Comparing the Effect of Peer Group Training and Direct Instruction on Mechanisms to Counteract Cyberbullying Among Male High School Students in Tehran
Phase: NA
Conditions: Cyberbullying
Sponsor: Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences

Comparing the Effect of Training by Peer Groups versus Direct Instruction on 
Mechanisms to Counteract Cyberbullying among High School Male Students 
 
 
Jan, 20, 2025 
 

Abstract 
Background: In recent years, the Internet and various virtual spaces have become an integral part 
of adolescents' lives, with teenagers spending a significant amount of their time online. Given the 
high prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents, its dangerous consequences, and the 
importance of proposing solutions to this crisis, we decided to conduct this study. 
Methodology: This quasi-experimental intervention study was conducted on 252 male students in 
the 9th, 10th, and 11th grades, studying in three high schools in Tehran . Initially, a 2-hour 
orientation class was held for school officials about cyberbullying and its consequences. 
Subsequently, 84 students from each school were randomly selected from the mentioned grades. 
In one group, a psychologist delivered six, two-hour social skills training sessions to students. 
These sessions focused on problem-solving, empathy, and stress management. In another group, a 
psychologist delivered the aforementioned curriculum to a smaller volunteer group (peer group) 
who then disseminated the knowledge to their peers. This peer-mediated intervention involved 
weekly progress reports submitted to the psychologist. A third group served as a control and 
received no training. A questionnaire, including the Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire 
and questions on demographic information and experiences with cyberbullying, was completed by 
students from all three schools before the intervention (pre-test) and three months after the 
intervention (post-test). The data were then analyzed statistically. 
Results: In this study, 252 students aged 15 to 20 years, with an average age of 16.492 years      
participated. The emotional intelligence scores of the students who volunteered in the peer training 
group were higher than those of the other two groups at the beginning of the study. Three months 
after the study and reassessment, the direct training group's emotional intelligence scores were 
higher than those of the other two groups. Three months  after the intervention, the results showed 
a significant reduction in the number of cyberbullies in the direct training group. While there was 
a reduction in the number of virtual victims in the direct training group and both cyberbullies and 
victims in the peer group, this reduction was not statistically significant. 
Conclusion: Social skills training has an impact on increasing emotional intelligence and reducing 
cyberbullying roles among adolescents. To achieve more precise and generalizable results, studies 
with larger sample sizes, including female students, and post-tests over longer periods are needed. 
Keywords: Cyberbullying, Virtual victim, Social skills, Virtual space, Bar-On Questionnaire 
Introduction 
In recent years, alongside the rapid advancement of technology, a new form of bullying known as 
cyberbullying has seen a significant rise (1). Cyberbullying is a global problem (1), with 
approximately one-third of Internet users worldwide being children and adolescents under 18 years 
old (1, 2). According to UNICEF, no child is entirely safe from the digital world (1, 2). This type 
of bullying often occurs through electronic devices, the Internet, phones, and virtual spaces (3, 4), 
transcending geographical boundaries (1, 5). In a review study on 63 studies conducted between 
2015 and 2019, the global prevalence of cyberbullying victims and perpetrators was reported to 
range from 13.99% to 57.5% and 6% to 46.3%, respectively (1). Studies conducted in Iran have 

shown that over 30% of students have experienced being cyberbullying victims, and more than 
27% have been cyberbullied (2), indicating a high prevalence compared to other countries (3, 4, 5, 
6). 
During adolescence, teenagers are often unable to fully assess the connection between behavior 
and its consequences (1). Thus, cyberbullying can lead to psychological consequences ranging 
from depression, anxiety, and withdrawal to suicide among adolescents (3, 7, 8). The incidence of 
suicide among cyberbullying victims is significantly higher compared with non-victims (9). 
Furthermore, compared to traditional (non-virtual) bullying, cyberbullying more frequently results 
in psychological issues such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness (1, 10). Various studies have 
highlighted factors like emotional intelligence in preventing the different roles of cyberbullying 
(cyberbully, cyber-victim) (1). The Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire provides a good 
understanding of emotional intelligence and individuals' adaptability to various situations (3, 10). 
Low emotional intelligence leads to repeated victimization and poor adaptation and response in 
cyberbullying situations. Individuals with low emotional intelligence do not know how to recover 
after being victimized (3, 11). Studies have shown that cyberbullies are often deficient in certain 
dimensions of emotional intelligence, such as empathy (3, 12). However, some studies suggest 
that those who engage in bullying possess high emotional intelligence, as they are well aware of 
their victims' weaknesses (3).  A study conducted in Iran by Razjouyan et al. (2023) in Tehran 
found no significant difference between the overall emotional intelligence scores of students and 
their different roles in cyberbullying. However, male victims were found to have higher emotional 
intelligence. 
Several factors influence cyberbullying. Empathy, emotional intelligence, parent-child 
relationships, and the school environment are significant protective factors against cyberbullying 
(1). Additionally, studies have indicated the impact of social skills training on enhancing the 
subcomponents of emotional intelligence (13). Social skills training in schools has been      
recommended in various studies to prevent cyberbullying (14). Adolescents, in this age group, 
tend to seek help from their peers for individual problems, trust them more, and thus maintain their 
independence (10). Therefore, this study aims to compare the emotional intelligence and the 
incidence of different roles in cyberbullying among students before and after social skills training, 
delivered directly by a psychologist and through peer groups. 
Method 
This quasi-experimental study was conducted in schools of southern Tehran in 2019. After the 
necessary permissions were obtained from the education authorities and school security officials     
, three schools were selected. From each school, 84 students in the 9th, 10th, and 11th grades were 
randomly selected, making a total of 252 students. Initially, an orientation session was held with 
school officials to raise their awareness of the study's importance and to obtain permission to 
implement the project. Students in one school received direct social skills training from a 
psychologist over six 2-hour sessions. These skills included problem-solving, empathy, anger 
management, and stress management. In another school, nine volunteer students received the same 
training over a similar period, plus an additional session on how to teach their peers. These 
volunteers then transferred what they had learned to the selected students and reported their 
progress weekly to the psychologist. The third school served as the control group and received no 

training. A questionnaire, including the Bar-On Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire and several 
questions assessing experiences of cyberbullying (cyberbully, cyber-victim), was completed      
anonymously by students from all three schools before the training (pre-test) and three months 
after the training (post-test). Parental consent was obtained for student participation. The study 
data (pre-test and post-test) were analyzed using SPSS software version 18. 
Statistical Analysis 
 
Descriptive statistics of quantitative variables were shown as minimum, maximum, mean, standard 
deviation (SD), median, and interquartile range (IQR). The normality of data was evaluated using 
Shapiro-Wilk test. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the difference between emotional 
intelligence among study groups at baseline. In addition, nonparametric analysis of covariance 
(ANCOVA) was used to compare the emotional intelligence among study groups after the 
intervention by adjusting the values of baseline. McNamara’s test was employed to compare      the 
proportion of victims/cyberbullying at the baseline and after three months of intervention in the 
training group and peer group. Binary logistic regression model was also used to measure the odds 
of becoming a victim/cyberbullying for each study group with adjusting baseline values. P < 0.05 
was regarded as statistically significant. Data analysis was done using SPSS software. 
Results 
A total of 252 male students aged from 15 to 20 years and with a mean age of 16.492were      
included in this study. Descriptive statistics of Baron questionnaire subscales for each study group      
at follow up intervals are shown in the supplementary file. The result of Kruskal-Wallis test for 
comparing emotional intelligence among study groups at baseline indicated that the three groups 
were significantly different in terms of emotional intelligence (𝜒2(2) = 13.05, P = 0.001) (Table 
1).  
Comparison of emotional intelligence among study groups within three months after the 
intervention was conducted by adjusting the emotional intelligence at baseline. For this purpose, 
nonparametric analysis of covariance was used to compare the emotional intelligence of study 
groups by adjusting the values of baseline and this analysis showed a significant difference 
between emotional intelligence of the study groups after three months of intervention (F(2,240)= 
8.384, P < 0.001) (Table 1). Bonferroni test was used for pairwise comparisons among the three 
groups, and this post hoc test indicated that emotional intelligence of the training group was 
significantly higher than that of the peer group (P <0.001). In addition, this test showed that the 
control group had no statistically significant difference with the training group or the peer group      
(P =0.054 and =0.274, respectively). 
The results of Table 2 show the comparison of the proportion of victims at the baseline and after 
three months of intervention in the training group and the peer group. According to this table, it 
can be concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between the proportion of 
victims before and after the intervention in the training group (P =0.143). This table also indicates 
that there is no statistically significant difference between the proportion of victims before and 
after the intervention in the peer group (P =0.453). However, the proportion of people who had 

