Adaptation of the Online Moral Disengagement Scale in Turkish: Its Association with Empathetic Tendency and Cyberbullying

Adaptation of the Online Moral Disengagement Scale in Turkish: Its Association with Empathetic Tendency and Cyberbullying | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Adaptation of the Online Moral Disengagement Scale in Turkish: Its Association with Empathetic Tendency and Cyberbullying Fuad Bakioğlu, Bahtiyar Eraslan Çapan, Sami Kırteke, Amir H Pakpour This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4359069/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 11 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Traditional moral disengagement is observed in daily life. However, as the time spent in virtual environments increases, it is important to investigate online moral disengagement. This study aimed to adapt the Online Moral Disengagement Scale to the Turkish population and examine the relationships among online moral disengagement, empathic tendency, and cyberbullying. Methods The study participants (58.2% females [n = 404], 41.8% males [n = 290]) consisted of 694 adolescent volunteers. The data were collected using the Online Moral Disengagement Scale, Cyber Bullying Scale, and Adolescent KA-Sİ Empathic Tendency Scale. The study was conducted in several stages: confirmatory factor analysis, item factor loading, item-total correlation, concurrent analysis, mediating analysis, and reliability analysis. Results The eight-item structure of the scale was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. The study revealed significant relationships between online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and empathic tendency. Online moral disengagement was found to mediate the relationship between empathic tendency and cyberbullying. Conclusion The scale's reliability values were good, and all the results indicated that the Turkish version of the moral disengagement scale was valid and reliable. Moral disengagement cyberbullying empathic tendency online adolescent Figures Figure 1 Introduction In the contemporary era, technological advancements have facilitated the proliferation of online communication. These digital environments can be accessed through a range of mobile devices, including smartphones, computers, and tablets. According to the 2024 Global Overview Report, 5.35 billion individuals across the globe are connected to the internet, representing 66.2% of the global population. According to the same report, the number of internet users in Turkey is 74.4 million, corresponding to 86.5% of the total population [ 1 ]. The rapid increase in the number of internet users every year has led to the alarming level of cyberbullying behavior [ 2 – 4 ]. Cyberbullying is defined as aggressive, deliberate, and malicious behaviors of a group or individual using virtual forms of communication, repeatedly against victims who cannot defend themselves [ 5 ]. Communication with technological tools and cyberbullying behaviors are increasing, especially among adolescents. Studies have shown that 23% [ 6 ] and 48% [ 7 ] of adolescents are victims of cyberbullying. It was concluded that 21% [ 8 ] and 79.3% of the participants were cyberbullies and 34% were victims [ 9 ]. It has been found that cyberbullying negatively affects individuals’ mental health and is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, emotional problems, low self-esteem, and suicidal thoughts [ 2 ]. Considering the serious effects of cyberbullying on adolescents, more comprehensive studies on the causes of behavior, how it can be prevented and how it can be stopped are needed [ 10 , 11 ]. In recent years, moral values have been identified as the main predictor of cyberbullying behaviors [ 12 , 13 ]. While moral values can help adolescents perform healthy behaviors and avoid misbehavior [ 14 ], moral dissolution can lead to the distortion of moral standards according to self-interest and pave the way for negative behaviors [ 15 ]. Moral dissolution is defined as individuals’ cognitive tendencies to override their internal moral standards and cause them to behave unethically [ 16 ]. With the shift of communication to the online environment with technological development, the concepts of cyberbullying and online moral dissolution have started to be discussed more, especially among adolescents. Online moral disengagement repeated in online environments [ 17 ]. In online environments, for example, messages intended to harm, deliberately created gossip, and embarrassing photos can be shown as online moral disengagement behaviors [ 18 ]. Studies show that there is a significant positive relationship between moral disengagement and cyberbullying [ 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 19 ]. Moreover, several studies have investigated the relationships between online moral disengagement and cyberbullying [ 20 , 21 ]. One of the personality traits examined in relation to cyberbullying is empathy. Empathy comprises two structures: empathic tendency and empathic skill. It is defined as the process of viewing events from the perspective of another individual, placing oneself in that individual's shoes, accurately comprehending and experiencing that individual's emotions and thoughts, and conveying that situation to that individual [ 22 , 23 ]. Empathy is the capacity to comprehend the emotions and experiences of others. While it fosters positive social interactions, it can also impede bullying behaviors [24 27]. Emotional and cognitive empathy serve as protective factors against cyberbullying [ 28 ]. While it is asserted that a high empathic tendency reduces aggression because it allows individuals to predict the possible harm that their aggressive behavior may cause [ 29 ], it is believed that low empathy is a risk factor for traditional bullying and cyberbullying [ 26 ]. Present Study In recent years, the prevalence of cyberbullying has increased alongside the use of technological tools for communication among young people [ 30 , 31 ]. A study has indicated that the manifestation of aggressive behavior is influenced by the interaction of individual and environmental characteristics[ 32 ]. This study aimed to elucidate the factors that contribute to cyberbullying behaviors, which are among the leading mental health problems, and to investigate the effects of protective and predisposing variables. Moral disengagement was considered a predisposing variable to cyberbullying, while empathic tendency was considered a protective factor. While cognitive distortions such as moral disengagement provide reasons why cyberbullying behavior is seen as normal [33 36], emotional variables such as empathic tendency provide an alternative explanation for cyber bullying by being sensitive to the emotions of others. It has been demonstrated to have a reducing effect on bullying behavior [ 25 , 27 ]. The environment that affects cyberbullying is the online environment. The anonymity of the online environment allows bullying behavior to be carried out without the necessity of coming face to face and by hiding one's identity [ 37 ]. Furthermore, the lack of direct communication with the victim, distance, lack of visibility and anonymity contribute to the use of moral disengagement strategies and the inability to be instantly informed of the emotional reactions of the victim. The research demonstrated that a lack of awareness of victims’ social-emotional cues reduces empathic tendencies and paves the way for cyberbullying [ 6 , 38 ]. In studies investigating the relationship between cyberbullying and moral disengagement, the traditional moral disengagement scale is generally used [ 17 ], and different moral disengagement strategies are used in studies on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. To prevent cyberbullying, which is rapidly increasing in the age of technological communication, a scale is needed to measure online moral disengagement strategies. An examination of the scales related to moral disengagement in Turkey revealed that there were measurement tools for measuring traditional moral disengagement. For instance, there are Turkish versions of the Moral Disengagement Scale [ 39 ] for the purpose of determining the traditional moral disengagement levels of adults and the Collective Moral Disengagement Scale [ 40 ] for the determination of the collective moral disengagement levels of adolescents. However, no scale has been developed for determining moral disengagement behavior in online environments. The objective of this study was to adapt the Online Moral Disengagement Scale to Turkish culture and to examine the mediating role of empathic tendency and online moral disengagement in cyber bullying behaviors. This research will investigate the effect of moral disengagement and empathy in explaining cyberbullying in Turkey and will contribute to improving students' empathic skills and preventing moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Methods Participants and procedure, and ethics The study included 694 adolescent volunteers, comprising 58.2% females (n = 404) and 41.8% males (n = 290). The mean age of the participants was 15.19 years (SD = 1.09), with ages ranging from 14 to 17 years. The participants were distributed across different grades, with 37.2% in the 9th grade, 21.0% in the 10th grade, 27.2% in the 11th grade, and 14.6% in the 12th grade. The participants' identities were kept anonymous. The study was carried out with an adolescent population in Turkey. The participants completed the questionnaires in approximately 20–25 minutes. While answering the survey, the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants were taken into consideration. The present study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of the second author’s university. Translation Process The Turkish adaptation of the Online Moral Disengagement Scale followed a standard procedure [ 41 ]. The procedure involved three bilingual native Turkish translators translating the scale from English to Turkish. First, the online Moral Disengagement Scale was translated from English to Turkish by three bilingual native Turkish translators. Second, three psychology experts consolidated the three Turkish translations into a single form. Finally, the scale was translated from Turkish to English by two psychology experts. The final Turkish version of the scale was evaluated by two psychology experts who compared the original and translated forms. Measures Online Moral disengagement Scale (OMDS) The OMDS [ 21 ] include eight unidimensional items (e.g., assuming that the identity of a classmate/friend online is just a game among friends) and a 5-point Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree − 5 - strongly agree). As a result of the CFA of the scale, all fit indices were found to be good (χ 2 = 378.526, df = 184, χ 2 /df = 2.057, p = .000; RMSEA = .035, WRMR = .970, CFI = .950). Cyber Bullying Scale (CBS) The CBS [ 42 ] has 14 unidimensional items (e.g., have you ever been assaulted to tape the assault and hang it on the internet?), 4-point Likert scale (0 – never − 3 – always). The Cronbach's alpha (α = .82) and test-retest reliability coefficient (.74) of the scale were found to be good. The Cronbach's alpha (α = .90) and test-retest reliability coefficient (.90) of the Turkish version [ 43 ] of the scale were found to be good. