“We All Know It’s Wrong, But…”: Moral Judgment of Cyberbullying in U.S. Newspaper Opinion Pieces

Abstract

This study uses the theory of dyadic morality to analyze construction of cyberbullying as a contested social issue in U. S. newspaper opinion pieces. The theory of dyadic morality posits that when we claim harm, we are motivated to identify a cause of harm and a suffering victim. This moral triangulation indicts determinants of harm and suggests preferred solutions. Analysis of U.S. opinion writing identified a tension between perception of cyberbullying as epidemic and the belief that some aggression was normative, that harm from speech was suspect, and that concern about cyberbullying was overblown. Cyberbullying served as a politically charged example of how technology is shaping adolescent social life and mental health; or how claims to victimhood are threats to free speech. Attention to moral dyad constructs in editorials and opinion pieces can help identify how competitive frames assert claims of moral validity in constructing arguments.