Cyberbullying review and meta-analysis of CRAY

1. Differing paths by bully/victim status

1.1. Cybervictimization: The path to a cyberbullying encounter for a victim also starts with person and situational factors. This combination of person and situational factors might predispose a young boy, for example, to become a cybervictim. After he receives a cyberbullying message, this encounter creates a number of possible internal states, such as worried thoughts, negative affect, and heightened arousal, and the cyberbullying encounter can also influence person and situational factors

1.2. Cyberperpetration: The path to a cyberbullying encounter for a perpetrator starts with person and situational factors. These factors affect the present internal state of the individual, perhaps activating hostile thoughts, negative affect, and heightened arousal. The present internal state is also linked with appraisal and decision processes. For example, the individual may appraise the situation as one in which an aggressive response is appropriate and decide to engage in an impulsive action by quickly sending a nasty text message to another individual. Alternatively, if the individual appraises the situation as not demanding an immediate, impulsive action, he or she may decide that a more thoughtful action is appropriate and decide to create a webpage that berates another individual

2. Cyberbullying vs traditional bullying

2.1. Features of traditional bullying: motives for traditional bullying may be more interpersonal. Individuals who traditionally bully may be more likely to perpetrate certain kinds of cyberbullying, thinking that they may be more anonymous (e.g., via instant messaging) and be more likely to be targets of cyberbullying via other venues.

2.2. Features of cyberbullying: Perpetrators of cyberbullying often perceive themselves to be anonymous. cyberbullying behavior 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. At any time during the day or night, they can create websites, send text messages, or post messages about others on the Internet. Additionally, because of the nature of the venues through which cyberbullying occurs, it has a much greater potential audience than traditional bullying. For example, thousands of people may view insulting posts online, whereas only a dozen may view a bullying incident at school. That is, motives for perpetrating cyberbullying may be more intrapersonal.

3. General agression model

3.1. Routes: According to the GAM, the person and situational inputs discussed above influence social, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outcomes via three direct routes: cognition, affect, and arousal.

3.2. Inputs

3.2.1. Personal Factors: Gender - Age - Motives - Personality - Psychological states - SES and technology use -Values and perceptions

3.2.2. Situational factors: Provocation/Support Parental involvement - School climate - Perceived anonymity

3.3. Knowledge structures: consist of associated information that has been stored in semantic memory. These structures encompass the scripts and schemas one depends on to understand and behaviorally navigate through daily situations.

3.4. Proximal processes: The proximal processes included here consist of appraisal and decision-making processes, both automatic and controlled, that influence behavioral decisions. . The proximal processes stage in the GAM focuses on appraisal and decision-making processes within a cyberbullying situation and differs from the longer term negative outcomes researchers typically think of when the word outcome is used

3.5. Distal outcomes: Studies have linked cyberbullying involvement as victim and/or perpetrator to tobacco, alcohol, and drug use; mental health symptomatology of anxiety and depression, decreased self-esteem and self-worth, low self-control; suicidal ideation, poor physical health, increased likelihood of self-injury, and loneliness..