Diffusion of responsibility or diffusion of social risk: Social impact of hyperpersonal cues in cyberbystander intervention in a cyberbullying context Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kelly Patricia Dillon, M.A. Graduate Program in Communication Dissertation Committee: Dr. Brad J Bushman, Advisor Dr. Jesse A. Fox Dr. Dave R. Ewoldsen The Ohio State University 2016 Copyright by Kelly Patricia Dillon 2016 Abstract Increasing reliance on computer-mediated communication to work and socialize has led to a sharp increase in emergencies and negative communication events. The Centers for Disease Control have labeled cyberaggression as an important public health issue, affecting millions of adolescents and adults daily. Previous research has focused mainly on the adverse effects of bullying and possible risk factors for adolescents bullying their peers. The majority of individuals fall into a third group: bystanders. The current study uses social impact theory (Latané, 1981) to test the hyperpersonal cues (Walther, 1996) on cyberbystander intervention. Participants are cyberbystanders to cyberbullying happening in real-time, and have opportunities for direct and indirect intervention. The Bystander Effect is confirmed, where fewer individuals chose to directly intervene in the cyberbullying when more individuals were present. Timing and amount of feedback from other cyberbystanders have mixed results. Non-intervening participants explain their inaction using various Moral Disengagement (Bandura, 1991; 1999) strategies. Results offer unique insights into cyberbystander behavior in a real-life simulation. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Jean Dillon, who taught me how to breathe. iii Acknowledgements This entire journey was a group effort, and I am significantly (p<.001) blessed to have so many people not just in my life. I started this program with one family, and leave with two. In my academic family, I must acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Brad Bushman, for his never-ending support, in and out of the lab. To my committee members Dr. Jesse Fox and Dr. Dave Ewoldsen. Dr. Fox consistently sets the bar of badass high and Dr. Ewoldsen is a true lighthouse, encouraging from the shore whenever needed. To my village people: the cohorts before me, those I walk with, and those I have had the pleasure to see begin this journey. Of special note are Laura Willis, Bridget Potocki, Phokeng Dailey, Rachel Neo, and the dozens of other rock stars who walk the third floor of Derby Hall in pursuit of communication excellence. I must acknowledge my family who has braved this journey with me. My parents, Bette and Jim, always believed and urged me to shoot for the stars. My brothers, Brandon, Kevin, and Joey keep me grounded and laughing. To my mother-in-law Kathy who cared for my children so I could attend class, conferences, or my work. To my children, Jackson and Benjamin, who have grown as much as I have during these 5yrs; I hope I have inspired. Most of all, to my husband, Eric who worked so hard to make this dream possible. He has a PhD by proxy for his efforts, and I here formally, and every day, acknowledge how lucky I am to have him in my life. iv Vita June 1996 …………………………………………………….North Babylon High School 2000 ………………………………………………….. B.A. Psychology, Kenyon College 2003……….… M.A. Psychology, Vermont College at the Union Institute and University 2014…………………………………... M.A. Communication, The Ohio State University 2014 to present …………………………………………….. Graduate Research Assistant, School of Communication, The Ohio State University Publications Dillon, K. P. & Bushman, B. J. (2015) Unresponsive or un-noticed?: Cyberbystander intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 144-150. Dillon, K. P. (2015). I'll stand by you: Glee characters' multiple identities and bystander intervention in bullying. In B. Johnson & D. Faill (Eds.) Glee & New Directions for Social Change. Sense Publishers, Netherlands. Fields of Study Major Field: Communication v Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iii Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………..iv Vita……………………………………………………………………………………...…v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….vii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………...…viii Chapter 1: Literature Review……………………………………………………………...1 Chapter 2: Methods………………………………………………………………………42 Chapter 3: Results………………………………………………………………………..64 Chapter 4: Discussion………………………………………………………………....…77 References………………………………………………………………………………..97 Appendix A: Researcher Script………………………………………………………...110 Appendix B: Personality Questionnaires……………………………………………….115 Appendix C: Post-Experiment Questionnaires…………………………………………123 Appendix D: Post-Test Questionnaires.......................................................................