Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prosociality in Cyberspace: Developing Emotion and Behavioral Regulation to Decrease Aggressive Communication

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Different forms of verbal aggression are often present in cyberbullying, which may impair executive function skills that enable the regulation of emotions and behavior. Emotion and behavioral regulation has been associated with better social adjustment and more positive interactions between peers. This study aimed to understand if fostering emotion and behavioral regulation strategies could decrease aggressive communication. A quasi-experimental longitudinal design, based on a Twitter client mobile application, with pre-posttest measures was used. For the application, we explored different machine learning approaches, including computational intelligence methods. Multilevel linear modeling and frequency analyses were performed. A convenience sample of 218 adolescents (Mage = 14.67, SD = 0.84, 53% female) participated in the study. Results suggest that a Twitter client mobile application intervention based on emotion and behavioral regulation strategies may help decrease adolescents’ aggressive communication. Moreover, female and male participants who used the digital application tended to present distinct trajectories over time with regard to searching for information concerning prosocial behavior. These findings suggest that digital tools resorting to emotion and behavioral regulation strategies may be effective in reducing an aggressive communication style amongst adolescents, and consequently, promote resource seeking to engage in prosociality. These results can be significant for the design of intervention programs against cyberbullying.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cyberbullying: The regulation of behavior through language [Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), PTDC/MHC/PED/3297/2014] and The Bystander Effect in Cyberbullying—taking responsibility and intervening through the regulation of behavior in adolescence (FCT, SFRH/BPD/110695/2015).

  2. Developed within the project Cyberbullying: the regulation of behavior through language (FCT, PTDC/MHCPED/3297/2014).

References

  1. UNICEF - United Nations Children’s Fund. A familiar face: violence in the lives of children and adolescents. UNICEF, New York, USA; 2017.

  2. Patchin JW, Hinduja S. Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: a preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2006;4(2):148–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. UNICEF - United Nations Children’s Fund. The State of the World’s Children 2017: children in a digital world. UNICEF, New York, USA; 2017.

  4. Weinstein A, Dannon P. Is impulsivity a male trait rather than female trait? Exploring the sex difference in impulsivity. Curr Behav Neurosci Rep. 2015;2:9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Evans GW, Wachs TD, editors. Chaos and its influence on children’s development: an ecological perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blair C, Diamond A. Biological processes in prevention and intervention: the promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Dev Psychopathol. 2008;20(3):899–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berthelsen D, Hayes N, White SLJ, Williams KE. Executive function in adolescence: associations with child and family risk factors and self-regulation in early childhood. Front Psychol. 2017;8:903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rueda MR, Posner MI, Rothbart MK. The development of executive attention: contributions to the emergence of self-regulation. Dev Neuropsychol. 2005;28(2):573–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Veiga Simão AM, Ferreira P, Francisco SM, Paulino P, de Souza SB. Cyberbullying: shaping the use of verbal aggression through normative moral beliefs and self-efficacy. New Media Soc. 2018;20(12):4787–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lin Y, Durbin JM, Rancer AS. Perceived instructor argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and classroom communication climate in relation to student state motivation and math anxiety. Commun Educ. 2017;66(3):330–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ. Emotions and aggressiveness. In: International Handbook of Violence Research, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht; 2003. pp. 479–93. ISBN 978–0–306–48039–3.

  12. Kun B, Demetrovics Z. Emotional intelligence and addictions: a systematic review. Subst Use Misuse. 2010;45(7–8):1131–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Norström T, Pape H. Alcohol, suppressed anger and violence. Addiction. 2010;105(9):1580–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sullivan TN, Helms SW, Kliewer W, Goodman KL. Associations between sadness and anger regulation coping, emotional expression, and physical and relational aggression among urban adolescents. Soc Dev. 2010;19(1):30–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bandura A. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(2):164–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosa H, Carvalho JP, Calado P, Martins B, Ribeiro R, Coheur L. Using fuzzy fingerprints for cyberbullying detection in social networks. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ). IEEE; 2018. p. 56–62.

  17. Rosa H, de Matos DM, Ribeiro R, Coheur L, Carvalho JPA, “deeper” look at detecting cyberbullying in social networks. In, . International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN). IEEE. 2018;2018:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Heck RH, Thomas SL, Tabata LN. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. Routledge; 2013.