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha (.89) was found to be good. Adolescent KA-Sİ Emphatic Tendency Scale (ETS) The ETS [ 44 ] is a two-dimensional 13-item scale (emotional empathy, cognitive empathy) (e.g., emotional empathy: I get upset when I see someone ostracized by their friends; cognitive empathy: When something bothers my friends, even if they do not say it, I can understand their behavior. ), 4-point Likert scale (1 - not suitable for me at all − 4 - totally suitable for me). The Cronbach's alpha (α = .82) and test-retest reliability coefficient (.74) of the scale were found to be good. The Cronbach's alpha (emotional empathy α = .82; cognitive empathy α = .82) and test-retest reliability coefficient (emotional empathy = .73, cognitive empathy = .69) of the scale were found to be good. In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha (emotional empathy α = .85; cognitive empathy α = .82; total α = .84) was found to be good. Data analysis In the present study, the online moral disengagement scale was adapted to the Turkish population in several stages. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) was performed to determine the validity of the Turkish version of the scale. When evaluating the CFA results, we checked whether the fit indices were above the acceptance value (e.g., CFI, GFI, IFI, NFI and TLI ≥ .90; RMSEA, SRMR ≤ .08;) [ 45 , 46 ]. Item factor loads and item-total correlation values were examined. Second, Pearson correlation values were examined for concurrent analysis. Third, the mediating role of online moral disengagement on the relationship between empathic tendency and cyberbullying was examined. Moreover, bootstrapping analysis (10,000 resampling, 95% confidence intervals) was performed. Fourth, a reliability analysis of the scale was performed. Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's ω, Guttmann's λ6, and test-retest coefficients were calculated for reliability. SPSS Statistics 28.0, JASP 16.0 and Amos Graphics 23 were used for data analysis in the present study. Results First, in this study, CFA was performed to determine the validity of the Turkish version of the scale. All goodness-of-fit indices of the scale were found to be good (χ 2 = 72.929, df = 20, χ 2 /df = 3.65, p = 0.00; CFI = .974, IFI = .974, NNFI = .963, TLI = .963, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .072). The item factor load values ranged from .426 to .930. Moreover, the item-total correlations ranged from .368 to .852 (Table 1 ). Table 1 Statistics on the items of the OMD scale Item Factor Loading Item-total correlation M (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Item 1 .979 .852 1.61 (.71) .88 .04 Item 2 .392 .373 1.80 (.80) .71 − .17 Item 3 .598 .555 1.57 (.95) 1.76 1.40 Item 4 .823 .732 1.43 (.76) 1.51 .87 Item 5 .845 .758 1.37 (.72) 1.74 1.78 Item 6 .372 .381 1.68 (.87) 1.23 1.02 Item 7 .363 .368 1.65 (.83) 1.25 1.27 Item 8 .790 .712 1.32 (.69) 1.92 1.87 * All factor loadings were significant at 0.001. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. Second, concurrent analysis was performed. Pearson correlation coefficient values were calculated between cyberbullying, online moral disengagement, and empathic tendency. The analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between empathy and moral disengagement ( r = − .35, 95% CI = − .41, − .28, p < .001) and cyberbullying ( r = − .30, 95% CI = − .23, − .37, p < .001) and a significant positive correlation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying ( r = .36, 95% CI = .30, .43, p < .001). Third, the mediating role of online moral disengagement on the relationship between empathic tendency and cyberbullying was examined (Fig. 1 ). As a result of the analysis, when the direct effects were examined, empathic tendency negatively predicted online moral disengagement ( B = − .47, 95% CI = − .56, − .39, p < .001) and cyberbullying ( B = − .50, 95% CI = − .64, − .38, p < .001), while online moral disengagement positively predicted cyberbullying ( B = .35, 95% CI = .23, .53, p < .001). Bootstrapping analysis was applied to determine the significance of indirect effects. After performing the bootstrapping analysis, 10,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals were determined. Moreover, when the indirect effects were examined, empathy and cyberbullying were significantly predicted through online moral disengagement (value = − .17, 95% CI = − .25, − .11) (Table 2 ). All goodness-of-fit indices of the mediation model were found to be good (χ 2 = 11.683, df = 6, χ 2 /df = 1.94, p = 0.00; CFI = .995, IFI = .995, NNFI = .989, TLI = .987, RMSEA = .037, SRMR = .013). Table 2 Empathic tendency predicts cyberbullying through online moral disengagement Variable B SE t p LL (95%CI) UL (95%CI) Direct effect Empathic tendency ◊ OMD − .47 .031 -8.498 .001 − .56 − .39 OMD ◊ Cyberbullying .35 .013 5.368 .001 .23 .53 Empathic tendency ◊ Cyberbullying a − .50 .009 -6.477 .001 − .64 − .38 Bootstrapping analysis for Indirect effect Empathic tendency ◊ OMD ◊ Cyberbullying − .17 .008 -4.429 .001 − .25 − .11 Bootstrap sample size = 10000; OMD, online moral disengagement; LL, lower limit; UP, upper limit; a total effect. Finally, the reliability of the scale was calculated. The reliability analysis results showed that the Cronbach's alpha (α = .84, 95% CI = .82, .86), McDonald's ω (ω = .84, 95% CI = .82, .86) and Guttmann’s λ6 (λ6 = .88, 95% CI = .87, .89) scales were satisfactory. For reliability, the same scale was applied to a group of 60 people with an interval of three weeks, and the test-retest coefficient was calculated. Moreover, the test-retest coefficient ( r = .84, 95% CI = .73, .91) was also found to be satisfactory. Discussion The aim of this study was to adapt the Online Moral Disengagement Scale [ 21 ] to the Turkish population and to investigate the relationships among online moral disengagement, empathic tendency and cyberbullying. The research was conducted in several stages. The findings and discussion of each stage of the research are presented below. The scale data were collected using the Turkish form, which was translated from English into Turkish. First, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the validity of the OMD scale. As a result of the CFA, all goodness-of-fit indices of the scale, which consists of eight items and one dimension, were found to be good. The fit values obtained for the Turkish version of the scale were found to be similar to those of the original version [ 21 ]. The factor loadings of the Turkish version ranged from .43 to .93. The item total correlations ranged from .37 to .85. The item factor loadings are expected to be ≥ .40 and above [47 49]. The analysis confirmed the validity of the Turkish version of the scale. Second, a concurrent analysis was performed. The analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between empathic tendency and online moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Additionally, a positive significant correlation was found between online moral disengagement and cyberbullying. These findings are consistent with previous studies which have reported a negative a correlation between empathic disposition and moral disengagement [50 52]. Empathy, the cognitive and emotional understanding of another's feelings, is negatively correlated with moral disengagement. It is distinct from moral disengagement. While moral disengagement allows individuals to justify their aggressive behaviors from their own perspective [ 34 , 53 ], empathy enables individuals to consider the situation from the other person's point of view, take responsibility for their own actions, and act more humanely [ 24 , 27 , 35 , 54 ]. Individuals with a high tendency toward empathy are aware of how their actions and words can impact others. High levels of empathy can reduce aggression, as individuals are able to anticipate the potential harm that aggressive behavior may cause to others [ 29 ]. This study revealed a negative correlation between empathy and cyberbullying. Research suggests a negative correlation between empathy and cyberbullying [ 55 , 56 ]. Low empathy is associated with cyber aggression rather than high empathy [ 34 ], and it has been found that low empathy increases cyberbullying [ 35 ], as it prevents individuals from taking responsibility and feeling guilty for their behavior. However, some studies suggest that cyber aggression is more closely related to emotional empathy than to cognitive empathy. Additionally, these studies indicate that cyber aggression tends to increase as emotional empathy decreases [ 57 ]. Research has consistently shown a positive correlation between online moral disengagement and cyberbullying [ 50 ]. Several studies have identified moral disengagement as a predictor of cyberbullying [ 34 , 58 ]. Studies have shown that cyberbullying perpetrators often view their behavior as a joke rather than something malicious [58 60]. Additionally, research has shown that moral disengagement predicts cyberbullying [ 34 , 58 ]. Third, a mediating role of online moral disengagement was found in the relationship between empathetic tendency and cyberbullying. Research suggests that an increase in empathic tendency is associated with a decrease in moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Additionally, moral disengagement acts as a mediator between these variables. These findings are consistent with the results of a study conducted [ 51 ], which revealed that moral disengagement plays a mediating role between empathy and cyberbullying. Furthermore, a study support this finding by suggesting that aggressive behaviors are mediated by empathy and moral disengagement [ 61 ]. Both empathy and moral disengagement play important roles in aggressive behavior, with empathy serving as the foundation for moral behavior. Researchers emphasize that adolescents spend most of their time in the virtual environment, which limits their direct social interactions and reduces opportunities to develop social and cognitive skills [ 62 ]. Additionally, researchers argue that due to less developed empathy and moral development, adolescents may take advantage of the online environment, leading to cyberbullying [ 63 ]. Fourth, Cronbach's alpha (α = .84), McDonald's ω (ω = .84), Guttmann's λ6 (λ6 = .88), and test-retest coefficients (r = .84) were calculated for the reliability of the scale. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's ω, and Guttmann's λ6 values were found to be above .70. A reliability coefficient of ≥ .70 means that the scale has high reliability [ 64 ]. The values obtained in this study met these conditions. Furthermore, the test-retest values obtained indicated that the scale made stable measurements. Despite all its strengths, the present study has several limitations. (1) The OMD scale was developed for adolescents. It can be adapted for adults. (2) This study was conducted with the general population. The reliability and validity of the scale can be calculated separately for girls and boys. Reliability and validity can be calculated with the virtual dependent population. (3) The scales used in the research were based on self-reports, which can lead to response bias. Conclusion Based on the analyses conducted, it can be concluded that the Turkish version of the OMD scale is both reliable and valid. The OMD is a tool that mental health professionals and researchers can use to study online moral disengagement in Turkey. The OMD scale is suitable for use in studies with both the general population and clinical populations with cyber addiction. Declarations Acknowledgements Not Applicable. Authors’ contributions FB, BEÇ and SK conceptualized the project, collected the data, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. FB and AHP contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the findings. FB and AHP revised and edited the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding The present submission has not received any funding. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Consent for publication Not applicable. Ethics approval and consent to participate All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Anadolu University. The written informed consent was obtained from all the participants. References Digital. 2024: Global Overview Report [internet]. DataReportal; 2024 [cited 2021 Apr. 26]. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-April-global-statshot . Accessed 26 April 2024. Kowalski RM, Limber SP, McCord A. A developmental approach to cyberbullying: Prevalence and protective factors. Aggress Violent Beh. 2019;45:20–32. Zhao L, Yu J. A meta-analytic review of moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Front Psychol. 2021;12:681299. Zhu C, Huang S, Evans R, Zhang W. Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: a comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Frontier Public Health. 2021;9:1–12. Smith PK. The nature of cyberbullying and what we can do about it. J Res Special Educational Needs. 2015;15(3):176–84. Dehue F, Bolman C, Völlink T, Cyberbullying. Youngsters' experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology Behav. 2008;11(2):217–23. Raskauskas J, Stoltz AD. Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Dev Psychol. 2007;43(3):564. Walrave M, Heirman W, Cyberbullying. Predicting victimization and perpetration. Child Soc. 2011;25(1):59–72. König A, Gollwitzer M, Steffgen G. Cyberbullying as an act of revenge? J Psychologists Counsellors Schools. 2010;20(2):210–24. Pozzoli T, Gini G, Vieno A. Individual and class moral disengagement in bullying among elementary school children. Aggressive Behav. 2012;38(5):378–88. Thornberg R, Jungert T. School bullying and the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Aggressive Behav. 2014;40(2):99–108. Yang K, Li Q, Sun L. Toward automatic fingerprinting of IoT devices in the cyberspace. Comput Netw. 2019;148:318–27. Zhou D, Yan Z, Fu Y, Yao Z. A survey on network data collection. J Netw Comput Appl. 2018;116:9–23. Fu G, Xu F, Cameron CA, Heyman GD, Lee K. Cross-cultural differences in children’s choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies. Dev Psychol. 2007;43:278–93. Eraslan-Çapan B, Bakioğlu F. Submissive behavior and cyber bullying: A study on the mediator roles of cyber victimization and moral disengagement. Physiol Belgica. 2020;60(1):18–32. Wang X, Yang J, Wang P, Lei L. Childhood maltreatment, moral disengagement, and adolescents' cyberbullying perpetration: Fathers' and mothers' moral disengagement as moderators. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;95:48–57. Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1996;71(2):364–74. Law DM, Shapka JD, Domene JF, Gagné MH. Are cyberbullies truly bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28(2):664–72. Orue I, Calvete E. Psychopathic traits and moral disengagement interact to predict bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents. J interpers Violence. 2019;34(11):2313–32. Maftei A, Holman AC, Merlici IA. Using fake news as means of cyber-bullying: The link with compulsive internet use and online moral disengagement. Comput Hum Behav. 2022;127:107032. Paciello M, Tramontano C, Nocentini A, Fida R, Menesini E. The role of traditional and online moral disengagement on cyberbullying: Do externalizing problems make any difference? Comput Hum Behav. 2020;103:190–8. Dökmen Ü. Empatinin yeni bir modele dayanılarak ölçülmesi ve psikodrama ile geliştirilmesi [Measuring empathy based on a new model and improving it with psychodrama]. Ankara Univ J Fac Educational Sci (JFES). 1988;21(1):155–90. Dökmen Ü. İletişim çatışmaları ve empati [Communication conflicts and empathy]. Sistem Yayıncılık.2004. Ang RP, Goh DH. Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2010;41:387–97. Slonje R, Smith PK, Frisén A. Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of remorse by bullies: A pilot study. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;9(2):244–59. Steffgen G, König A, Pfetsch J, Melzer A. Are cyberbullies less empathic? Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology Behav Social Netw. 2011;14(11):643–8. Topçu Ç, Erdur-Baker Ö, Çapa-Aydin Y. Examination of cyberbullying experiences among Turkish students from different school types. Cyberpsychology Behav. 2008;11(6):643–8. Schultze-Krumbholz A, Hess M, Pfetsch J, Scheithauer H. Who is involved in cyberbullying? Latent class analysis of cyberbullying roles and their associations with aggression, self-esteem, and empathy. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace. 2018;12(4): 1–21. Tangney JP, Stuewig J, Mashek DJ. Moral emotions and moral behavior. Ann Rev Psychol. 2007;58:345–72. Reynolds BM, Repetti RL. Teenage girls' perceptions of the functions of relationally aggressive behaviors. Psychol Sch. 2010;47(3):282–96. Werner NE, Hill LG. Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational aggression. Child Dev. 2010;81(3):826–36. Bandura A. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Moral Educ. 2002;31(2):101–19. Almeida A, Correia I, Marinho S, Garcia DJ. Virtual but not less real: A study of cyberbullying and its relations to moral disengagement and empathy. Cyberbullying in the global playground. Res Int Perspect. 2012;223–44. Pornari CD, Wood J. Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior: Official J Int Soc Res Aggress. 2010;36(2):81–94. Postorino L, Cyberbullying. The role of empathy and moral disengagement in high school students. Marywood Univ. 2014. Slonje R, Smith PK, Cyberbullying. Another main type of bullying? Scand J Psychol. 2008;49(2):147–54. Nocera TR, Dahlen ER, Mohn RS, Leuty ME, Batastini AB. Dark personality traits and anger in cyber aggression perpetration: Is moral disengagement to blame? Psychol Popular Media. 2021;11(1):24–34. Runions KC. Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-aggression: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreation. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42:751–71. Erbaş E, Perçin NŞ. Ahlaki çözülme ölçeği Türkçe geçerlemesi ve kişi-çevre uyumu ilişkisi [Validation of moral disengagement scale in Turkish and its relationship with person-environment fit]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Univ J Graduate School Social Sci. 2017;17(1):177–90. Eraslan Çapan B, Bakioglu F. Adaptation of Collective Moral Disengagement Scale into Turkish culture for adolescents. Univers J Educational Res. 2016;4(6):1452–7. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91. Garaigordobil M. Psychometric properties of the Cyberbullying Test, a screening instrument to measure cybervictimization, cyberaggression, and cyberobservation. J interpers Violence. 2017;32(23):3556–76. Eraslan Çapan B, Bakioğlu F, Kirteke S. Adaptation of Cyber Bullying Scale to Turkish culture: psychometric properties. Anatol J Psychiatry. 2020;21(S1):39–47. Kaya A, Siyez DM. Child and adolescent KA-SI empathic tendency scale: development, validity and reliability study. Educ Sci. 2010;35(156):110–25. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1–55. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford; 2015. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):286–99. Guadagnoli E, Velicer WF. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol Bull. 1988;103:265–75. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. Volume 5. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2007. pp. 481–98. Marin-Lopez I, Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Monks CP, Llorent VJ. Empathy online and moral disengagement through technology as longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;116:105144. Nusantara BA, Sugiharto DYP, Mulawarman M. The effects of the effects of empathy on cyberbullying mediated by moral disengagement on cyberbullying mediated by moral disengagement. Jurnal Bimbingan Konseling. 2020;9(2):116–22. Zelidman A. Empathy as a moderator of adolescent bullying behavior and moral disengagement after controlling for social desirability. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, USA. 2014. Moses HT. The Relationship between the processes of moral disengagement & youth perceptions of cyber bullying behaviors during their final semester of high school. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, USA. 2013. Dilmac B. Psychological needs as a predictor of cyber bullying: A preliminary report on college students. Educational Sciences: Theory Pract. 2009;9(3):1307–25. Brewer G, Kerslake J. Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy and loneliness. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;48:255–60. Chen L, Wang Y, Yang H, Sun X. Emotional warmth and cyberbullying perpetration attitudes in college students: Mediation of trait gratitude and empathy. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0235477. Renati R, Berrone C, Zanetti MA, Cyberpsychology. Behav Social Netw. 2012;15(8):391–8. Runions KC, Bak M. Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Cyberpsychology Behav Social Netw. 2015;18(7):400–5. Rubio-Garay F, Carrasco MA, Amor PJ. Aggression, anger, and hostility: evaluation of moral disengagement as a mediational process. Scand J Psychol. 2016;57(2):129–35. Wright MF. Adolescents' emotional distress and attributions for face-to-face and cyber victimization: Longitudinal linkages to later aggression. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2017;48:1–13. Wang X, Lei L, Yang J, Gao L, Zhao F. Moral disengagement as mediator and moderator of the relation between empathy and aggression among Chinese male juvenile delinquents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2017;48(2):316–26. Betts LR. Cyberbullying: Approaches, consequences and interventions. Springer; 2016. Espinosa P, Clemente M. Media effects on antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In: Frías-Armenta M, Corral-Verdugo V, editors. Biopsycho-social perspectives on interpersonal violence. Nova Science; 2010. pp. 233–57. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314(7080):572. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 11 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 09 May, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 May, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 May, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 08 May, 2024 Editor invited by journal 06 May, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 04 May, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 04 May, 2024 First submitted to journal 02 May, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4359069","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":300372349,"identity":"0b710c34-b2fd-4d08-b19b-fa0d3dcb4b36","order_by":0,"name":"Fuad Bakioğlu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fuad","middleName":"","lastName":"Bakioğlu","suffix":""},{"id":300372351,"identity":"750fa000-bbc3-4165-a7e4-7b1c13d9dbf8","order_by":1,"name":"Bahtiyar Eraslan Çapan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anadolu University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bahtiyar","middleName":"Eraslan","lastName":"Çapan","suffix":""},{"id":300372354,"identity":"f209e78f-8c99-4587-a929-7447243580d7","order_by":2,"name":"Sami Kırteke","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of National Education","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sami","middleName":"","lastName":"Kırteke","suffix":""},{"id":300372357,"identity":"0d901c8e-b508-4029-9fec-4357d7c324dc","order_by":3,"name":"Amir H Pakpour","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jönköping University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amir","middleName":"H","lastName":"Pakpour","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-05-02 12:11:03","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4359069/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4359069/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02992-7","type":"published","date":"2025-07-11T15:57:51+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":56396286,"identity":"ee462fad-05bd-4960-b9ef-662087bb86d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-13 15:43:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":24883,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMediated outcomes on cyber bullying showing indirect effects of empathic tendency through online moral disengagement.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4359069/v1/813f5fbf89b4422335ff48e5.jpeg"},{"id":86699424,"identity":"fb980c28-af87-4ebc-b9f2-d84acb4057f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 16:09:25","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":709267,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4359069/v1/63abb731-c618-473e-8836-43f19da6c569.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Adaptation of the Online Moral Disengagement Scale in Turkish: Its Association with Empathetic Tendency and Cyberbullying","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the contemporary era, technological advancements have facilitated the proliferation of online communication. These digital environments can be accessed through a range of mobile devices, including smartphones, computers, and tablets. According to the 2024 Global Overview Report, 5.35\u0026nbsp;billion individuals across the globe are connected to the internet, representing 66.2% of the global population. According to the same report, the number of internet users in Turkey is 74.4\u0026nbsp;million, corresponding to 86.5% of the total population [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. The rapid increase in the number of internet users every year has led to the alarming level of cyberbullying behavior [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR3\" citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCyberbullying is defined as aggressive, deliberate, and malicious behaviors of a group or individual using virtual forms of communication, repeatedly against victims who cannot defend themselves [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Communication with technological tools and cyberbullying behaviors are increasing, especially among adolescents. Studies have shown that 23% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] and 48% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e] of adolescents are victims of cyberbullying. It was concluded that 21% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] and 79.3% of the participants were cyberbullies and 34% were victims [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. It has been found that cyberbullying negatively affects individuals\u0026rsquo; mental health and is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, emotional problems, low self-esteem, and suicidal thoughts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Considering the serious effects of cyberbullying on adolescents, more comprehensive studies on the causes of behavior, how it can be prevented and how it can be stopped are needed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, moral values have been identified as the main predictor of cyberbullying behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. While moral values can help adolescents perform healthy behaviors and avoid misbehavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], moral dissolution can lead to the distortion of moral standards according to self-interest and pave the way for negative behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Moral dissolution is defined as individuals\u0026rsquo; cognitive tendencies to override their internal moral standards and cause them to behave unethically [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. With the shift of communication to the online environment with technological development, the concepts of cyberbullying and online moral dissolution have started to be discussed more, especially among adolescents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnline moral disengagement repeated in online environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. In online environments, for example, messages intended to harm, deliberately created gossip, and embarrassing photos can be shown as online moral disengagement behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies show that there is a significant positive relationship between moral disengagement and cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, several studies have investigated the relationships between online moral disengagement and cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the personality traits examined in relation to cyberbullying is empathy. Empathy comprises two structures: empathic tendency and empathic skill. It is defined as the process of viewing events from the perspective of another individual, placing oneself in that individual's shoes, accurately comprehending and experiencing that individual's emotions and thoughts, and conveying that situation to that individual [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Empathy is the capacity to comprehend the emotions and experiences of others. While it fosters positive social interactions, it can also impede bullying behaviors [24 27]. Emotional and cognitive empathy serve as protective factors against cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. While it is asserted that a high empathic tendency reduces aggression because it allows individuals to predict the possible harm that their aggressive behavior may cause [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], it is believed that low empathy is a risk factor for traditional bullying and cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePresent Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, the prevalence of cyberbullying has increased alongside the use of technological tools for communication among young people [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. A study has indicated that the manifestation of aggressive behavior is influenced by the interaction of individual and environmental characteristics[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. This study aimed to elucidate the factors that contribute to cyberbullying behaviors, which are among the leading mental health problems, and to investigate the effects of protective and predisposing variables. Moral disengagement was considered a predisposing variable to cyberbullying, while empathic tendency was considered a protective factor. While cognitive distortions such as moral disengagement provide reasons why cyberbullying behavior is seen as normal [33 36], emotional variables such as empathic tendency provide an alternative explanation for cyber bullying by being sensitive to the emotions of others. It has been demonstrated to have a reducing effect on bullying behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe environment that affects cyberbullying is the online environment. The anonymity of the online environment allows bullying behavior to be carried out without the necessity of coming face to face and by hiding one's identity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, the lack of direct communication with the victim, distance, lack of visibility and anonymity contribute to the use of moral disengagement strategies and the inability to be instantly informed of the emotional reactions of the victim. The research demonstrated that a lack of awareness of victims\u0026rsquo; social-emotional cues reduces empathic tendencies and paves the way for cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn studies investigating the relationship between cyberbullying and moral disengagement, the traditional moral disengagement scale is generally used [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], and different moral disengagement strategies are used in studies on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. To prevent cyberbullying, which is rapidly increasing in the age of technological communication, a scale is needed to measure online moral disengagement strategies. An examination of the scales related to moral disengagement in Turkey revealed that there were measurement tools for measuring traditional moral disengagement. For instance, there are Turkish versions of the Moral Disengagement Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] for the purpose of determining the traditional moral disengagement levels of adults and the Collective Moral Disengagement Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] for the determination of the collective moral disengagement levels of adolescents. However, no scale has been developed for determining moral disengagement behavior in online environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objective of this study was to adapt the Online Moral Disengagement Scale to Turkish culture and to examine the mediating role of empathic tendency and online moral disengagement in cyber bullying behaviors. This research will investigate the effect of moral disengagement and empathy in explaining cyberbullying in Turkey and will contribute to improving students' empathic skills and preventing moral disengagement and cyberbullying.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and procedure, and ethics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study included 694 adolescent volunteers, comprising 58.2% females (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;404) and 41.8% males (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;290). The mean age of the participants was 15.19 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.09), with ages ranging from 14 to 17 years. The participants were distributed across different grades, with 37.2% in the 9th grade, 21.0% in the 10th grade, 27.2% in the 11th grade, and 14.6% in the 12th grade. The participants' identities were kept anonymous. The study was carried out with an adolescent population in Turkey. The participants completed the questionnaires in approximately 20\u0026ndash;25 minutes. While answering the survey, the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants were taken into consideration. The present study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of the second author\u0026rsquo;s university.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTranslation Process\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Turkish adaptation of the Online Moral Disengagement Scale followed a standard procedure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. The procedure involved three bilingual native Turkish translators translating the scale from English to Turkish. First, the online Moral Disengagement Scale was translated from English to Turkish by three bilingual native Turkish translators. Second, three psychology experts consolidated the three Turkish translations into a single form. Finally, the scale was translated from Turkish to English by two psychology experts. The final Turkish version of the scale was evaluated by two psychology experts who compared the original and translated forms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOnline Moral disengagement Scale (OMDS)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe OMDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] include eight unidimensional items (e.g., assuming that the identity of a classmate/friend online is just a game among friends) and a 5-point Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5 - strongly agree). As a result of the CFA of the scale, all fit indices were found to be good (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;378.526, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;184, χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.057, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.000; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.035, WRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.970, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.950).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCyber Bullying Scale (CBS)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CBS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] has 14 unidimensional items (e.g., have you ever been assaulted to tape the assault and hang it on the internet?), 4-point Likert scale (0 \u0026ndash; never \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3 \u0026ndash; always). The Cronbach's alpha (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82) and test-retest reliability coefficient (.74) of the scale were found to be good. The Cronbach's alpha (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.90) and test-retest reliability coefficient (.90) of the Turkish version [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] of the scale were found to be good. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha (.89) was found to be good.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdolescent KA-Sİ Emphatic Tendency Scale (ETS)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ETS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e] is a two-dimensional 13-item scale (emotional empathy, cognitive empathy) (e.g., emotional empathy: I get upset when I see someone ostracized by their friends; cognitive empathy: When something bothers my friends, even if they do not say it, I can understand their behavior. ), 4-point Likert scale (1 - not suitable for me at all \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;4 - totally suitable for me). The Cronbach's alpha (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82) and test-retest reliability coefficient (.74) of the scale were found to be good. The Cronbach's alpha (emotional empathy α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82; cognitive empathy α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82) and test-retest reliability coefficient (emotional empathy\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.73, cognitive empathy\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.69) of the scale were found to be good. In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha (emotional empathy α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85; cognitive empathy α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82; total α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84) was found to be good.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the present study, the online moral disengagement scale was adapted to the Turkish population in several stages. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) was performed to determine the validity of the Turkish version of the scale. When evaluating the CFA results, we checked whether the fit indices were above the acceptance value (e.g., CFI, GFI, IFI, NFI and TLI\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.90; RMSEA, SRMR\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.08;) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. Item factor loads and item-total correlation values were examined. Second, Pearson correlation values were examined for concurrent analysis. Third, the mediating role of online moral disengagement on the relationship between empathic tendency and cyberbullying was examined. Moreover, bootstrapping analysis (10,000 resampling, 95% confidence intervals) was performed. Fourth, a reliability analysis of the scale was performed. Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's ω, Guttmann's λ6, and test-retest coefficients were calculated for reliability. SPSS Statistics 28.0, JASP 16.0 and Amos Graphics 23 were used for data analysis in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eFirst, in this study, CFA was performed to determine the validity of the Turkish version of the scale. All goodness-of-fit indices of the scale were found to be good (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;72.929, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20, χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.65, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.00; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.974, IFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.974, NNFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.963, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.963, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.062, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.072). The item factor load values ranged from .426 to .930. Moreover, the item-total correlations ranged from .368 to .852 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistics on the items of the OMD scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor Loading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem-total correlation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM (SD)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.979\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.852\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.61 (.71)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.392\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.373\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.80 (.80)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.598\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.555\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.57 (.95)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.732\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.43 (.76)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.845\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.758\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.37 (.72)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.372\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.381\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.68 (.87)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.363\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.368\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.65 (.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem 8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.790\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.712\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.32 (.69)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e* All factor loadings were significant at 0.001. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Mean; \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Standard deviation.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, concurrent analysis was performed. Pearson correlation coefficient values were calculated between cyberbullying, online moral disengagement, and empathic tendency. The analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between empathy and moral disengagement (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.35, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.28, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and cyberbullying (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.30, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.37, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and a significant positive correlation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.36, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30, .43, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the mediating role of online moral disengagement on the relationship between empathic tendency and cyberbullying was examined (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). As a result of the analysis, when the direct effects were examined, empathic tendency negatively predicted online moral disengagement (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.47, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.56, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.39, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and cyberbullying (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.50, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.64, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.38, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), while online moral disengagement positively predicted cyberbullying (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.35, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.23, .53, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Bootstrapping analysis was applied to determine the significance of indirect effects. After performing the bootstrapping analysis, 10,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals were determined. Moreover, when the indirect effects were examined, empathy and cyberbullying were significantly predicted through online moral disengagement (value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.17, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.25, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). All goodness-of-fit indices of the mediation model were found to be good (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.683, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6, χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.94, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.00; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.995, IFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.995, NNFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.989, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.987, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.037, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathic tendency predicts cyberbullying through online moral disengagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLL\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e(95%CI)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUL\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e(95%CI)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDirect effect\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathic tendency \u0026loz; OMD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-8.498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOMD \u0026loz; Cyberbullying\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.368\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathic tendency \u0026loz; Cyberbullying \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-6.477\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBootstrapping analysis for Indirect effect\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathic tendency \u0026loz; OMD \u0026loz; Cyberbullying\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-4.429\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eBootstrap sample size\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10000; OMD, online moral disengagement; LL, lower limit; UP, upper limit; \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e total effect.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the reliability of the scale was calculated. The reliability analysis results showed that the Cronbach's alpha (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82, .86), McDonald's ω (ω\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82, .86) and Guttmann\u0026rsquo;s λ6 (λ6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.87, .89) scales were satisfactory. For reliability, the same scale was applied to a group of 60 people with an interval of three weeks, and the test-retest coefficient was calculated. Moreover, the test-retest coefficient (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.73, .91) was also found to be satisfactory.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to adapt the Online Moral Disengagement Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] to the Turkish population and to investigate the relationships among online moral disengagement, empathic tendency and cyberbullying. The research was conducted in several stages. The findings and discussion of each stage of the research are presented below. The scale data were collected using the Turkish form, which was translated from English into Turkish.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the validity of the OMD scale. As a result of the CFA, all goodness-of-fit indices of the scale, which consists of eight items and one dimension, were found to be good. The fit values obtained for the Turkish version of the scale were found to be similar to those of the original version [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. The factor loadings of the Turkish version ranged from .43 to .93. The item total correlations ranged from .37 to .85. The item factor loadings are expected to be \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.40 and above [47 49]. The analysis confirmed the validity of the Turkish version of the scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, a concurrent analysis was performed. The analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between empathic tendency and online moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Additionally, a positive significant correlation was found between online moral disengagement and cyberbullying. These findings are consistent with previous studies which have reported a negative a correlation between empathic disposition and moral disengagement [50 52]. Empathy, the cognitive and emotional understanding of another's feelings, is negatively correlated with moral disengagement. It is distinct from moral disengagement. While moral disengagement allows individuals to justify their aggressive behaviors from their own perspective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e], empathy enables individuals to consider the situation from the other person's point of view, take responsibility for their own actions, and act more humanely [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Individuals with a high tendency toward empathy are aware of how their actions and words can impact others. High levels of empathy can reduce aggression, as individuals are able to anticipate the potential harm that aggressive behavior may cause to others [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study revealed a negative correlation between empathy and cyberbullying. Research suggests a negative correlation between empathy and cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. Low empathy is associated with cyber aggression rather than high empathy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], and it has been found that low empathy increases cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], as it prevents individuals from taking responsibility and feeling guilty for their behavior. However, some studies suggest that cyber aggression is more closely related to emotional empathy than to cognitive empathy. Additionally, these studies indicate that cyber aggression tends to increase as emotional empathy decreases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch has consistently shown a positive correlation between online moral disengagement and cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. Several studies have identified moral disengagement as a predictor of cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies have shown that cyberbullying perpetrators often view their behavior as a joke rather than something malicious [58 60]. Additionally, research has shown that moral disengagement predicts cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, a mediating role of online moral disengagement was found in the relationship between empathetic tendency and cyberbullying. Research suggests that an increase in empathic tendency is associated with a decrease in moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Additionally, moral disengagement acts as a mediator between these variables. These findings are consistent with the results of a study conducted [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], which revealed that moral disengagement plays a mediating role between empathy and cyberbullying. Furthermore, a study support this finding by suggesting that aggressive behaviors are mediated by empathy and moral disengagement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e]. Both empathy and moral disengagement play important roles in aggressive behavior, with empathy serving as the foundation for moral behavior. Researchers emphasize that adolescents spend most of their time in the virtual environment, which limits their direct social interactions and reduces opportunities to develop social and cognitive skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, researchers argue that due to less developed empathy and moral development, adolescents may take advantage of the online environment, leading to cyberbullying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth, Cronbach's alpha (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84), McDonald's ω (ω\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84), Guttmann's λ6 (λ6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88), and test-retest coefficients (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84) were calculated for the reliability of the scale. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's ω, and Guttmann's λ6 values were found to be above .70. A reliability coefficient of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.70 means that the scale has high reliability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. The values obtained in this study met these conditions. Furthermore, the test-retest values obtained indicated that the scale made stable measurements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite all its strengths, the present study has several limitations. (1) The OMD scale was developed for adolescents. It can be adapted for adults. (2) This study was conducted with the general population. The reliability and validity of the scale can be calculated separately for girls and boys. Reliability and validity can be calculated with the virtual dependent population. (3) The scales used in the research were based on self-reports, which can lead to response bias.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the analyses conducted, it can be concluded that the Turkish version of the OMD scale is both reliable and valid. The OMD is a tool that mental health professionals and researchers can use to study online moral disengagement in Turkey. The OMD scale is suitable for use in studies with both the general population and clinical populations with cyber addiction.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFB, BE\u0026Ccedil; and SK conceptualized the project, collected the data, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. FB and AHP contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the findings. FB and AHP revised and edited the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present submission has not received any funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Anadolu University. The written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDigital. 2024: Global Overview Report [internet]. DataReportal; 2024 [cited 2021 Apr. 26]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-April-global-statshot\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-April-global-statshot\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 26 April 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKowalski RM, Limber SP, McCord A. A developmental approach to cyberbullying: Prevalence and protective factors. Aggress Violent Beh. 2019;45:20\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao L, Yu J. A meta-analytic review of moral disengagement and cyberbullying. Front Psychol. 2021;12:681299.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu C, Huang S, Evans R, Zhang W. Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: a comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Frontier Public Health. 2021;9:1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith PK. The nature of cyberbullying and what we can do about it. J Res Special Educational Needs. 2015;15(3):176\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDehue F, Bolman C, V\u0026ouml;llink T, Cyberbullying. Youngsters' experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology Behav. 2008;11(2):217\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaskauskas J, Stoltz AD. Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Dev Psychol. 2007;43(3):564.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalrave M, Heirman W, Cyberbullying. Predicting victimization and perpetration. Child Soc. 2011;25(1):59\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eK\u0026ouml;nig A, Gollwitzer M, Steffgen G. Cyberbullying as an act of revenge? J Psychologists Counsellors Schools. 2010;20(2):210\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePozzoli T, Gini G, Vieno A. Individual and class moral disengagement in bullying among elementary school children. Aggressive Behav. 2012;38(5):378\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThornberg R, Jungert T. School bullying and the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Aggressive Behav. 2014;40(2):99\u0026ndash;108.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang K, Li Q, Sun L. Toward automatic fingerprinting of IoT devices in the cyberspace. Comput Netw. 2019;148:318\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou D, Yan Z, Fu Y, Yao Z. A survey on network data collection. J Netw Comput Appl. 2018;116:9\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFu G, Xu F, Cameron CA, Heyman GD, Lee K. Cross-cultural differences in children\u0026rsquo;s choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies. Dev Psychol. 2007;43:278\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEraslan-\u0026Ccedil;apan B, Bakioğlu F. Submissive behavior and cyber bullying: A study on the mediator roles of cyber victimization and moral disengagement. Physiol Belgica. 2020;60(1):18\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang X, Yang J, Wang P, Lei L. Childhood maltreatment, moral disengagement, and adolescents' cyberbullying perpetration: Fathers' and mothers' moral disengagement as moderators. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;95:48\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1996;71(2):364\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw DM, Shapka JD, Domene JF, Gagn\u0026eacute; MH. Are cyberbullies truly bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28(2):664\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrue I, Calvete E. Psychopathic traits and moral disengagement interact to predict bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents. J interpers Violence. 2019;34(11):2313\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaftei A, Holman AC, Merlici IA. Using fake news as means of cyber-bullying: The link with compulsive internet use and online moral disengagement. Comput Hum Behav. 2022;127:107032.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaciello M, Tramontano C, Nocentini A, Fida R, Menesini E. The role of traditional and online moral disengagement on cyberbullying: Do externalizing problems make any difference? Comput Hum Behav. 2020;103:190\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026ouml;kmen \u0026Uuml;. Empatinin yeni bir modele dayanılarak \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;\u0026uuml;lmesi ve psikodrama ile geliştirilmesi [Measuring empathy based on a new model and improving it with psychodrama]. Ankara Univ J Fac Educational Sci (JFES). 1988;21(1):155\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026ouml;kmen \u0026Uuml;. İletişim \u0026ccedil;atışmaları ve empati [Communication conflicts and empathy]. Sistem Yayıncılık.2004.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAng RP, Goh DH. Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2010;41:387\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlonje R, Smith PK, Fris\u0026eacute;n A. Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of remorse by bullies: A pilot study. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;9(2):244\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteffgen G, K\u0026ouml;nig A, Pfetsch J, Melzer A. Are cyberbullies less empathic? Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology Behav Social Netw. 2011;14(11):643\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTop\u0026ccedil;u \u0026Ccedil;, Erdur-Baker \u0026Ouml;, \u0026Ccedil;apa-Aydin Y. Examination of cyberbullying experiences among Turkish students from different school types. Cyberpsychology Behav. 2008;11(6):643\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchultze-Krumbholz A, Hess M, Pfetsch J, Scheithauer H. Who is involved in cyberbullying? Latent class analysis of cyberbullying roles and their associations with aggression, self-esteem, and empathy. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace. 2018;12(4): 1\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTangney JP, Stuewig J, Mashek DJ. Moral emotions and moral behavior. Ann Rev Psychol. 