experienced threats and harassment through new communication technologies before intervention 
(training and being a peer) and did not have this experience after receiving training/being a peer 
was higher than the proportion of people who had not experienced      threats and harassment before 
intervention and had this experience after receiving training/being a peer 
The results of Table 3 indicate the comparison of the proportion of cyberbullying at the baseline 
and after three months of intervention in the training group and the peer group. According to this 
table, it can be concluded that there is statistically significant difference between the proportion of 
cyberbullying before and after the intervention in the training group (P = 0.004). The proportion 
of people who had experienced cyberbullying through new communication technologies before 
training and did not have this experience after training was significantly higher than the proportion 
of people who had not experienced cyberbullying before intervention and have this experience 
after training. 
Table 3 also indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between the proportion of 
cyberbullying before and after the intervention in the peer group (P =0.057).  
Binary logistic regression model was used to measure the odds of becoming a victim/cyberbullying 
by adjusting baseline values (Table 4). According to the results of this table, the      odds of 
becoming a victim in control group is 3.012 (P = 0.066) time and 2.132 (P = 0.217) time in 
comparison to training and peer groups, respectively. This model also showed that odds of 
becoming a victim in peer group is 1.415 time in comparison to training group (P = 0583).  
Data from Table 4 revealed that students in the control group were significantly more likely to 
experience cyberbullying compared to those in the training and peer-mediated intervention groups.  
Specifically, the odds of becoming a cyberbully in the control group were 8.696 times higher (p = 
0.002) compared to the training group, and 6.061 times higher (p = 0.01) compared to the peer-
mediated intervention group. Binary logistic regression model showed that there is no statistically 
significant difference between training and peer groups (OR = 1.432, P = 0.65) 
Tables  
Table 1. Comparison of emotional intelligence in study groups before and after the intervention 
Time 
Group 
Minimum 
Maximu
m 
Mean 
Standard 
Deviatio
n 
Media
n 
Interquartil
e Range 
Statistics 
P-value 
Baseline 
Control 
122 
388 
300.12 52.36 
301 
60.50 
𝜒2(2) 
= 
13.05 
0.001* 
Peer 
231 
428 
328.21 37.32 
327 
54.25 
Trainin
g 
     78 
     399 
306.30
 
54.43 
     312 55.50 
Control 
122 
388 
300.12 52.36 
301 
60.50 

Three 
months after 
the 
intervention 
Peer 
202 
352 
300.82 22.64 
309.50 19.50 
F (2,240)= 
8.384 
<0.001*
* 
Trainin
g 
210 
394 
315.99 31.86 
315 
32.25 
*: Kruskal-Wallis test 
**: Nonparametric analysis of covariance 
 
 
Table 2.      Comparison of the proportion of victims at the baseline and after three months of 
intervention in the training group and the peer group. 
 
                             Baseline 
 
After intervention     
Yes 
No 
P-value* 
Training group 
Yes 
5 
5 
0.143 
No 
12 
60 
Peer group 
Yes 
7 
2 
0.453 
No 
5 
63 
*: McNemar's test 
 
Table 3. Comparison of the proportion of cyberbullying at the baseline and after three months of 
intervention in the training group and the peer group. 
 
                             Baseline 
 
After intervention     
Yes 
No 
P-value* 
Training group 
Yes 
1 
1 
0.004 

No 
3 
59 
Peer group 
Yes 
1 
3 
0.057 
No 
11 
60 
*: McNemar's test 
 
 
Table 4. Comparison between the odds of becoming a victim among study group by adjusting 
status of victim/cyberbullying at baseline. 
 
P-value** 
95% 
 
Confidence 
Interval
 
Odds Ratio (OR)
 
Group 
Outcome 
0.066 
(0.102 ‒ 1.077) 
0.332 
Trainin
g 
Victim 
0.217 
(0.141 ‒ 1.558) 
0.469 
Peer 
 
 
 
Control
* 
0.002 
(0.029 ‒ 0.456) 
0.115 
Trainin
g 
cyberbullyin
g 
0.010 
(0.042 ‒ 0.648) 
0.165 
Peer 
 
 
 
Control
* 
*: Reference category 
**: Binary logistic regression model 
 
Discussion  
Adolescents’ frequent engagement in virtual spaces unfortunately coincides with a rise in 
cyberbullying among this age group. Various factors such as social skills, emotional intelligence, 
parent-child relationships, and the school environment have been reported to affect cyberbullying 

(1). Along this line of research, this study aimed to evaluate an educational intervention approach 
to combat cyberbullying among male high school students in Tehran in 2019. 
In this study, based on the research conducted by Palladino and colleagues in 2016 in Italy (15), 
social skills such as problem-solving, anger management, and stress coping were selected for the 
educational intervention for the students. The study compared the effects of the training of these 
social skills on cyberbullying through direct instruction by a psychologist in one group and through 
peer volunteers in another group (peers who had previously been trained by the same 
psychologist). The third group, the control group, received no training. A questionnaire assessing 
experiences of cyberbullying (cyber-victim, cyberbully) and the Bar-On Emotional Intelligence 
Questionnaire were completed by the students before the intervention (pre-test) and three months 
after the intervention (post-test). The findings were analyzed using statistical methods. 
 Our results showed that the emotional intelligence scores of the three groups were different before 
the training, with the direct training group's scores being significantly lower than those of the peer 
group, and the peer group's scores being significantly higher than those of the control group. The 
emotional intelligence scores of the direct training group were higher than those of the control 
group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Emotional intelligence assessments 
conducted three months’ post-intervention revealed a difference among the groups, with the direct 
training group achieving the highest emotional intelligence scores compared to the other two 
groups. Notably, this difference was statistically significant when compared to the peer group 
(Table 1). This difference between the direct training and peer groups could be due to the greater 
expertise of the psychologist in conveying educational concepts. However, the emotional 
intelligence of the control group did not differ significantly from that of the other two groups.       
 Indicating an increase in emotional intelligence scores and a reduction in cyberbullying (both 
cyberbully and cyber-victim roles) after social skills training, the findings of this study are 
somewhat similar to those of Palladino and colleagues in Italy. In their study, social skills training 
increased positive adaptation and reduced cyberbullying, although this reduction was not 
statistically significant (4, 10, 15). However, in studies conducted by Razjouyan and Tafi et al., no 
correlation between emotional intelligence scores and different roles in cyberbullying was 
observed (3, 16). Since Razjouyan's study did not involve an educational intervention, it is possible 
that in our study, the mentioned training effectively reduced the occurrence of different roles in 
cyberbullying without a significant increase in emotional intelligence scores. 
According to the findings, there was no significant difference in the proportion of cyber-victims 
before and after the training in both intervention groups (Table 2). However, in both groups, after 
the intervention, the proportion of students who experienced cyberbullying before the training and 
did not experience it afterward decreased. In the direct training group, the proportion of 
cyberbullies before and after the training showed a significant difference, with a higher proportion 
of students not experiencing cyberbullying after the training. However, no significant difference 
was observed in the reduction of cyberbullying experience before and after the training in the peer 
group. This result is somewhat similar to a study conducted in 2012 in Italy on 231 peer group 
adolescents, where social skills training did not significantly reduce cyberbullies but significantly 
reduced cyber-victims (4). 

In our study, the odds of being a cyber-victim in the control group were 3.012 times higher 
(p=0.066) than those in the direct training group and 2.132 times higher (p=0.217) compared with 
the peer group. Additionally, the odds of being a cyber-victim in the peer group were 1.415 times 
higher (p=0.583) than those in the direct training group. The odds of being a cyberbully in the 
control group were significantly 8.696 and 6.061 times higher than those in the direct training 
group and the peer group, respectively. However, there was no significant difference in the odds 
of being a cyberbully between the peer group and the direct training group. Therefore, it can be 
inferred that the mentioned training somewhat effectively reduced cyberbullying (both 
cyberbullies and cyber-victims). 
 Our study did not find evidence for the peer group's more effective role compared to the direct 
training by a psychologist in coping mechanisms against cyberbullying and consequently reducing 
its occurrence among students. In contrast, a larger study by Palladino and colleagues in Italy in 
2016 focused on peer group training with an emphasis on problem-solving and empathy for 
defensive mechanisms against cyberbullying. They used support from the Italian cyber police and 
implemented structured programs, gathered student groups on Facebook, and provided better      
Internet access outside school hours. Their study showed a significant positive impact of peer 
groups in reducing all roles of cyberbullying among students (15). The difference in outcomes 
between our study and theirs may be due to differences in sample sizes, methodological designs, 
and/or the longer duration of their study. Additionally, in our peer group, the number of individuals 
who did not record their status regarding cyber-victim or cyberbullying was higher than that in the 
direct training group, which may have affected the proportions of cyber-victims or cyberbullies 
before and after the intervention. Removing missing data from the analysis reduces the sample size 
and test power, preventing the discovery of significant differences between proportions. Also      
studies involving peer groups are influenced by various factors such as the personal characteristics 
of the peer group (17), the peer trainer's personal experiences, their perceived proximity to others, 
their credibility or alienation among students, their changes during initial training, their 
involvement with others' problems, and ultimately their accessibility (4, 15). 
Limitations and recommendation  
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and early school closures in Iran, we could not evaluate the long-
term impact (six months of post-study). We lacked access to students outside school hours. This 
study was conducted only in boys' schools. Given the increasing annual access of adolescents and 
children to virtual spaces, ongoing studies in this field are recommended for both girls' schools 
and over longer periods. Collaboration with cyber police for better access to adolescents outside 
school hours through virtual spaces is suggested to propose effective solutions for addressing 
cyberbullying among adolescents. 
Conclusion: Social skills training has an impact on increasing emotional intelligence and reducing 
cyberbullying roles among adolescents. To achieve more precise and generalizable results, studies 
with larger sample sizes, including female students, and post-tests over longer periods are needed 
Acknowledgments  

We express our gratitude to the authorities of Tehran Education Office, school officials, and the 
participating students for their cooperation in this study. 
 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
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. Frontiers in 
public health. 2021; 9:634909. 
2. 
Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology. 
2001;52(1):1-26. 
3. 
Razjouyan K, Mobarake AH, Sadr SS, Ardestani SMS, Yaseri M. The relationship between 
emotional intelligence and the different roles in cyberbullying among high school students in 
Tehran. Iranian journal of psychiatry and behavioral sciences. 2018;12(3). 
4. 
Palladino BE, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Online and offline peer led models against 
bullying and cyberbullying. Psicothema. 2012;24(4):634-9. 
5. 
Clonan-Roy K, Jacobs CE, Nakkula MJ. Towards a model of positive youth development 
specific to girls of color: Perspectives on development, resilience, and empowerment. Gender 
Issues. 2016; 33:96-121. 
6. 
Fousiani K, Dimitropoulou P, Michaelides MP, Van Petegem S. Perceived parenting and 
adolescent cyber-bullying: Examining the intervening role of autonomy and relatedness need 
satisfaction, empathic concern and recognition of humanness. Journal of child and family studies. 
2016; 25:2120-9. 
7. 
Nocentini A, Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Level and change of bullying behavior during high 
school: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of adolescence. 2013;36(3):495-505. 
8. 
Ortega R, Elipe P, Mora‐Merchán JA, Genta ML, Brighi A, Guarini A, et al. The emotional 
impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: A European cross‐national study. Aggressive 
behavior. 2012;38(5):342-56. 
9. 
John A, Glendenning AC, Marchant A, Montgomery P, Stewart A, Wood S, et al. Self-
harm, suicidal behaviours, and cyberbullying in children and young people: Systematic review. 
Journal of medical internet research. 2018;20(4): e9044. 
10. 
Palladino BE, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Definition of cyberbullying among Italian 
adolescents: to what extent do criteria and type of behaviour matter? An investigation through 
COST scenarios. Eta Evolutiva. 2011;33(100):94. 
11. 
Ttofi MM, Farrington DP. Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A 
systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of experimental criminology. 2011; 7:27-56. 
12. 
Slavin R. 20008. Cooperative Learning. 
13. 
Betlow MB. The effect of social skills intervention on the emotional intelligence of 
children with limited social skills. Seton Hall University; 2005. 
14. 
Eisner M, Malti T. The future of research on evidence-based developmental violence 
prevention in Europe–Introduction to the focus section. International Journal of Conflict and 
Violence (IJCV). 2012;6(2):166-75. 
15. 
Palladino BE, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Evidence‐based intervention against bullying and 
cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! program in two independent trials. Aggressive behavior. 
2016;42(2):194-206. 

16. 
Ttofi MM, Farrington DP. School bullying: Risk factors, theories and interventions. 
Handbook of crime. 2010:427-57. 
17. 
Zambuto V, Palladino BE, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Why do some students want to be 
actively involved as peer educators, while others do not? Findings from NoTrap! anti-bullying and 
anti-cyberbullying program. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2019;16(4):373-86.