  19. Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge Academic; 2010.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Beheshti Z, Shamsuddin SMH. A review of population-based meta-heuristic algorithm. Int J Adv Soft Comput Its Appl. 2013;5:1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhou Y, Wang F, Tang J, Nussinov R, Cheng F. Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 drug repurposing. Lancet Digital Health. 2020;2:e667–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fellous JM, Sapiro G, Rossi A, Mayberg H, Ferrante M. Explainable artificial intelligence for neuroscience: behavioral neurostimulation. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Francisco SM, Veiga Simão AM, Ferreira PC, Martins MJD. Cyberbullying: the hidden side of college students. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;43:167–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rachoene M, Oyedemi T. From self-expression to social aggression: cyberbullying culture among south african youth on facebook. Communication. 2015;41(3):302–19.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Norton RW. Communicator style: theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Agarwal UA, Gupta M. Communication styles of millennials: trends & relevance for the industry. Indian J Ind Relat. 2018;53(3):504–18.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jakubowski P, Lange AJ. The assertive option: your rights & responsibilities. Research Press Company; 1978.

  28. del Pino CL, Sánchez A, Pérez-Nieto MA, Fernández M. Impulsividad, autoestima y control cognitivo en la agresividad del adolescente. EduPsykhé Revista de Psicología y Educación. 2008;7(1):81–99.

    Google Scholar 

  29. den Hamer AH, Konijn EA. Can emotion regulation serve as a tool in combating cyberbullying? Pers Individ Differ. 2016;102:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin M. Risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among Taiwanese children. PhD thesis, Texas Medical Center Dissertations (via ProQuest). AAI10126751; 2017.

  31. Jacobs NCL, Dehue F, Völlink T, Lechner L. Determinants of adolescents’ ineffective and improved coping with cyberbullying: A delphi study. J Adolesc. 2014;37(4):373–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bridges LJ, Denham SA, Ganiban JM. Definitional issues in emotion regulation research. Child Dev. 2004;75(2):340–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gross JJ. Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology. 2002;39(3):281–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rottenberg J, Gross JJ. Emotion and emotion regulation: a map for psychotherapy researchers. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2007;14(4):323–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ochsner K, Bunge S, Gross J, Gabrieli J. Rethinking feelings: an fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002;14(8):1215–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mauss IB, Levenson RW, McCarter L, Wilhelm FH, Gross JJ. The tie that binds? Coherence among emotion experience, behavior, and physiology. Emotion. 2005;5(2):175–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Reisenzein R. A short history of psychological perspectives on emotion. In: The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing, Oxford University Press, New York; 2015. pp. 1–34.

  38. Scherer KR. Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In: Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2001. pp. 92–129.

  39. Gross JJ, Thompson RA. Emotion regulation: conceptual foundations. In: Handbook of emotion regulation, Guildford Press; 2007.

  40. Mauss IB, Cook CL, Gross JJ. Automatic emotion regulation during anger provocation. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(5):698–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mauss IB, Bunge SA, Gross JJ. Automatic emotion regulation. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2007;1(1):146–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Taylor GJ, Bagby RM, Parker JDA. Disorders of affect regulation: alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2004;26(1):41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gratz KL, Tull MT. Emotion regulation as a mechanism of change in acceptance- and mindfulness-based treatments. In: Assessing mindfulness and acceptance: Illuminating the processes of change, New Harbinger Publications, Oakland, CA; 2010.

  45. Hofmann SG, Asmundson GJG. Acceptance and mindfulness-based therapy: new wave or old hat? Clin Psychol Rev. 2008;28(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Roberton T, Daffern M, Bucks RS. Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggress Violent Beh. 2012;17(1):72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Van Cleemput K, Vandebosch H, Poels K, Bastiaensens S, DeSmet A, De Bourdeaudhuij I. The development of a serious game on cyberbullying. In: Cyberbullying: from theory to intervention. Routledge; 2015. pp. 93.

  48. Paiva A, Dias J, Sobral D, Aylett R, Woods S, Hall L, et al. Learning by feeling: evoking empathy with synthetic characters. Appl Artif Intell. 2005;19(3–4):235–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Batson CD. These things called empathy: eight related but distinct phenomena. In: The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA; 2009. pp. 3–15.

  50. Dinakar K, Jones B, Havasi C, Lieberman H, Picard R. Common sense reasoning for detection, prevention, and mitigation of cyberbullying. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 2012;2(3):18:1–18:30.

