Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Coping with cyberbullying is a multidimensional process that requires digital competencies and online emotional processes to be considered together. This study examined the predictive roles of digital literacy and e-motions in cyberbullying coping strategies among high school students and the pattern of these roles across students who had and had not witnessed cyberbullying. Methods This cross-sectional correlational study included 445 students in grades 9–12. Data were collected using the Digital Literacy Scale, the E-motions Questionnaire, and the Cyberbullying Coping Strategies Scale. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and covariance-based structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation were used. The model was evaluated through multigroup analyses involving 248 students who had witnessed cyberbullying and 197 who had not. Results Digital literacy (β = 0.15) and e-motions (β = 0.24) were positive and significant predictors of cyberbullying coping strategies in the overall model. The structural model yielded fit indices of CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.927, RMSEA = 0.080, and SRMR = 0.062. Analyses by witnessing status indicated that the predictive role of digital literacy was significant among students who had witnessed cyberbullying (β = 0.24) but nonsignificant among those who had not (β = 0.09). E-motions were positively associated with coping strategies in both groups. Conclusions Overall, the findings indicate that digital literacy and e-motions are positively associated with cyberbullying coping strategies among high school students. Digital literacy was a significant predictor among students who had witnessed cyberbullying, whereas a positive association between e-motions and coping was observed in both groups. The findings provide a basis for addressing digital competencies and online emotional processes together in educational initiatives designed to support students’ coping strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aydın et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: