Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy as a Buffer: Unraveling the Link Among Bullying,Victimization,and Malevolent Creativity

Abstract

Bullying and victimization are pervasive problems in adolescent social interactions, often creating a cycle where victims may become perpetrators and vice versa. This study investigated how malevolent creativity contributes to this dynamic, and how emotion regulation self-efficacy (ERSE) influences these relationships. Drawing on a sample of middle school students (grades 7th–9th), we explored the bidirectional relationship among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity, as well as the role of ERSE, using a moderated network model. Our findings revealed that malevolent creativity is positively associated with bullying behaviors and victimization, potentially escalating aggressive interactions. Importantly, ERSE emerged as a critical moderator, attenuating the pathway from victimization to malevolent creativity by enabling better management of negative emotions, such as despondency-distress and anger-irritation. Findings indicated that malevolent creativity contributes significantly to the dynamics of bullying and victimization. This connection emphasizes the importance of early recognition and intervention strategies. By improving emotional regulation self-efficacy, particularly in relation to despondency-distress, we can disrupt the cycle involving malevolent creativity, victimization, and bullying, helping to promote more constructive peer interactions and a substantial decrease in the prevalence of bullying behaviors in school environments.

Keywords

malevolent creativity bullying victimization emotion regulation self-efficacy moderated network analysis

Introduction

Bullying is a severe social issue that has a significant impact on the success or failure of young people who engage in, witness, or are the targets of bullying in the future (Crouch et al., 2023). Bullying refers to an aggressive behavior intended to harm or disturb another individual, where there is an imbalance of power (Olweus, 1993). However, it is crucial to recognizing that the roles of bully and victim are not always mutually exclusive. Bullying and victimization are multifaceted phenomenon that extends far beyond simple acts of aggression or being aggressed, encompassing complex psychological dynamics and strategic behaviors that shape peer interactions (Moore et al., 2017). The body of data unequivocally shows that experiencing bullying increases one’s likelihood of engaging in aggressive and impulsive behavior (Chan & Wong, 2015).

Compared to individuals who engage solely in bullying behaviors and those who are exclusively victimized, bully-victims, children who bully others and are bullied by others are typically characterized as being considerably more maladjusted (Randa et al., 2016; Yang & Salmivalli, 2013). Their maladjustment is compounded by high peer rejection and a lack of supportive friendships to buffer them from violence (Malamut et al., 2020). Furthermore, as peers perceive bully-victims as warranting the unfavorable treatment they receive, whereas bully-victims may perceive their aggressive behavior toward peers as justified, a persistent escalation of aggressive interactions occurs (Espino et al., 2022). Kennedy (2018) identifies distinct subtypes within bully-victim populations and highlights their differential risk profiles. Her findings indicate that high bully-victims, who both perpetrate and experience bullying at high rates, face significantly elevated risks of traumatic symptoms, emotional distress, and adverse experiences beyond victimization, highlighting the need to address the fluidity between victim and perpetrator roles to prevent escalation into more serious issues. While numerous studies consistently document the positive correlation between bullying and victimization (Choi & Park, 2018; Veldkamp et al., 2019), it is imperative to explore the underlying features that drive this connection. Understanding the cognitive and emotional motivations that influence individuals’ behaviors in these roles can enhance our comprehension of their interactions. This deeper investigation may reveal critical insights into how these characteristics shape the ongoing relationship between bullying and victimization, suggesting potential avenues for further research.

Recent research highlights the role of malevolent creativity, the generation of novel ideas intended to cause harm (Mitchell & Reiter-Palmon, 2023). As a critical yet understudied factor in the dynamics of bullying and victimization, malevolent creativity offers a valuable lens for understanding the nuanced ways individuals engage in bullying and respond to victimization. Malevolent creativity can be understood as the use of creative cognitive processes to intentionally devise novel and harmful ideas or solutions (Cropley et al., 2008). Unlike traditional notions of creativity as inherently positive, malevolent creativity reveals how the same inventive capacities can be twisted toward harmful ends, especially when fueled by negative emotions such as anger or social stress (Perchtold-Stefan et al., 2020). This darker dimension of creativity involves not only spontaneous aggression but also deliberate, often covert strategies designed to inflict lasting psychological or social harm.