  51. Kowalski RM, Limber SP. Electronic bullying among middle school students. J Adolesc Health. 2007;41(6):S22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Olweus D. Bully/victim problems in school: facts and intervention. Eur J Psychol Educ. 1997;12(4):495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Olson EA, Collins PF, Hooper CJ, Muetzel R, Lim KO, Luciana M. White matter integrity predicts delay discounting behavior in 9- to 23-year-olds: a diffusion tensor imaging study. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21:1406–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Crone EA, Bullens L, van der Plas EA, Kijkuit EJ, Zelazo PD. Developmental changes and individual differences in risk and perspective taking in adolescence. Dev Psychopathol. 2008;20:1213–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bava S, Boucquey V, Goldenberg D, Thayer RE, Ward M, Jacobus J, et al. Sex differences in adolescent white matter architecture. Brain Res. 2011;1375:41–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Linacre JM. Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program user’s guide. Winsteps.com, Beaverton, Oregon. Retrieved from https://www.winsteps.com/manuals.htm.

  57. Ferrando P. Assessing short-term individual consistency using IRT-based statistics. Psicológica. 2010;31:319–34.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press; 1980. (original work published 1960)

  59. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Smith EV Jr. Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: a rasch measurement perspective. J Appl Meas. 2001;2(3):281–311.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Fox CM, Jones JA. Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1998;45(1):30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rosa H, Pereira N, Ribeiro R, Ferreira PC, Carvalho JP, Oliveira S, et al. Automatic cyberbullying detection: a systematic review. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;93:333–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Zimmerman BJ. From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: a social cognitive career path. Educ Psychol. 2013;48(3):135–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bandura A. Aggression: a social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kirchner EP, Kennedy RE, Draguns JG. Assertion and aggression in adult offenders. Behav Ther. 1979;10(4):452–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Bullying beyond the schoolyard: preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Arch Suicide Res. 2010;14(3):206–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bono R, Blanca MJ, Arnau J, Gómez-Benito J. Non-normal distributions commonly used in health, education, and social sciences: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Marôco J. Análise Estatística com o SPSS Statistics (7th ed.). Pêro Pinheiro: ReportNumber; 2018. Retrieved from www.reportnumber.pt/ae

  71. McCoach DB. Hierarchical linear modeling. In: The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences, Routledge, New York, USA; 2010. pp. 123–40.

  72. Singer JD, Willet JB. Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Weissberg R, Durlak J, Domitrovich C, Gullotta TP. Social and emotional learning: past, present, and future. In: Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice, Guilford Press, New York, NY, US; 2015. pp. 3–19.

  74. Ferreira PC, Veiga Simão AM, da Silva AL. Does training in how to regulate one’s learning affect how students report self-regulated learning in diary tasks? Metacogn Learn. 2015;10(2):199–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by The Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (PTDC/MHC/PED/3297/2014; SFRH/BPD/110695/2015) of the Science and Education Ministry of Portugal, along with the Research Center for Psychological Science (CICPSI; UID/PSI/4527/2016), and in collaboration with INESC-ID (UIDB/50021/2020; SFRH/BSAB/136312/2018).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013, Lisboa, Portugal

    Ana Margarida Veiga Simão, Paula Costa Ferreira, Nádia Pereira, Sofia Oliveira & Paula Paulino

  2. INESC-ID Lisboa, Rua Alves Redol 9, 1000-029, Lisboa, Portugal

    Paula Costa Ferreira, Hugo Rosa, Ricardo Ribeiro, Luísa Coheur, João Paulo Carvalho & Isabel Trancoso

  3. Iscte - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Avenida das Forças Armadas, 1649-026, Lisboa, Portugal

    Ricardo Ribeiro

  4. Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal

    Luísa Coheur, João Paulo Carvalho & Isabel Trancoso

  5. Escola de Psicologia e Ciências da Vida, Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024, Lisboa, Portugal

    Paula Paulino

Authors
  1. Ana Margarida Veiga Simão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paula Costa Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nádia Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sofia Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paula Paulino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hugo Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ricardo Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luísa Coheur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. João Paulo Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Isabel Trancoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Ribeiro.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in our study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Portuguese Ministry of Education, National Committee of Data Protection, Schools’ Board of Directors) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, including their legal guardians.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veiga Simão, A.M., Costa Ferreira, P., Pereira, N. et al. Prosociality in Cyberspace: Developing Emotion and Behavioral Regulation to Decrease Aggressive Communication. Cogn Comput 13, 736–750 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09852-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09852-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation