pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18153 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 💻 cs.HC

Leveraging AI for Direct Bystander Intervention Against Cyberbullying

Peinuan Qin , Jiting Cheng , Jungup Lee , Junti Zhang , Zhixing Liu , Yi-Chieh Lee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords cyberbullyingbystander interventionAI-generated responsesemoji interactiondefending self-efficacydirect interventionsocial media platform
0
0 comments X

The pith

Emoji selection plus AI generates responses that increase direct bystander interventions in cyberbullying.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents EmojiGen, a tool that lets users pick an emoji to signal their intent and then produces context-aware messages for intervening in online bullying. In a between-subjects study with 90 participants on a simulated platform, EmojiGen users carried out more direct actions such as comforting victims and confronting perpetrators than control participants. The increase in interventions came with higher reported confidence in knowing how to help and greater defending self-efficacy, alongside lower anxiety and mental effort. These gains appeared for both supportive and confrontational responses, though the paper notes that different underlying factors drove each kind of action. Readers would care because the approach offers a low-friction way to turn passive observers into active helpers in environments where bullying causes documented harm.

Core claim

EmojiGen lets bystanders choose an emoji as an intention clue, after which the system combines that clue with the observed cyberbullying context to produce ready-to-post responses. In the controlled experiment this produced a statistically significant rise in direct interventions, including both victim support and perpetrator confrontation. The tool simultaneously raised participants' sense of knowing how to help and their defending self-efficacy while lowering perceived workload and anxiety around starting an intervention.

What carries the argument

EmojiGen, an AI system that turns a single emoji selection into a full intervention message tailored to the bullying context.

Load-bearing premise

The custom platform and AI-generated replies sufficiently resemble real social-media bullying, and short-term gains in reported self-efficacy will produce lasting real-world behavior.

What would settle it

A field deployment on an existing platform that measures whether EmojiGen users actually post more interventions when they encounter live cyberbullying over a period of weeks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18153 by Jiting Cheng, Jungup Lee, Junti Zhang, Peinuan Qin, Yi-Chieh Lee, Zhixing Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Voting results from 67 participants for the most prevalent and harmful cyberbullying and post topics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The screenshot of SnapShare that allows the use of EmojiGen. On the left side (a) is a post of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Guidance provided to participants during the SnapShare testing process, consisting of four steps (A–D). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nested pie charts illustrating the distribution of (a) post and (b) comment engagement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of five subjective measures between bystanders in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The figure shows a structural equation model (SEM) to understand how EmojiGen usage leads to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cyberbullying is a pervasive problem in online environments, causing substantial psychological harm to victims. Although bystander intervention has proven effective in mitigating its impact, motivating bystanders to engage in direct intervention remains a persistent challenge. Studies have suggested that difficulties in intervention skills and defending self-efficacy hinder bystanders from initiating direct intervention. To address this challenge, we introduced EmojiGen, an AI intervention tool designed to empower bystanders for direct intervention. EmojiGen enabled users to simply select an emoji as an intention clue, which subsequently combined the cyberbullying context to generate responses. In a between-subjects experiment involving 90 participants on a custom-built social media platform, we found that EmojiGen significantly increased the frequency of direct bystander interventions, both in supporting victims and in confronting perpetrators, driven by different factors. EmojiGen also increased the sense of knowing how to help and defending self-efficacy, while reducing perceived workload and anxiety associated with initiating intervention. The study contributed to the CSCW community through offering an effective direct bystander intervention method and providing design implications for future cyberbullying interventions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces EmojiGen, an AI tool that lets bystanders select an emoji as an intention clue to generate context-aware responses for direct intervention in cyberbullying scenarios. It reports a between-subjects experiment with 90 participants on a custom-built social media platform, claiming that EmojiGen produced statistically significant increases in the frequency of direct interventions (both victim support and perpetrator confrontation), raised defending self-efficacy and sense of knowing how to help, and lowered perceived workload and anxiety. The work positions these outcomes as driven by different factors for the two intervention types and offers design implications for CSCW cyberbullying interventions.

