Background: This study examined the cyberbullying experience and coping manners of adolescents in urban Vietnam and explored the mediating effect of different support to the associations between cyberbullying and mental health issues.Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 484 students at four secondary schools. Cyberbullying experience, coping strategies, psychological problems, and family, peer, and teacher support were obtained. Structural equation modeling was utilized to determine the mediating effects of different support on associations between cyberbullying and psychological problems.Results: There were 11.6 and 28.3% of students who reported that they experienced and observed at least one cyberbullying act in the last 3 months, respectively. Among the victims, only 48.2% tried to stop the perpetrators. Meanwhile, the majority of observers belonged to the “Intervene” group who tried to report cyberbullying acts or help victims. Family support was found to partially mediate associations between cyberbullying experience and observation with levels of psychological problems among adolescents.Conclusion: The 3-month rate of cyberbullying experience and observation among urban adolescents aged 11–14 was low. However, current coping strategies against cyberbullying were not sufficient. Family support is an important factor that should be considered for designing interventions to mitigating the impacts of cyberbullying on the mental health of adolescents.

No abstract

How often do people intend to engage in interpersonal emotion regulation in day-to-day life? Existing literature has focused primarily on asking about the strategies people use to regulate, which means researchers have little understanding of how often people actually aim to engage in regulation to begin with. To answer this foundational question, we conducted two studies using daily diary (N = 171) and experience sampling methods (N = 239). We explored how often people use others to regulate their own emotions, and how often they regulate others’ emotions. Almost everyone engaged in interpersonal emotion regulation at least once over the course of a week, primarily with the goal to help themselves or others feel better, rather than worse. In fact, people regulated others’ emotions nearly twice as often as they turned to others to regulate their own emotions, and put more conscious effort into regulating others’ emotions compared to their own. Trait perceived efficacy of engaging in interpersonal emotion regulation was the most consistent predictor of momentary regulation intentions. The medium of the interaction—in person or digital—did not consistently predict momentary intentions or effort. Together, these findings provide a foundational picture of the interpersonal emotion regulation landscape, and lay the groundwork for future exploration into this emerging subfield of affective science.

Social interaction and loneliness have received much research interest. However, the direction of their relationship is unclear—does social interaction shape loneliness, or does loneliness shape willingness to interact? We explored dynamics of these social experiences under exceptional circumstances: COVID-19 lockdowns, which were necessary for public health but impacted people’s social lives. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between social interaction and loneliness in and out of lockdown in Australia. We used experience sampling methodology to follow 233 people across one week (Mage=30; 8,495 surveys) in a period that spanned one of the longest lockdowns in the world. While loneliness did not predict subsequent social interaction, having a social interaction predicted lower subsequent loneliness, particularly in (vs. out of) lockdown. These findings suggest social interactions may limit loneliness, especially during physical isolation. In short, times when we are apart from others may be times we benefit from interacting with them most.

Climate change anxiety is a growing problem for individual well-being the world over. However, psychological interventions to address climate change anxiety may have unintended effects on outcomes other than individual well-being, such as group cohesion and pro-environmental behavior. Reflecting this complexity, we outline a multiple needs framework of climate change anxiety interventions, which can be used to analyze interventions in terms of their effects on individual, social, and environmental outcomes. We use this framework to contextualize a systematic review of the literature detailing the effects of climate change anxiety interventions. This analysis identifies interventions centered around problem-focused action, emotion management, and enhancing social connections as those which have positive effects on the widest range of outcomes. It also identifies interventions that may have detrimental effects on one or more outcomes. We identify gaps where more research is required, including research that assesses the effects of climate change anxiety interventions on individual, social and environmental outcomes in concert. An interactive website summarizes these insights and presents the results of the systematic review in a way that is accessible to a range of stakeholders. The multiple needs framework provides a way to conceptualize the effectiveness of climate change anxiety interventions beyond their impact on individual well-being, contributing to a more holistic understanding of the effects of this global phenomenon.