….126 Appendix E: Debriefing Form………………………………………………………….137 vi List of Tables Table 1. Moral disengagement strategy choices, statements, variables, and hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………..........36 Table 2. Counts of participants in each condition for analysis…………………………..42 Table 3. Mean scores on synchronicity items…………………………………………....50 Table 4. Descriptive statistics of personality variables…………………......……………56 Table 5. Rates of direct intervention by number of cyberbystanders present……………59 Table 6. Comparisons of indirect intervention by number of cyberbystanders present…60 Table 7. Rates of direct intervention by timing of feedback by other cyberbystanders…61 Table 8. Comparisons of indirect intervention by timing and amount of feedback……..61 Table 9. Rates of direct intervention in by number of cyberbystanders in feedback-always conditions……………………………………………………………………………...…62 Table 10. Frequency of types of direct intervention comments……………………….…64 Table 11. Frequency of types of direct intervention comments………………………….65 Table 12. Independent groups t-tests of personality variables by direct intervention...…66 Table 13. Correlations of personality variables and indirect intervention……………….67 Table 14. Moral disengagement strategy choices by non-intervening participants……...70 vii List of Figures Figure 1. Bystander Intervention Model (Dillon & Bushman, 2015)…………………....18 Figure 2. Screenshot of participant monitor……………………………………………..53 Figure 3. Image of an infinity mirror…………………………………………………….75 Figure 4. Including moral disengagement strategies in the bystander intervention model……………………………………………………………………………………..84 vii Chapter 1: Literature Review Bullying, Cyberbullying & Bystanders Definitions & Prevalence Aggression is generally defined as any behavior intended to harm another person, either physically or psychologically, who does not want to be harmed (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). When aggression occurs online it is called cyberaggression. Bullying is specifically defined as repetitive, intentionally aggressive behavior that creates or maintains an imbalance of power (Tokunaga, 2010). It includes repeated acts of assault, taunting, teasing, extortion, ostracism, and intimidation (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Myers, McCaw, & Hemphill, 2011). Recent longitudinal studies have revealed victims of bullying are at a greater risk of developing psychiatric disorders such as generalized anxiety and panic disorders, attempting or completing suicide, agoraphobia, and anti- social personality disorders (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013). When bullying occurs online it is called cyberbullying. What is unique about the mediated environment is how a single comment, meme, picture, or post can meet the criteria for cyberbullying given it can be seen repeatedly by different audiences and individuals. Online harassment and hostility that creates or perpetuates some sort of power imbalance is considered cyberbullying. Not all online harassment meets the criteria for cyberbullying, but all types cyberbullying falls under the umbrella of 1 onlrassment. If an individual has any online presence, or uses any 21st century communication technology such as SMS text messaging, electronic mail, or the Internet, they have the opportunity to perpetrate, experience, or witness various versions of cyberbullying. Trolling and flaming have become normative behaviors in online forums and social media sites, particularly if they afford anonymity. Trolling occurs when an individual, or group of individuals, “lure members of the community into fruitless arguments” (Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002, p. 372) and can be especially troublesome for online discussions (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014). Flaming is the “use of hostile expressions towards others” (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2011, p. 434) with the specific aim to be perceived as aggressive (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004; Derks, Fischer, & Bos, 2008; Moor, Heuvelman, & Verleur, 2010). Other behaviors, such as online gossips or rumors (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), teasing (Holfield, 2014; Kowalski, Giumeeti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014), defamation (Bartlett & Gentile, 2012; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009) and cyberostracism (Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000) via computer-mediated communication are considered cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Those who use discussion forums (Moor, Nakano, Enomoto, & Suda, 2012), online games (Lam, Cheng, & Liu, 2013; Yang, 2012), social media (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Ittel, Azmitia, Pfetsch, & Müller,