Significance. If the results hold after addressing methodological gaps, the paper supplies concrete empirical evidence for a low-effort AI mechanism that can increase bystander action in online harassment. The between-subjects design with a moderate sample size and multi-outcome measures (behavioral frequency plus self-report scales) offers a useful template for HCI studies on intervention tools, with potential platform-level applications.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (Experiment/Results)] Abstract and §4 (Experiment/Results): The central claim of 'significantly increased frequency of direct bystander interventions' is reported without specifying the exact behavioral coding scheme for victim support versus perpetrator confrontation, the statistical tests used, effect sizes, or exclusion criteria. These omissions are load-bearing because the significance and practical importance of the frequency difference cannot be evaluated from the given information.
  2. [§3 (System) and §4 (Experiment Design)] §3 (System) and §4 (Experiment Design): The custom platform and simulated cyberbullying instances are presented as the testbed, yet the manuscript does not discuss how the low-stakes artificial setting (participants know responses are not public or consequential) might independently reduce baseline intervention barriers. This risks confounding the attribution of higher intervention rates to EmojiGen rather than to the simulation itself.
  3. [§4.3 (Results)] §4.3 (Results): The additional claim that the two intervention types are 'driven by different factors' lacks operational definitions of those factors, the measures employed, and the statistical approach used to isolate tool effects from other variables. Without this detail the differential-factor interpretation cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§4 (Methods)] Ensure all self-report scales (defending self-efficacy, workload, anxiety) are fully described with item wording, reliability statistics, and references to validated instruments.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the dependent variables and conditions to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve transparency and address potential limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4 (Experiment/Results)] Abstract and §4 (Experiment/Results): The central claim of 'significantly increased frequency of direct bystander interventions' is reported without specifying the exact behavioral coding scheme for victim support versus perpetrator confrontation, the statistical tests used, effect sizes, or exclusion criteria. These omissions are load-bearing because the significance and practical importance of the frequency difference cannot be evaluated from the given information.

    Authors: We agree that these methodological details are essential for evaluating the results. The current manuscript reports the overall findings at a summary level but does not fully elaborate the coding scheme, tests, effect sizes, or exclusions in the main text. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection in §4 describing: the behavioral coding protocol (with examples distinguishing victim support from perpetrator confrontation), the specific statistical tests (including any assumptions checks), effect sizes, and participant exclusion criteria (e.g., attention checks or incomplete data). These additions will be placed in the main body rather than supplementary materials. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 (System) and §4 (Experiment Design)] §3 (System) and §4 (Experiment Design): The custom platform and simulated cyberbullying instances are presented as the testbed, yet the manuscript does not discuss how the low-stakes artificial setting (participants know responses are not public or consequential) might independently reduce baseline intervention barriers. This risks confounding the attribution of higher intervention rates to EmojiGen rather than to the simulation itself.

    Authors: This is a valid concern regarding ecological validity. The manuscript emphasizes the controlled setting to isolate EmojiGen's effect but does not explicitly discuss how the non-public, low-consequence simulation could lower intervention thresholds compared to real platforms. In the revision, we will expand the Limitations and Discussion sections to acknowledge this potential confound, reference related HCI work on simulation validity, and clarify that while the design allows causal attribution within the lab context, real-world deployment may show different baseline rates. We will also suggest directions for future field studies. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4.3 (Results)] §4.3 (Results): The additional claim that the two intervention types are 'driven by different factors' lacks operational definitions of those factors, the measures employed, and the statistical approach used to isolate tool effects from other variables. Without this detail the differential-factor interpretation cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript states the differential factors at a high level without sufficient operational detail. The claim stems from observed patterns in self-report measures, but the current text does not define the factors, list the exact scales, or describe the analysis isolating tool effects. In the revised §4.3, we will provide operational definitions (e.g., self-efficacy via the defending self-efficacy scale and workload via NASA-TLX), specify all measures, and detail the statistical approach (e.g., regression or interaction analyses). If the underlying data permit, we will also report the specific coefficients or tests supporting the differential interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in empirical user study

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from a between-subjects experiment with 90 participants using a custom-built social media platform. No derivation chain, first-principles predictions, fitted parameters presented as independent results, or self-citation load-bearing premises appear in the abstract or described claims. The central finding (increased direct interventions via EmojiGen) is an observed experimental result rather than a quantity that reduces by construction to its own inputs or prior self-citations. This is a standard empirical HCI evaluation whose validity rests on study design and data, not on any self-referential logic.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of experimental psychology (self-report validity, platform realism) and on the untested premise that AI-generated replies will be perceived as helpful across diverse bullying contexts. No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Self-reported defending self-efficacy and workload measures validly capture real intervention barriers
    Invoked when the abstract links EmojiGen use to increased self-efficacy and reduced anxiety without external validation of the scales.
  • domain assumption The simulated social-media platform elicits behavior comparable to real platforms
    Required for generalizing the 90-participant between-subjects results to live cyberbullying environments.
invented entities (1)
  • EmojiGen no independent evidence
    purpose: AI system that maps emoji intent selections to context-aware intervention text
    New tool introduced to lower the skill barrier for bystanders; no independent evidence of correctness outside the reported experiment is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1500 out tokens · 19107 ms · 2026-05-10T04:06:14.980239+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 133 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Riyadh Tariq Kadhim Al-Ameedi, Mohanned Jassim Dakhils Al-Ghizzy, et al. 2022. Investigating cyberbullying in electronic communication: A descriptive study.International Journal of English Language Studies4, 4 (2022), 97–106

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Hassan Ali, Philipp Allgeuer, and Stefan Wermter. 2024. Comparing Apples to Oranges: LLM-powered Multimodal Intention Prediction in an Object Categorization Task.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08424(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Kimberley R Allison and Kay Bussey. 2016. Cyber-bystanding in context: A review of the literature on witnesses’ responses to cyberbullying.Children and Youth Services Review65 (2016), 183–194

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Ashwaq Alsoubai, Xavier V Caddle, Ryan Doherty, Alexandra Taylor Koehler, Estefania Sanchez, Munmun De Choud- hury, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2022. Mosafely, is that sus? a youth-centric online risk assessment dashboard. InCompanion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 197–200

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Jenn Anderson, Mary Bresnahan, and Catherine Musatics. 2014. Combating weight-based cyberbullying on Facebook with the dissenter effect.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking17, 5 (2014), 281–286

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Inamul Azad, Sugandha Chhibber, and Azra Tajhizi. 2023. How Do Different Generations Communicate on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis of Language Styles, Emoji Usage, and Visual Elements.Language, Technology, and Social Media1, 2 (2023), 86–97

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological review84, 2 (1977), 191

    work page 1977

  8. [8]

    Kirstin Barchia and Kay Bussey. 2011. Predictors of student defenders of peer aggression victims: Empathy and social cognitive factors.International Journal of Behavioral Development35, 4 (2011), 289–297

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Julia Barlińska, Anna Szuster, and Mikołaj Winiewski. 2018. Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: Role of affective versus cognitive empathy in increasing prosocial cyberbystander behavior.Frontiers in psychology9 (2018), 799

    work page 2018

  10. [11]

    An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully.Computers in Human Behavior31 (2014), 259–271

    Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully.Computers in Human Behavior31 (2014), 259–271

    work page 2014

  11. [12]

    Sara Bastiaensens, Heidi Vandebosch, Karolien Poels, Katrien Van Cleemput, Ann DeSmet, and Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

    work page

  12. [13]

    ‘Can I afford to help?’How affordances of communication modalities guide bystanders’ helping intentions towards harassment on social network sites.Behaviour & Information Technology34, 4 (2015), 425–435

    work page 2015

  13. [14]

    Lindsay Blackwell, Jill Dimond, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Cliff Lampe. 2017. Classification and its consequences for online harassment: Design insights from heartmob.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction1, CSCW (2017), 1–19

    work page 2017

  14. [15]

    Boomerang. 2018. Respondable: Write Better Email. https://www.boomeranggmail.com/respondable/

    work page 2018

  15. [16]

    Sara Mota Borges Bottino, Cássio Bottino, Caroline Gomez Regina, Aline Villa Lobo Correia, and Wagner Silva Ribeiro. 2015. Cyberbullying and adolescent mental health: systematic review.Cadernos de saude publica31 (2015), 463–475

    work page 2015

  16. [17]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    work page 2006

  17. [18]

    Nicholas Brody and Anita L Vangelisti. 2017. Cyberbullying: Topics, strategies, and sex differences.Computers in Human Behavior75 (2017), 739–748

    work page 2017

  18. [19]

    Shawn Meghan Burn. 2009. A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention.Sex roles60 (2009), 779–792

    work page 2009

  19. [20]

    Angela Busacca and Melchiorre Alberto Monaca. 2023. Deepfake: Creation, Purpose, Risks. InInnovations and Economic and Social Changes due to Artificial Intelligence: The State of the Art. Springer, 55–68

    work page 2023

  20. [21]

    Margaret Byrne, Rayner Kay Jin Tan, Dan Wu, Gifty Marley, Takhona Grace Hlatshwako, Yusha Tao, Jennifer Bissram, Sophie Nachman, Weiming Tang, Rohit Ramaswamy, et al. 2023. Prosocial interventions and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JAMA network open6, 12 (2023), e2346789–e2346789

    work page 2023

  21. [22]

    Elisa Cantone, Anna P Piras, Marcello Vellante, Antonello Preti, Sigrun Daníelsdóttir, Ernesto D’Aloja, Sigita Lesin- skiene, Mathhias C Angermeyer, Mauro G Carta, and Dinesh Bhugra. 2015. Interventions on bullying and cyberbully- ing in schools: A systematic review.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health: CP & EMH11, Suppl 1 M4 (2015), 58. 30...

    work page 2015

  22. [23]

    David Carneros-Prado, Laura Villa, Esperanza Johnson, Cosmin C Dobrescu, Alfonso Barragán, and Beatriz García- Martínez. 2023. Comparative study of large language models as emotion and sentiment analysis systems: A case- specific analysis of GPT vs. IBM Watson. InInternational Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence. Springer, 229–239

    work page 2023

  23. [24]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A cross-community learning-based system to assist reddit moderators.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–30

    work page 2019

  24. [25]

    Jonathan P Chang, Charlotte Schluger, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2022. Thread with caution: Proactively helping users assess and deescalate tension in their online discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–37

    work page 2022

  25. [26]

    Hong Chen, Yong Fang, Ling Wang, Yanjun Chen, and Cuiying Fan. 2025. The relationship between defending self-efficacy and defending behavior in cyberbullying: a moderated mediation model.BMC psychology13, 1 (2025), 1–11

    work page 2025

  26. [27]

    Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 1217–1230

    work page 2017

  27. [28]

    Charles Chiang and Diego Gomez-Zara. 2024. The Evolution of Emojis for Sharing Emotions: A Systematic Review of the HCI Literature.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17322(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [29]

    Xiaowei Chu, Yujing Zhao, Xin Li, Sumin Yang, and Yuju Lei. 2024. The sense of responsibility and bystanders’ prosocial behavior in cyberbullying: The mediating role of compassion and the moderating roles of moral outrage and moral disgust.Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace18, 3 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [30]

    Madeleine Clark and Kay Bussey. 2020. The role of self-efficacy in defending cyberbullying victims.Computers in Human Behavior109 (2020), 106340

    work page 2020

  30. [31]

    Henriette Cramer, Paloma De Juan, and Joel Tetreault. 2016. Sender-intended functions of emojis in US messaging. InProceedings of the 18th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. 504–509

    work page 2016

  31. [32]

    Robert Ervin Cramer, M Rosalie Mcmaster, Patricia A Bartell, and Marguerite Dragna. 1988. Subject competence and minimization of the bystander effect.Journal of Applied Social Psychology18, 13 (1988), 1133–1148

    work page 1988

  32. [33]

    John M Darley and Bibb Latané. 1968. Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility.Journal of personality and social psychology8, 4p1 (1968), 377

    work page 1968

  33. [34]

    Pooja Datta, Dewey Cornell, and Francis Huang. 2016. Aggressive attitudes and prevalence of bullying bystander behavior in middle school.Psychology in the Schools53, 8 (2016), 804–816

    work page 2016

  34. [35]

    Anna Davidovic, Catherine Talbot, Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis, and Adam Joinson. 2023. To intervene or not to intervene: young adults’ views on when and how to intervene in online harassment.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication28, 5 (2023), zmad027

    work page 2023

  35. [36]

    2013.Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2013.Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2013

  36. [37]

    Simon Denny, Elizabeth R Peterson, Jaimee Stuart, Jennifer Utter, Pat Bullen, Theresa Fleming, Shanthi Ameratunga, Terryann Clark, and Taciano Milfont. 2015. Bystander intervention, bullying, and victimization: A multilevel analysis of New Zealand high schools.Journal of school violence14, 3 (2015), 245–272

    work page 2015

  37. [38]

    Ann DeSmet, Sara Bastiaensens, Katrien Van Cleemput, Karolien Poels, Heidi Vandebosch, and Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

    work page

  38. [39]

    Mobilizing bystanders of cyberbullying: An exploratory study into behavioural determinants of defending the victim.Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine 2012(2012), 58–63

    work page 2012

  39. [40]

    Dominic DiFranzo, Samuel Hardman Taylor, Franccesca Kazerooni, Olivia D Wherry, and Natalya N Bazarova. 2018. Upstanding by design: Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    work page 2018

  40. [41]

    Kelly P Dillon and Brad J Bushman. 2015. Unresponsive or un-noticed?: Cyberbystander intervention in an experi- mental cyberbullying context.Computers in Human Behavior45 (2015), 144–150

    work page 2015

  41. [42]

    Dirk M Elston. 2021. The novelty effect.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology85, 3 (2021), 565–566

    work page 2021

  42. [43]

    Sara Erreygers, Sara Pabian, Heidi Vandebosch, and Elfi Baillien. 2016. Helping behavior among adolescent bystanders of cyberbullying: The role of impulsivity.Learning and Individual Differences48 (2016), 61–67

    work page 2016

  43. [44]

    Paul Evans, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Philip Parker, Andrew Kingsford-Smith, and Sijing Zhou. 2024. Cognitive load theory and its relationships with motivation: A self-determination theory perspective.Educational Psychology Review 36, 1 (2024), 7

    work page 2024

  44. [45]

    Lior Fink, Leorre Newman, and Uriel Haran. 2024. Let me decide: Increasing user autonomy increases recommendation acceptance.Computers in Human Behavior156 (2024), 108244. Leveraging AI for Direct Bystander Intervention Against Cyberbullying 31

    work page 2024

  45. [46]

    Camilla Forsberg, Robert Thornberg, and Marcus Samuelsson. 2014. Bystanders to bullying: Fourth-to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions.Research Papers in Education29, 5 (2014), 557–576

    work page 2014

  46. [47]

    Gianluca Gini. 2006. Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong?Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression32, 6 (2006), 528–539

    work page 2006

  47. [48]

    Rebecca Godard and Susan Holtzman. 2022. The multidimensional lexicon of emojis: A new tool to assess the emotional content of emojis.Frontiers in Psychology13 (2022), 921388

    work page 2022

  48. [49]

    John D Gould and Clayton Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think.Commun. ACM28, 3 (1985), 300–311

    work page 1985

  49. [50]

    JA Gray and N McNaughton. 2000. The psychology of Anxiety and Enquiry in to the functions of the septo hippocampus system

    work page 2000

  50. [51]

