Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 December 2022
Teachers can contribute to preventing and solving cyberbullying situations. Therefore, it is relevant to investigate what may influence their involvement and actions concerning this phenomenon. A first study analyze teachers’ definitions of cyberbullying, how they would intervene and feel morally implicated with the phenomenon. A second study aimed to investigate the association between teachers’ being aware of cyberbullying and their perceived severity, moral disengagement with the phenomenon, perceived performance to solve such situations and their acquired knowledge about cyberbullying. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted in the first study with 25 to 65-year-old teachers. An online inventory was answered in study two by 541 middle and high school teachers (Mage = 50, SD = 7). A thematic analysis from the first study revealed that most teachers did not report repetition of behavior, power imbalance, intentionality to harm, and occurrence among peers as defining features of cyberbullying. Also, strategies they would use to intervene mainly focused on reporting the incident. Moreover, moral disengagement mechanisms were found in teachers’ discourse, which contribute to displacing responsibility for intervening and perceiving cyberbullying as less severe. In the second study, path analysis revealed that teachers’ awareness of cyberbullying among their students was positively associated with moral disengagement and acquired knowledge of the phenomenon. The mediating role of acquired knowledge of cyberbullying was significant between being aware of cyberbullying and teachers’ perceived severity of the situation, moral disengagement, and perceived performance to solve these situations. These findings highlight the relevance of developing cyberbullying training actions involving teachers.
Funding Statement: This work received national funding from FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I. P. (grant number PTDC/PSI–GER/1918/2020), Centro de Investigação em Ciência Psicológica (CICPSI), Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa (grant numbers UIDB/04527/2020 and UIDP/04527/2020), and Business Research Unit (BRU), Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (grant number UID/GES/00315/2019).
Conflicts of Interest: None.
Data sharing: Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.
Author note: Nádia Salgado Pereira, Paula da Costa Ferreira, Ana Margarida Veiga Simão, Alexandra Barros and Alexandra Marques Pinto are at Centro de Investigação em Ciência Psicológica (CICPSI) and Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa.