The Influence of Triggering Posts and Hate Speech on the Attitudes, Justifications, and Motivations of Cyberbullying Perpetrators on Social Media

Social media has become the primary platform for sharing information and personal experiences, but some sensitive or provocative posts, known as triggering posts can provoke negative emotions such as anger, sadness, or anxiety. Such content has the potential to trigger cyberbullying because it influences perpertrators’ moral perceptions and their justifications for aggressive online behavior. This study aims to assess perpetrators’ attitudes toward cyberbullying and to identify the justifications and motivations that drive their actions. The study’s objectives include evaluating levels of acceptance, moral perception, and the tendency of perpetrators to view bullying as justified, as well as understanding the reasons they use to rationalize their behavior. The study used a quantitative approach with a structured questionnaire involving 193 social media users. Data were analyzed descriptively and inferentially to assess attitude patterns and the relationship between exposure to triggering posts and the tendency to engage in cyberbullying. The findings show that perpetrators often justify aggressive behavior as a response to provocative content and consider their actions acceptable. These findings suggest the need for specific legislation addressing triggering posts and support for the government to introduce mandatory social media account registration for all Malaysian citizens.

POCMA, justification, discipline, registration

1. Antypas, D., Arnold, C., Camacho-Collados, J., Ousidhoum, N., & Perez Almendros, C. (2024). Words as trigger points in social media discussions. arXiv preprint arXiv, 2405. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bauman, S. (2019). Political cyberbullying: Perpetrators and targets of a new digital aggression. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Çakar-Mengü, S., & Mengü, M. (2023). Cyberbullying as a manifestation of violence on social media. Multidisciplinary Perspectives In Educational And Social Sciences Vi, 47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Fox, A. (2024). Follower Weaponization: Reimagining violence in the technological landscape. In The Routledge International Handbook of Online Deviance (pp. 442-457). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Gamez-Guadix, M., & Gini, G. (2016). Individual and class justification of cyberbullying and cyberbullying perpetration: A longitudinal analysis among adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 44, 81-89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Han, T. Z. (2020). Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA): Regulating Fake News to Maintain Public Trust in Singapore. National University of Singapore, 3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ibrahim, Y. (2022). The social psychology of hate online: from cyberbullying to gaming. In Technologies of Trauma (pp. 93-113). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Jattamart, A., & Kwangsawad, A. (2021). What awareness variables are associated with motivation for changing risky behaviors to prevent recurring victims of cyberbullying?. Heliyon, 7(10). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kumar, D. (2024). CYBERBULLYING: TYPES AND THE EFFECTS OF VICTIMIZATION. Mindful Media: Mental Health Challenges in the Digital Age, 285. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Rajah, J. (2024). Authoritarian Rule of Law Deploys Political Gaslighting: Singapore Legislates Against Fake News. In Routledge Handbook of the Rule of Law (pp. 316-332). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Rice, J. (2023). The Rhetoric of Outrage: Why Social Media Is Making Us Angry. Univ of South Carolina Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Runions, K. C., & Bak, M. (2015). Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 18(7), 400-405. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Shin, J., DeFelice, C., & Kim, S. (2025). Emotion Sells: Rage Bait vs. Information Bait in Clickbait News Headlines on Social Media. Digital Journalism, 1-20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Singh, K. (2018). The Menace Here to Stay, Better Not Take the Bait. Liberal Stud., 3, 21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Subrahmanyam, K., & Šmahel, D. (2010). The darker sides of the internet: violence, cyber bullying, and victimization. In Digital youth: The role of media in development (pp. 179-199). New York, NY: Springer New York. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Wagner, A., & Yu, W. (2021). Machiavellian apparatus of cyberbullying: its triggers igniting fury with legal impacts. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 34(4), 945-963. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Zakharchenko, A. (2018). Social Actions of Social Networks Users Triggered by Media Posts Content. Social Welfare: Interdisciplinary Approach, 8(2), 53-65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.