Impact of Group Bragging Styles on Observers’ Cyberbullying: The Role of Observers’ Provocation and Group Identification

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.04.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Group bragging discourse in the online context often triggers dissatisfaction and even attacks from observers. However, the specific psychological mechanisms remain unclear. In this study, we manipulated explicit/implicit expressions of group bragging in a virtual network interaction scenario to assess the provocation and cyberbullying behavior of observers after observing different modes of group bragging. The results revealed that: 1) compared to implicit bragging, explicit group bragging elicited a sense of provocation in observers, which in turn led to cyberbullying against the braggers; 2) observers’ group identification moderated the provocation caused by explicit group bragging, individuals with high group identification exhibited stronger feelings of provocation and engaged in more cyberbullying behavior in response to explicit group bragging, compared to those with low group identification. This research clarifies that observers perceive explicit group bragging as a threat to their own group identity, thereby expanding and deepening the hubris hypothesis theory.

Key words: group-bragging, hubris hypothesis, cyberbullying behavior, group identity

摘要：

网络中群体夸耀言论常常引发旁观者对夸耀者的不满甚至攻击，但是具体心理机制尚不清晰。本研究在虚拟网络互动情境下，操纵显性/隐性表达的群体夸耀，评估观看不同方式表达的群体夸耀言论后旁观者的被挑衅感和网络攻击行为。结果发现：(1)相比于隐性夸耀，显性群体夸耀引发了旁观者的被挑衅感进而引发对夸耀者的网络攻击行为；(2)旁观者的群体认同对显性群体夸耀引起的被挑衅感起调节作用，相比低群体认同者，高群体认同者对显性群体夸耀有更强烈的被挑衅感和网络攻击行为。研究阐明了旁观者将显性群体夸耀当作对自身群体身份威胁的认知路径，扩展并深化了傲慢假说理论。

关键词: 群体夸耀, 傲慢假说, 网络攻击行为, 群体认同

CLC Number:

B842

Yang GAO, Shiguang NI, Zhiyuan XIA, Wulin TIAN. Impact of Group Bragging Styles on Observers’ Cyberbullying: The Role of Observers’ Provocation and Group Identification[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(4): 471-478.

高阳, 倪士光, 夏志远, 田午林. 群体夸耀方式对旁观者网络攻击行为的影响：旁观者的被挑衅感和群体认同的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(4): 471-478.