According to the general strain theory of offending behavior by Agnew (1992), bully-victims are more driven by reactive factors like anger or a desire to avoid perceived social dangers. A related study observed higher neuroticism in victims and aggressor-victims (Alonso & Romero, 2017), which reflects a heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli, creating a self-reinforcing cycle where victims perceive threats more intensely and experience amplified emotional reactions to provocation, in which malevolent creativity may manifest in subtle, calculated behaviors aimed at self-protection, retaliation, or reclaiming a sense of control within a hostile social environment. Importantly, bullying is no longer seen merely as one-sided dominance. It involves dynamic interactions where victims may also exhibit forms of malevolent creativity, not out of malice alone but as adaptive responses to chronic stress, exclusion, and emotional pain (Baas et al., 2019). Understanding malevolent creativity is crucial for analyzing bullying dynamics because it moves beyond simple aggression to reveal the often complex and inventive ways individuals inflict harm and respond to victimization, ultimately feeding into and amplifying each other and creating persistent patterns of conflict and harm within peer groups.

By exploring the intricate relationship among malevolent creativity, bullying, and victimization, this study examines whether bullying and victimization represent distinct behavioral profiles or if they co-occur within individuals due to shared cognitive and affective processes. Specifically, we investigate whether both bullies and victims demonstrate heightened proactive intent and motivation to harm others, implying that victimization may not solely be a passive experience but could also involve active retaliatory or defensive aggression. This perspective explores the potential for a dynamic, reciprocal relationship between the two roles.

The Role of Emotion Regulatory Self-Efficacy in the Relationship Between Malevolent Creativity and Bullying/Victimization

From the perspective of embodied cognition theory (Fincher-Kiefer, 2019), human cognition is deeply intertwined with bodily experiences and environmental contexts. This theoretical framework posits that our physical interactions and the sensory information we receive from our surroundings directly shape emotional perceptions and cognitive processes. In the context of bullying and victimization, being bullied can trigger heightened emotional arousal, leading to feelings of anger, frustration, or helplessness, integrate and construct negative emotions, thereby increasing the likelihood of resolving problems through malevolent means (Olweus, 2013). Individuals may be compelled to engage in creative acts that reflect their emotional turmoil as a means of coping. However, the capability to modulate these emotional responses significantly depends on one’s emotion regulation self-efficacy (ERSE). ERSE refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to manage emotions (Caprara et al., 2008). Higher ERSE is associated with reduced emotional distress and lower engagement in dysregulated behaviors, such as aggression and self-harm (Hasking et al., 2018). Individuals who have a high level of emotional regulation self-efficacy tend to exhibit greater control over their emotional responses, leading them to channel these experiences in more constructive ways, whether through adaptive coping strategies or creative outlets (Luo et al., 2022). In contrast, individuals with low ERSE may struggle to manage their emotional responses, which is a predictor of both bullying and victimization (Camodeca & Nava, 2020), increasing the likelihood of resorting to negative forms of expression, such as malevolent creativity (Perchtold-Stefan et al., 2023).

Notably, research suggests that there may be distinct protective pathways for different ERSE dimensions. While perceived efficacy in managing anger-irritation (ANG) is more strongly associated with reduced aggression and irritability, perceived efficacy in managing despondency-distress (DES) shows closer ties to lower anxiety and higher self-esteem (Caprara et al., 2008). This differentiation suggests that despondency-distress regulation self-efficacy and anger-irritation regulation self-efficacy may play unique moderating roles in the pathway from bullying and victimization to malevolent creativity, with ANG potentially moderating retaliatory impulses and DES possibly having no effect or weakening its impact.

Given these dynamics, we propose that distinct facets of ERSE may differentially moderate the relationship among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity, specifically the ability to manage anger-irritation and despondency-distress. Thus, we examine separate models for ANG and DES to elucidate how these ERSE dimensions shape the association between bullying/victimization and malevolent creativity.

The Current Study

The present study aims to explore the dynamic relationship among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity, with particular attention to the moderating role of ERSE. Specifically, we employ the Moderated Network Model (MNM) in this study. MNM captures the interconnectedness of variables utilizing a graph-theoretic framework, allowing for a holistic examination of how multiple factors interact simultaneously. By directly comparing network structures across different levels of ERSE, this MNM efficiently examines how moderators (i.e., ERSE) reshape the connections between key variables within a network (Tao et al., 2023). Unlike latent variable models, which treat psychological traits as unobserved constructs, network analysis conceptualizes them as systems of interacting components (Borsboom & Cramer, 2013). This approach is ideal for handling interdependent psychological processes and avoids oversimplifying their interactions. At the same time, our analysis incorporates a dimensional approach by investigating two specific facets of ERSE, despondency-distress and anger-irritation. This enables us to explore how these facets influence the connection between bullying or victimization and malevolent creativity. By modeling these dimensions, we acquire a focused comprehension of the emotional processes involved, enhancing the relevance and applicability of our findings.

To our knowledge, no prior study has investigated the interplay among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity in adolescents, nor has any research examined ERSE as a potential buffer or amplifier in this relationship. Given that both bullying and victimization may engender malevolent creativity, but with differing motivations and emotional regulation capacities, MNMs are particularly well-suited for this investigation. By applying MNMs, this study advances theoretical understanding of how bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity interact, while also offering practical insights into how interventions based on the ERSE perspective might disrupt harmful cycles. Thus, this study tests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: There is a bidirectional relationship between bullying and victimization in middle school students.

Hypothesis 2: Both bullying and victimization are positively related to malevolent creativity.

Hypothesis 3: Emotion regulation self-efficacy moderates the relationship among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity. With a higher level of emotion regulation self-efficacy, the relationship between bullying/victimization and malevolent creativity is weakened. Rather than despondency-distress regulation self-efficacy (DES), anger-irritation regulation self-efficacy (ANG) can effectively moderate the level of association between bullying/victimization and malevolent creativity.

Method

Participants and Procedures

This study recruited participants from two public middle schools in China, using a cluster sampling method. Initially, 2,964 students were invited to participate. After applying pre-defined exclusion criteria, including voluntary withdrawal or absence, patterned or random responses, incomplete responses, and excessively short response times, 2,856 students were ultimately included in the final dataset for analysis.

As incomplete responses are one of the exclusion criteria of our study, we employed listwise deletion to address the issue of missing data in our dataset, thereby retaining only complete cases for all subsequent analyses. To ensure the appropriateness of this method and to assess any potential biases that may arise from excluding incomplete responses, we conducted a series of evaluations. First, we calculated the missing data rates for each item and found that they were all below 1%, indicating that the overall proportion of missing values was minimal. Second, to further investigate potential biases introduced by this exclusion, we compared key demographic variables, including gender, grade, and only-child status, between participants who were excluded due to missing data and those who were included in the final sample. Chi-squared tests revealed no significant differences in gender (χ² = 1.07, p = .30), grade (χ² = .78, p = .68), and only-child status (χ² = .19, p = .66), which suggested that the exclusion of incomplete cases did not systematically alter the composition of the sample with respect to these fundamental characteristics.

Moreover, as our data were collected using a cluster sampling method at the class level, there may exist a potential for nested data structures within the classes. To empirically assess the degree of clustering within these classes, we calculated the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for each key variable. The results revealed that all ICC values were below 0.05 (Cohen, 1988), indicating negligible clustering effects at the class level. This finding supports the appropriateness of our analytical approach, as the lack of significant clustering suggests that the observed variance in the data is largely attributable to individual-level factors rather than class-level influences.

Our sample consisted of 1,588 boys (55.60%) and 1,268 girls (44.40%), aged 12 to 15 years (M = 13.27, SD = 0.93). Our sample comprised students from grades 7 to 9, with 991 grade 7 participants (34.70%), 957 grade 8 participants (33.51%), and 908 grade 9 participants (31.79%). There were 565 only-child (19.78%) and 2,203 adolescents with siblings (77.14%), with 88 students (3.08%) not reporting their only-child status.

Measures

Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy

The Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) Scale in Chinese was used to analyze ERSE for negative emotions (Caprara et al., 2008; Tang et al., 2010). The RESE is a 12-item self-report scale that measures perceived self-efficacy in regulating three distinct emotional domains: despondency-distress (DES), which includes items such as “Keep from getting dejected when you are lonely?” (4 items); anger-irritation (ANG), exemplified by “Avoid flying off the handle when you get angry?” (4 items); and the expression of positive emotions (POS), such as “Rejoice over your successes?” (4 items), rating from 1 to 5. The present study used the despondency-distress subscale and anger-irritation subscale to assess the despondency-distress regulation self-efficacy (DES) and anger-irritation regulation self-efficacy (ANG). In a prior study, this scale demonstrated good validity and reliability when used to evaluate Chinese adolescents (L. Liu, Yisongwake, et al., 2024). The internal consistency in this study was deemed satisfactory, with a McDonald’s ω = .93. McDonald’s ω as of the two dimensions for ERSE regarding DES and ANG were .87 and .89.

Bully/Victim (Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire)

This study utilized the Olweus Bully/Victim Scale (Olweus, 1993) as adapted by Chinese researchers (W. X. Zhang et al., 1999) to assess traditional bullying behaviors, including being bullied and bullying others. A 4-point scale, with one denoting never to four denoting more than four times, is used for each of the scale’s 12 items. The bullying subscale comprises six items (e.g., “You cursed or yelled at a classmate this semester.”). The victimization subscale comprises six items (“A classmate called you names or yelled at you this semester.”). Previous research has demonstrated that this scale exhibits satisfactory reliability and validity (Zhou et al., 2023). The internal consistency in this study was deemed acceptable, with a McDonald’s ω = .84. McDonald’s ω values for the two dimensions of bullying were .82 and for victimization were .88.

Malevolent Creativity Behavior

To measure adolescents’ degree of malevolent creativity, we utilized the Chinese version of Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale developed by Hao et al. (2016), which is constructed to evaluate three specific domains: hurting people (How often do you have ideas about new ways to punish people?; 6 items), lying (How often do you tell lies without worrying about being nailed?; 4 items), and playing tricks (How often do you play tricks on people as revenge?; 3 items), answering on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never to 5 = Usually). The internal consistency in the current sample was acceptable, with a McDonald’s ω = .93. McDonald’s ω of the three dimensions were .78, .91, and .85.

Statistical Analysis

To minimize spurious relationships and false-positive associations, a two-step analytical process was adopted in our study. First, model selection was performed using hierarchical LASSO (via the R package “modnets”; Swanson, 2020). This method incorporates hierarchical constraints into LASSO regularization, enabling the automated selection of variables and interactions through a lambda parameter grid search (Bien et al., 2013). Optimal lambda values were determined using the Bayesian information criterion.

Next, network estimation was conducted via fitNetwork function in “modnets” package (Haslbeck & Waldorp, 2020), which employs nodewise regression to address limitations of traditional regression methods when moderators are present (Swanson, 2020). This approach constructs networks through sequential univariate regressions. The PlotNet function visualizes networks using the “AND” rule configuration.

Finally, edge weight and centrality stability were assessed via case-dropping bootstrap (Epskamp et al., 2018). Stability was assessed using correlation stability coefficients (CS), which indicate the maximum proportion of cases that can be removed while maintaining a correlation of ≥.70 with the original parameters (95% confidence). Following established standards, CS values of ≥0.25 were deemed acceptable, with values of ≥0.50 preferred (Epskamp et al., 2018).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The mean, standard deviation, and label of the elements of ERSE, bullying/victimization, and malevolent creativity are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Moderated Network Models.

Variables	Nodes	M	SD	Label
Bully/Victim	Bullying others	7.84	3.26	Bullying
Bully/Victim	Being bullied	6.61	2.09	Bullying_V
Malevolent Creativity	Lying	6.69	3.46	MC_LY
	Playing tricks	4.80	2.17	MC_PT
	Hurting people	8.17	3.52	MC_HP
ERSE	Despondency-distress	13.10	3.99	ERSE_DES
	Anger-irritation	12.72	4.22	ERSE_ANG

Note. ERSE = emotion regulation self-efficacy.

Moderated Network Modeling

Two MNMs with a moderator node were visualized in Figure 1. For the despondency-distress regulation self-efficacy moderated network, the edge of Lying – Playing tricks (MC_LY – MC_PT, r = .48) showed the strongest association, followed by Lying – Hurting people (MC_LY – MC_HP, r = .37). Between bullying and malevolent creativity, Being bullied – Playing tricks (Bullying_V – MC_PT, r = .14) was the strongest edge, followed by Bullying others – Hurting people (Bullying – MC_HP, r = .11). We employed hierarchical LASSO to identify a parsimonious network structure and select variables, thereby adjusting for spurious relationships and minimizing the likelihood of false positive connections, as indicated in Tables S1 and S2. The detailed nodewise adjacency matrix of the MNMs at different conditions of ERSE_DES and ERSE_ANG as moderators is presented in Table S3.

More clearly, Figure 2 showed how network structures alter when ERSE levels rise, both despondency-distress (ERSE_DES) and anger-irritation (ERSE_ANG). When the level of ERSE shifted from the mean to one standard deviation above the mean, the weight of the edge between Being bullied and Hurting people (Bullying_V – MC_HP) decreased from 0.19 to 0. Additionally, despondency-distress (ERSE_DES) acted as a moderator in the connection between Being bullied and Playing tricks (Bullying_V – MC_PT), where the relation decreased from 0.16 to 0.12, as well as Bullying others and Hurting people (Bullying – MC_HP), where the relation decreased from 0.13 to 0.08 as the level of despondency-distress (ERSE_DES) increased.

Figure 3 showed the relationship between Being bullied and Hurting people (Bullying_V – MC_HP) at various ERSE levels both despondency-distress (ERSE_DES) and anger-irritation (ERSE_ANG). As expected, the three-way interactions were in the negative direction, revealing that the association between Being bullied and Hurting people (Bullying_V – MC_HP) became weaker as ERSE increased. Specially, the despondency distress-regulation self-efficacy (ERSE_DES) showed the strongest moderating effects (value = −0.13) on the relation from Hurting people to Being bullied (MC_HP: ERSE_DES – Bullying_V; Panel A of Figure 3), and an adverse moderating effect (value = −0.06) on the relation from Being bullied to Hurting people (Bullying_V: ERSE_DES – MC_HP; Panel B of Figure 3). Similarly, anger-irritation regulation self-efficacy (ERSE_ANG) showed the strongest moderating effects (value = −0.09) on the relation from Hurting people to Being bullied (MC_HP:ERSE_ANG – Bullying_V; Panel C of Figure 3), and an adverse moderating effect (value = −0.04) on the relation from Being bullied to Hurting people (Bullying_V: ERSE_ANG – MC_HP; Panel D of Figure 3). The detailed matrix of interaction terms for two MNMs is shown in Tables S4 and S5.

Regression coefﬁcients and 95% conﬁdence intervals for each predictor and interaction term matrixes are shown in Supplemental Figures S1 and S2. Meanwhile, as shown in Figure S3, Playing tricks (MC_PH) showed the highest expected influence, followed by Hurting people (MC_HT), whereas Bullying others (Bullying) showed the lowest expected influence. Similar results were found in the network of anger irritation as a moderator. Additionally, the stability estimation of the edge weights and centrality estimates (EI) was shown in Supplemental Figure S4 and Table S6. All CS estimates exceeded 0.25 when we dropped 75% of the total sample, suggesting that the results of this study exhibited an acceptable level of stability.

Discussion

This study examined the bidirectional relationship among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity in middle school students, taking into account ERSE as a moderator by utilizing the MNM. As a result, a positive relation among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity was found. These relations were moderated by ERSE regarding both despondency-distress and anger-irritation. The ERSE regarding anger-irritation exhibited a less pronounced moderating effect on the link between victimization and malevolent creativity. These key ﬁndings were discussed in detail below.

