behavior is conducted
in Western cultures, comparing the evaluation of bystander
behavior using an individualistic Western country (e.g.,
Canada) and a collectivistic Middle Eastern country (e.g., Iran)
is beneficial (Machackova and Pfetsch, 2016). Findings illustrate
that both Canadians and Iranians evaluated the assisting
of the cyberbully negatively regardless of relationship type.
When evaluating outsider behavior, Canadians evaluated the
behavior more negatively when it was a friend; whereas
Iranians were indifferent toward outsiders. Defending
behavior perceptions differed by country. In terms of moral
responsibility, the relationship with the bystander mattered to
both Canadians and Iranians. In this study, youth similarities
and differences are detailed in regards to the evaluation of
bystander behavior, which can inform cross-cultural bystander
intervention programs.
Cañas et al. used the sociometry method to identify
peer acceptance and rejection values based on six statuses:
popular, preferred, rejected, controversial, ignored, and average.
Findings of 29 studies revealed that the bully role was
related to both positive status (e.g., popularity, acceptance,
and social preference) and a negative status (e.g., rejection).
With these findings, the status perceptions of the role of
the bully can be better understood in traditional and cyber
victimization problems that occur in cross-cultural social
hierarchies among adolescents.
Finally, Schultze-Krumbholz et al. examined the ethnic-
based motives of ethnic/racist cybervictimization of 349
adolescents. Those with a migration background were more
likely to have victimization motives. The factor of ethnicity-
based motives was a predictor of ethnic/racist victimization.
However, dispute-related motives was a significant predictor
of different forms of cybervictimization. Socio-cultural factors
such as generation/migration status and ethnicity were shown to
explain coping strategies when encountering cybervictimization.
The most vulnerable to cyberbullying victimization were shown
to be first generation migrant adolescents.
In sum, the papers in this issue offer several contributions.
The cultural factors of bullies and victims such as social
status and ethnicity can explain the interpersonal perceptions
that perpetuate the bully-victim cycle. Next, cross-cultural
differences based on cultural upbringing can explain bystander
behavior based on the relationship they have with the
perpetrator. It was found that moral emotions may differ on
whether a country is collectivistic, or individualist, such that
collectivistic countries might be more likely to engaging in
bystander behavior to maintain the harmony of a group. Also,
the ethnic/race and migration status of adolescents can explain
the coping behaviors adopted against cybervictimization.
Lastly, the visual network analysis demonstrated the
strength of collaboration links of cyberbullying across the
world using an illustration of 8 clusters, demonstrating that
cyberbullying is a cross-cultural issue that requires increased
cross-cultural collaboration.
Practical implications
Several practical implications can be derived from this
collection. First, cybervictimization intervention programs need
to consider cultural factors when tailoring their programs to
bullies, victims, and bystanders. For instance, interventions need
to adhere to cultural values, norms, and perspectives to improve
Frontiers in Communication 02 frontiersin.org
Ramos Salazar et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2022.961993
their cross-cultural content to maximize their prevention
effectiveness. Second, education curriculums and programs need
to take into consideration the cultural factors that explain why
some individuals become targets of victimization. Ethnic-related
cybervictimization can be addressed by promoting diversity and
multicultural trainings and workshops. Third, prevention and
intervention programs should pay special attention to more
vulnerable and less popular students, and should also be directed
to reduce popularity-motivated cyberbullying. Fourth, there
is a need to improve cybervictimization policies and laws to
protect individuals from targeted cybervictimization based on
cultural factors.
Summary and future directions
Overall, this collection examined cybervictimization and
cyberaggression from different cross-cultural approaches.
Findings from this special issue demonstrate that researchers
can conduct cross-cultural research using a variety of
methods including descriptive bibliographical, cross-cultural
comparison, sociometry, and descriptive prevalence-based.
Future researchers may use these findings to develop or
evaluate cross-cultural cyberaggression or cybervictimization
interventions among adolescents and young adult samples.
Future studies may also consider using qualitative methods
of research such as focus groups, interviews, and diary
studies to better understand the in-depth experiences of
cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbystanders from a
cross-cultural perspective.
Author contributions
LR was responsible for writing the initial draft of the
editorial. All authors listed helped with revising and editing
this editorial. All authors contributed to the article and approved
the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to all authors,
reviewers, and editors who worked to help bring this collection
into fruition.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Athanasiades, C., Kamariotis, H., Psalti, A., Baldry, A. C., and Sorrentino, A.