2007;58:345\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReynolds BM, Repetti RL. Teenage girls' perceptions of the functions of relationally aggressive behaviors. Psychol Sch. 2010;47(3):282\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWerner NE, Hill LG. Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational aggression. Child Dev. 2010;81(3):826\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Moral Educ. 2002;31(2):101\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlmeida A, Correia I, Marinho S, Garcia DJ. Virtual but not less real: A study of cyberbullying and its relations to moral disengagement and empathy. Cyberbullying in the global playground. Res Int Perspect. 2012;223\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePornari CD, Wood J. Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior: Official J Int Soc Res Aggress. 2010;36(2):81\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePostorino L, Cyberbullying. The role of empathy and moral disengagement in high school students. Marywood Univ. 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlonje R, Smith PK, Cyberbullying. Another main type of bullying? Scand J Psychol. 2008;49(2):147\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNocera TR, Dahlen ER, Mohn RS, Leuty ME, Batastini AB. Dark personality traits and anger in cyber aggression perpetration: Is moral disengagement to blame? Psychol Popular Media. 2021;11(1):24\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunions KC. Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-aggression: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreation. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42:751\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErbaş E, Per\u0026ccedil;in NŞ. Ahlaki \u0026ccedil;\u0026ouml;z\u0026uuml;lme \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;e ge\u0026ccedil;erlemesi ve kişi-\u0026ccedil;evre uyumu ilişkisi [Validation of moral disengagement scale in Turkish and its relationship with person-environment fit]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Univ J Graduate School Social Sci. 2017;17(1):177\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEraslan \u0026Ccedil;apan B, Bakioglu F. Adaptation of Collective Moral Disengagement Scale into Turkish culture for adolescents. Univers J Educational Res. 2016;4(6):1452\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaraigordobil M. Psychometric properties of the Cyberbullying Test, a screening instrument to measure cybervictimization, cyberaggression, and cyberobservation. J interpers Violence. 2017;32(23):3556\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEraslan \u0026Ccedil;apan B, Bakioğlu F, Kirteke S. Adaptation of Cyber Bullying Scale to Turkish culture: psychometric properties. Anatol J Psychiatry. 2020;21(S1):39\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaya A, Siyez DM. Child and adolescent KA-SI empathic tendency scale: development, validity and reliability study. Educ Sci. 2010;35(156):110\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFloyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):286\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuadagnoli E, Velicer WF. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol Bull. 1988;103:265\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. Volume 5. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2007. pp. 481\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarin-Lopez I, Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Monks CP, Llorent VJ. Empathy online and moral disengagement through technology as longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;116:105144.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNusantara BA, Sugiharto DYP, Mulawarman M. The effects of the effects of empathy on cyberbullying mediated by moral disengagement on cyberbullying mediated by moral disengagement. Jurnal Bimbingan Konseling. 2020;9(2):116\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZelidman A. Empathy as a moderator of adolescent bullying behavior and moral disengagement after controlling for social desirability. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, USA. 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoses HT. The Relationship between the processes of moral disengagement \u0026amp; youth perceptions of cyber bullying behaviors during their final semester of high school. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, USA. 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDilmac B. Psychological needs as a predictor of cyber bullying: A preliminary report on college students. Educational Sciences: Theory Pract. 2009;9(3):1307\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrewer G, Kerslake J. Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy and loneliness. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;48:255\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen L, Wang Y, Yang H, Sun X. Emotional warmth and cyberbullying perpetration attitudes in college students: Mediation of trait gratitude and empathy. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0235477.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRenati R, Berrone C, Zanetti MA, Cyberpsychology. Behav Social Netw. 2012;15(8):391\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunions KC, Bak M. Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Cyberpsychology Behav Social Netw. 2015;18(7):400\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubio-Garay F, Carrasco MA, Amor PJ. Aggression, anger, and hostility: evaluation of moral disengagement as a mediational process. Scand J Psychol. 2016;57(2):129\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWright MF. Adolescents' emotional distress and attributions for face-to-face and cyber victimization: Longitudinal linkages to later aggression. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2017;48:1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang X, Lei L, Yang J, Gao L, Zhao F. Moral disengagement as mediator and moderator of the relation between empathy and aggression among Chinese male juvenile delinquents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2017;48(2):316\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBetts LR. Cyberbullying: Approaches, consequences and interventions. Springer; 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEspinosa P, Clemente M. Media effects on antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. In: Fr\u0026iacute;as-Armenta M, Corral-Verdugo V, editors. Biopsycho-social perspectives on interpersonal violence. Nova Science; 2010. pp. 233\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314(7080):572.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Moral disengagement, cyberbullying, empathic tendency, online, adolescent","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4359069/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4359069/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional moral disengagement is observed in daily life. However, as the time spent in virtual environments increases, it is important to investigate online moral disengagement. This study aimed to adapt the Online Moral Disengagement Scale to the Turkish population and examine the relationships among online moral disengagement, empathic tendency, and cyberbullying.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study participants (58.2% females [n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;404], 41.8% males [n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;290]) consisted of 694 adolescent volunteers. The data were collected using the Online Moral Disengagement Scale, Cyber Bullying Scale, and Adolescent KA-Sİ Empathic Tendency Scale. The study was conducted in several stages: confirmatory factor analysis, item factor loading, item-total correlation, concurrent analysis, mediating analysis, and reliability analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe eight-item structure of the scale was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis. The study revealed significant relationships between online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and empathic tendency. Online moral disengagement was found to mediate the relationship between empathic tendency and cyberbullying.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scale's reliability values were good, and all the results indicated that the Turkish version of the moral disengagement scale was valid and reliable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Adaptation of the Online Moral Disengagement Scale in Turkish: Its Association with Empathetic Tendency and Cyberbullying","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-05-13 15:43:48","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4359069/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"288210250580382395089294403391144624718","date":"2024-05-09T09:47:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"46997665984891557319913741690339291886","date":"2024-05-09T07:27:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"83289966822220303639810642432884707271","date":"2024-05-08T19:39:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-05-08T19:01:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-05-06T13:01:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-05-04T06:07:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-05-04T06:07:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2024-05-02T12:09:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cf3f057b-f089-48e9-8ff4-079dfdb8fbdd","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 13th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-14T16:03:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4359069","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02992-7","journal":{"identity":"bmc-psychology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Psychology"},"publishedOn":"2025-07-11 15:57:51","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 11th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-05-13 15:43:48","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40359-025-02992-7","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02992-7","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4359069","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4359069","identity":"rs-4359069","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}