    Hussam Habib, Maaz Bin Musa, Fareed Zaffar, and Rishab Nithyanand. 2019. To act or react: Investigating proactive strategies for online community moderation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11932(2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  51. [52]

    Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy

    Jeffrey T. Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-Mediated Communication: Definition, Research Agenda, and Ethical Considerations.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25, 1 (2020), 89–100. https://doi.org/10. 1093/jcmc/zmz022

    work page 2020

  52. [53]

    Hadassah Harland, Richard Dazeley, Hashini Senaratne, Peter Vamplew, Francisco Cruz, and Bahareh Nakisa. 2024. AI apology: A critical review of apology in AI systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15787(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [54]

    Catherine A Hartley and Elizabeth A Phelps. 2012. Anxiety and decision-making.Biological psychiatry72, 2 (2012), 113–118

    work page 2012

  54. [55]

    Michael A Hedderich, Natalie N Bazarova, Wenting Zou, Ryun Shim, Xinda Ma, and Qian Yang. 2024. A Piece of Theatre: Investigating How Teachers Design LLM Chatbots to Assist Adolescent Cyberbullying Education.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17456(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [56]

    Rose Hennessy Garza, Young Cho, Heather Hlavka, Lance Weinhardt, Tajammal Yasin, Sara Smith, Katharine Adler, Kacie Otto, and Paul Florsheim. 2023. A multi-topic bystander intervention program for upper-level undergraduate students: outcomes in sexual violence, racism, and high-risk alcohol situations.Journal of interpersonal violence38, 15-16 (2023), 9395–9422

    work page 2023

  56. [57]

    2011.The motivation to work

    Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. 2011.The motivation to work. Vol. 1. Transaction publishers

    work page 2011

  57. [58]

    Martin L Hoffman. 1982. Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt.The development of prosocial behavior(1982), 281–313

    work page 1982

  58. [59]

    Brett Holfeld. 2014. Perceptions and attributions of bystanders to cyber bullying.Computers in Human Behavior38 (2014), 1–7

    work page 2014

  59. [60]

    Thomas Holtgraves and Caleb Robinson. 2020. Emoji can facilitate recognition of conveyed indirect meaning.PloS one15, 4 (2020), e0232361

    work page 2020

  60. [61]

    Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Robert West, Ryan Lewis, and Sanjay Kairam. 2025. Post guidance for online communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 2 (2025), 1–26

    work page 2025

  61. [62]

    Liangjiecheng Huang, Weiqiang Li, Zikai Xu, Hongli Sun, Danfeng Ai, Yinfeng Hu, Shiqi Wang, Yu Li, and Yanyan Zhou. 2023. The severity of cyberbullying affects bystander intervention among college students: the roles of feelings of responsibility and empathy.Psychology Research and Behavior Management(2023), 893–903

    work page 2023

  62. [63]

    Yun-yin Huang and Chien Chou. 2010. An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan.Computers in human behavior26, 6 (2010), 1581–1590

    work page 2010

  63. [64]

    Vera Liao, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Olteanu, and Adam Trischler

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Q. Vera Liao, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Olteanu, and Adam Trischler. 2025. ’It was 80% me, 20% AI’: Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW122 (May 2025), 41 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3711020

    work page doi:10.1145/3711020 2025

  64. [65]

    Shari L Jackson, Joseph Krajcik, and Elliot Soloway. 1998. The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 187–194

    work page 1998

  65. [66]

    Yanru Jia, Yuntena Wu, Tonglin Jin, and Lu Zhang. 2022. How are bystanders involved in cyberbullying? A latent class analysis of the Cyberbystander and their characteristics in different intervention stages.International journal of environmental research and public health19, 23 (2022), 16083

    work page 2022

  66. [67]

    Lisa M Jones, Kimberly J Mitchell, and Cheryl L Beseler. 2024. The impact of youth digital citizenship education: Insights from a cluster randomized controlled trial outcome evaluation of the be internet awesome (BIA) curriculum. Contemporary School Psychology28, 4 (2024), 509–523

    work page 2024

  67. [68]

    Anjuli Kannan, Karol Kurach, Sujith Ravi, Tobias Kaufmann, Andrew Tomkins, Balint Miklos, Greg Corrado, Laszlo Lukacs, Marina Ganea, Peter Young, et al. 2016. Smart reply: Automated response suggestion for email. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 955–964. 32 Peinuan Qin, Jiting Cheng, Jun...

    work page 2016

  68. [69]

    Turn that frown upside-down

    Linda K Kaye, Helen J Wall, and Stephanie A Malone. 2016. “Turn that frown upside-down”: A contextual account of emoticon usage on different virtual platforms.Computers in Human Behavior60 (2016), 463–467

    work page 2016

  69. [70]

    Franccesca Kazerooni, Samuel Hardman Taylor, Natalya N Bazarova, and Janis Whitlock. 2018. Cyberbullying bystander intervention: The number of offenders and retweeting predict likelihood of helping a cyberbullying victim. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23, 3 (2018), 146–162

    work page 2018

  70. [71]

    Vivien Kemp and Anthony R Henderson. 2012. Challenges faced by mental health peer support workers: peer support from the peer supporter’s point of view.Psychiatric rehabilitation journal35, 4 (2012), 337

    work page 2012

  71. [72]

    Pranav Khadpe, Kimi Wenzel, George Loewenstein, and Geoff Kaufman. 2025. Explaining the Reputational Risks of AI-Mediated Communication: Messages Labeled as AI-Assisted Are Viewed as Less Diagnostic of the Sender’s Moral Character.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09645(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [73]

    Seunghyun Kim, Afsaneh Razi, Gianluca Stringhini, Pamela J Wisniewski, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. A human-centered systematic literature review of cyberbullying detection algorithms.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–34

    work page 2021

  73. [74]

    Ellen M Kraft and Jinchang Wang. 2009. Effectiveness of cyber bullying prevention strategies: A study on students’ perspectives.International Journal of Cyber Criminology3, 2 (2009), 513

    work page 2009

  74. [75]

    Min Lan. 2022. Exploring a Self-paced Online Course Design, Learning Engagement, and Effectiveness on Anti- cyberbullying Topic for Adolescents in Hong Kong. InDigital Communication and Learning: Changes and Challenges. Springer, 107–122

    work page 2022

  75. [76]

    Bibb Latané and John M Darley. 1970. The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?(No Title)(1970)

    work page 1970

  76. [77]

    Jungup Lee, Hyekyung Choo, Yijing Zhang, Hoi Shan Cheung, Qiyang Zhang, and Rebecca P Ang. 2025. Cyberbullying Victimization and Mental Health Symptoms Among Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies.Trauma, Violence, & Abuse(2025), 15248380241313051

    work page 2025

  77. [78]

    Jungup Lee, JongSerl Chun, Jinyung Kim, Jieun Lee, and Serim Lee. 2021. A social-ecological approach to under- standing the relationship between cyberbullying victimization and suicidal ideation in South Korean adolescents: The moderating effect of school connectedness.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18, 20 (2021), 10623

    work page 2021

  78. [79]

    Yen-Fen Lee, Gwo-Jen Hwang, and Pei-Ying Chen. 2022. Impacts of an AI-based cha bot on college students’ after-class review, academic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation.Educational technology research and development70, 5 (2022), 1843–1865

    work page 2022

  79. [80]

    Digital Citizenship

    Amanda Lenhart, Mary Madden, Aaron Smith, Kristen Purcell, Kathryn Zickuhr, and Lee Rainie. 2011. Teens, Kindness and Cruelty on Social Network Sites: How American Teens Navigate the New World of" Digital Citizenship".Pew Internet & American Life Project(2011)

    work page 2011

  80. [81]

    Li Li and Yue Yang. 2018. Pragmatic functions of emoji in internet-based communication—a corpus-based study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education3 (2018), 1–12

    work page 2018

Showing first 80 references.