(2015). Internet use and cyberbullying among adolescent students in Greece: the
“Tabby” project. Hellenic J. Psychol. 12, 14–39. Available online at: http://ikee.lib.
auth.gr/record/272535?ln=en
Barlett, C. P., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Suzuki, K., Sakamoto,
A., Yamaoka, A., et al. (2014). Cross-cultural differences in cyberbullying
behavior: a short-term longitudinal study. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 45, 300–313.
doi: 10.1177/0022022113504622
Bedrosova, M., Machakova, H., Serek, J., Smahel, D., and Blaya, C. (2022).
The relation between the cyberhate and cyberbullying experiences of adolescents
in the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia. Comput. Hum. Behav. 126, 1.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107013
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. Comput. Hum. Behav.
50, 141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065
Keipi, T., Räsänen, P., Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., and Näsi, M. (2018). Exposure
to online hate material and subjective wellbeing: a comparative study of American
and Finnish youth. Online Inform. Rev. 42, 2–15. doi: 10.1108/OIR-05-2016-0133
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., and Lattanner, M. R. (2014).
Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying
research among youth. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1073–1137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A., and Olafssson, K. (2011). EU Kids Online:
Final report. EU Kids Online.
Machackova, H., and Pfetsch, J. (2016). Bystanders’ responses to offline bullying
and cyberbullying: the role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression.
Scand. J. Psychol. 57, 169–176. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12277
Meier, J. V., Noel, J. A., and Kaspar, K. (2021). Alone together: Computer-
mediated communication in leisure time during and after the COVID-19
pandemic. Front. Psychol. 21, 665. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.666655
Mikkola, M., Oksanen, A., Kaakinen, M., Miller, B. L., Savolainen, L., Sirola, A.,
et al. (2020). Situational and individual risk factors for cybercrime victimization
in a cross-national context. Int. J. Offender Therap. Comparat. Criminol. 20, 1041.
doi: 10.1177/0306624X20981041
Musharraf, S., and Anis-ul-Haque, M. (2018). Impact of cyber aggression
and cyber victimization on mental health and wellbeing of Pakistani young
adults: the moderating role of gender. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 21, 942–958.
doi: 10.1080/10926771.2017.1422838
Palladino, B. E., Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Ucanok, Z.,
et al. (2017). Perceived severity of cyberbullying: differences and similarities across
four countries. Front. Psychol. 8, 1524. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01524
Romera, E. M., Herrera-López, M., Casas, J. A., Ruiz, R, O., and Rey, R. D. (2018).
How much do adolescents cybergossip? scale development and validation in Spain
and Colombia. Front. Psychol. 9, 126. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00126
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Göbel, K., Scheithauer, H., Brighi, A., Guarini, A.,
Tsorbatzoudis, H., et al. (2014). A comparison of classification approaches for
cyberbullying and traditional bullying using data from six European countries. J.
School Viol. 14, 47–65. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2014.961067
Frontiers in Communication 03 frontiersin.org
Ramos Salazar et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2022.961993
Shapka, J. D., Onditi, H. Z., Collie, R. J., and Lapidot-Lefler, N. (2018).
Cyberbullying and cybervictimization within a cross-cultural context: a
study of Canadian and Tanzanian adolescents. Child Develop. 89, 89–99.
doi: 10.1111/cdev.12829
Sorrentino, A., Farrington, D. P., Baldry, A. C., and Blaya, C. (2019).
Epidemiology of cyberbullying across Europe: Differences between countries and
genders. Educat. Sci. Theory Pract. 19, 79–91. doi: 10.12738/estp.2019.2.005
Wang, Q., Luo, X., Tu, R., Xiao, T., and Hu, W. (2022). COVID-19 information
overload and cyber aggression during the pandemic lockdown: the mediating
role of depression/anxiety and the moderating role of Confucian responsibility
thinking. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 1540. doi: 10.3390/ijerph190
31540
Yanagida, T., Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., Solomontos-Kountouri, O., Trip, S.,
and Bora, C. (2016). Cross-national prevalence of traditional bullying, traditional
victimization, cyberbullying and cyber-victimization: Comparing single-item
and multi-item approaches of measurement. Int. J. Develop. Sci. 10, 21–32.
doi: 10.3233/DEV-150173
Zych, I., Kaakinen, M., Savolainen, I., Sirola, A., Paek, H.-J., and Oksanen, A.
(2021). The role of impulsivity, social relations online and offline, and compulsive
Internet use in cyberaggression: a four-country study. New Media and Society 1,
1–18. doi: 10.1177/14614448211009459
Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., and Del Rey, R. (2015). Systematic review of
theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention,
and intervention. Aggress. Viol. Behav. 23, 1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001
Frontiers in Communication 04 frontiersin.org
