This study uses behavioral reasoning theory (BRT) to explore the decision-making mechanisms underlying bystanders' defending behavior in the context of social networking site (SNS) cyberbullying. The study focuses on the factors that either motivate or discourage bystanders from intervening and examines how altruistic values shape bystanders' decisions to take action.
We used a mixed-methods approach and conducted qualitative interviews to identify the reasons for (RFs) intervention (emergency of cyberbullying, relationships with victims, and prior cyberbullying victimization) and reasons against (RAs) intervention (e.g. perceived risk, depersonalization, and number of bystanders). To test the model, quantitative data were subsequently collected through surveys involving 418 respondents.
Bystanders' attitudes positively influence their intentions to engage in defending behavior. RF-defending behavior not only directly affects intention but also indirectly increases intention by shaping positive attitudes. In contrast, although RA-defending behavior does not directly reduce intention, it negatively influences intention through its impact on attitudes. Furthermore, altruistic values positively influence RF intervention, reduce the impact of RA intervention, and directly strengthen bystanders' attitudes toward defending behavior.
This study advances the literature by jointly examining altruistic values and competing reasons for and against intervention, thereby capturing the psychological dilemmas of bystanders and offering a more comprehensive explanation of defending behavior. The findings highlight that strengthening altruistic values, digital responsibility, and urgency-sensitive SNS design—supported by appropriate public policy—is essential for empowering bystanders and creating a safer and more supportive online environment.