Figures/Tables 10

References

	陈慧, 甘怡群, 温瑶, 刘鑫, 孙鉴. 中国人核心自我评价构念的实证研究. 北京大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 46 (1): 141- 146. DOI
	丁甜. (2012). 大学生学校认同前因及结果的实证研究(硕士学位论文). 湘潭大学.
	金童林, 陆桂芝, 张璐, 乌云特娜, 金祥忠. (2018). 暴力环境接触对大学生网络攻击行为的影响: 反刍思维与网络道德的作用. 心理学报, 50(9), 1051–1060.
	宋仕婕, 佐斌, 温芳芳, 谭潇. 群体认同对群际敏感效应及其行为表现的影响. 心理学报, 2020, 52 (8): 993- 1003.
	温芳芳, 佐斌. 最简群体范式的操作、心理机制及新应用. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (3): 713- 719. DOI
	邢采, 刘婷婷, 张希. 危机情境下的亲社会行为: 求偶动机对危机救助意愿的影响. 心理科学, 2015, 38 (1): 172- 178.
	Alicke, M. D.. In defense of social comparison. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 2007, 20 (1): 11- 29.
	Chen, L., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O.. A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media effects approach. New Media & Society, 2017, 19 (8): 1194- 1213.
	Choi, E. U., & Hogg, M. A.. Who do you think you are? Ingroup and outgroup sources of identity validation. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 2020, 4 (3): 125- 134. DOI
	Chow, R. M., Lowery, B. S., & Knowles, E. D.. The two faces of dominance: The differential effect of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority on dominant-group identity and group esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008, 44 (4): 1073- 1081. DOI
	de Hoog, N.. Processing of social identity threats: A defense motivation perspective. Social Psychology, 2013, 44 (6): 361- 372. DOI
	DeMarco, T. C., & Newheiser, A. K.. Attachment to groups: Relationships with group esteem, self-esteem, and investment in ingroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2019, 49 (1): 63- 75. DOI
	Dufner, M., Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Denissen, J. J. A.. Self-enhancement and psychological adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2019, 23 (1): 48- 72. DOI
	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G.. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 2009, 41 (4): 1149- 1160. DOI
	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
	Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J.. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 2014, 67 (3): 451- 470. DOI
	Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., & Brewer, M. B.. Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2017, 20 (5): 570- 581.
	Hoorens, V., Pandelaere, M., Oldersma, F., & Sedikides, C.. The hubris hypothesis: You can self-enhance, but you’d better not show it. Journal of Personality, 2012, 80 (5): 1237- 1274. DOI
	Hoorens, V., van Damme, C., Helweg-Larsen, M., & Sedikides, C.. The hubris hypothesis: The downside of comparative optimism displays. Consciousness and Cognition, 2017, 50, 45- 55. DOI
	Jetten, J., & Hornsey, M. J.. Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 2014, 65 (1): 461- 485. DOI
	Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R.. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 2014, 140 (4): 1073- 1137. DOI
	Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E.. Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2006, 10 (2): 111- 132. DOI
	Li, Q.. New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007, 23 (4): 1777- 1791. DOI
	Miočević, M., Gonzalez, O., Valente, M. J., & MacKinnon, D. P.. A tutorial in Bayesian potential outcomes mediation analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2018, 25 (1): 121- 136. DOI
	Paolini, S., & McIntyre, K.. Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: Meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to-group generalization experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2019, 23 (1): 3- 47. DOI
	Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S.. Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2015, 23, 69- 74. DOI
	Quarmley, M., Feldman, J., Grossman, H., Clarkson, T., Moyer, A., & Jarcho, J. M.. Testing effects of social rejection on aggressive and prosocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 2021, 48 (2): 529- 545.
	Steinmetz, J., Sezer, O., & Sedikides, C.. Impression mismanagement: People as inept self-presenters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2017, 11 (6): e12321. DOI
	Suler, J.. The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2004, 7 (3): 321- 326.
	Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S.. If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001, 81 (6): 1058- 1069. DOI
	van Damme, C., Deschrijver, E., van Geert, E., & Hoorens, V.. When praising yourself insults others: Self-superiority claims provoke aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2017, 43 (7): 1008- 1019. DOI
	van Damme, C., Hoorens, V., & Sedikides, C.. Why self-enhancement provokes dislike: The hubris hypothesis and the aversiveness of explicit self-superiority claims. Self and Identity, 2016, 15 (2): 173- 190. DOI

预测变量	方程1(被挑衅感)			方程2(网络攻击行为)
预测变量	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
群体夸耀方式	0.81	0.07	10.55***	0.17	0.13	1.30
被挑衅感				0.66	0.13	4.99***
R²		0.658			0.656
F		111.41***			54.33***

预测变量	方程1(被挑衅感)			方程2(网络攻击行为)
预测变量	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
群体夸耀方式	0.81	0.07	10.55***	0.17	0.13	1.30
被挑衅感				0.66	0.13	4.99***
R²		0.658			0.656
F		111.41***			54.33***

中介变量	中介效应值	Boot标准误	Boot CI下限	Boot CI上限	相对中介效应
被挑衅感	0.54	0.12	0.28	0.76	76%

中介变量	中介效应值	Boot标准误	Boot CI下限	Boot CI上限	相对中介效应
被挑衅感	0.54	0.12	0.28	0.76	76%

预测变量	方程1(被挑衅感)			方程 2(网络攻击行为)
预测变量	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
群体夸耀方式	0.66	0.07	9.92***	0.15	0.04	3.79***
群体认同	0.16	0.07	2.42*	0.01	0.03	0.16
群体夸耀×群体认同	0.20	0.07	2.96**
被挑衅感				0.84	0.04	20.02***
被挑衅感×群体认同				−0.01	0.03	−0.16
R²		0.486			0.896
F		36.59***			247.25***