Association Between Bullying/Victimization and Malevolent Creativity

First, the results revealed a positive and moderate link between bullying and victimization, which is consistent with Hypothesis 1. In line with the previous study (Barker et al., 2008), victims of bullying, as a form of self-defense or retaliation, not only suffer from poor physical and mental health but also engage in aggressive conduct more frequently. For instance, Liang et al. (2024) found that traditional bullying victimization positively correlated with bullying perpetration, highlighting the dangers of becoming a bullying victimizer. According to earlier studies, those who are bullied may experience feelings of maladjustment, including anxiety and depression, which can be mitigated by bullying others (Zhou et al., 2023). Victimized adolescents may develop biases in perceiving social situations and others’ intentions, tending to interpret peers’ actions as hostile and to bully others in response (Guy et al., 2017). While our network analysis revealed a positive link between bullying and victimization, this appears partially inconsistent with recent longitudinal evidence from Camacho et al. (2022). Their findings by using CLPM demonstrated that, at the between-person level, bullying and victimization showed a positive correlation, and at the within-person level, however, no significant within-person prediction from traditional victimization to subsequent traditional bullying, nor from traditional bullying to traditional victimization, highlighting that this association is due to inter-individual differences.

Second, in line with Hypothesis 2, our findings demonstrate consistent positive associations between both bullying and victimization with malevolent creativity, suggesting both share an underlying core of proactive aggression characterized by deliberate harm intention, which is in line with the shared psychological processes (van Dijk et al., 2017). Our study found that the reactive and proactive reasons for hostility that bullying and victimization share are comparable, supporting earlier studies in adolescence (Bettencourt & Farrell, 2013). Notably, both bullying and victimization nodes maintained stable connections to malevolent creativity components, underscoring that what differentiates these groups may not be the presence of harmful intent itself, but rather its expression context, that is, whether initiated proactively or enacted reactively in response to victimization experiences. This pattern aligns with the conceptualization of malevolent creativity as a specific manifestation of dark creativity (Runco, 2010), where harmful intent serves as the foundational element. The concurrent elevation of malevolent creativity in both bullying and victimization revealed that bullies employ creative cognition to develop novel harm strategies, consistent with instrumental aggression models (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). In line with General Strain Theory, when individuals are exposed to external stressful events, they tend to experience negative emotions (Agnew, 1992). Thus, deviant behavior can be understood as an adaptive response to stress (Shu & Luo, 2021), exemplified by malevolent creativity in bullying victims, which is a strategic and deviant adaptation elicited by negative emotions from persistent victimization. Perchtold-Stefan et al. (2021) found that greater inventive capacity in harm-inflicting strategies was significantly associated with heightened revenge ideation during reappraisal attempts, which is a cognitive pattern frequently exhibited by victimized individuals when processing interpersonal conflicts.

Malevolent creativity can reinforce both bullying and victimization by enabling individuals to devise novel ways to harm or retaliate against others. This creative aggression may escalate conflicts, increasing the likelihood of reciprocal bullying. Individuals with high malevolent creativity exhibit unique cognitive advantages, especially in covert risk assessment (Kapoor et al., 2024). They better anticipate the feasibility and concealment of aggressive acts and often engage in moral disengagement (Zhao et al., 2022). This challenges traditional views that creativity mainly reduces punishment risk, suggesting instead that malevolent creativity actively strengthens aggressive motivation and the possibility of bullying, creating a positive feedback loop between ability and behavior.

Moderated Effects of ERSE

Our study showed that ERSE regarding both despondency-distress (DES) and anger-irritation (ANG) moderated the bidirectional relationship between victimization and malevolent creativity. Specifically, high levels of ERSE moderated the mutually reinforcing relationship between Being bullied and Hurting people (Bullying_V – MC-HP). Self-efficacy, which has its roots in social cognitive theory, is a person's belief system about their own capabilities, which not only directly influences behavioral choices but also shapes the cognitive appraisal process that mediates the relationship between environmental stimuli and behavioral responses (Bandura, 1997).

Specifically, our findings suggested that individuals who have strong ERSE are more assured of their capacity to control negative emotions during victimization experiences, which confers protective benefits in two key ways. One possible explanation is that this efficacy belief reduces the tendency to appraise victimization as a personal threat, thereby attenuating the activation of retaliatory cognitions and impulsivity (R. Zhang et al., 2025). Another possible explanation, consistent with an embodied cognition perspective, is that high ERSE can alter their embodied experience, reducing the intensity of the aversive sensorimotor feedback from bullying or victimization, and interrupting the link between these negative experiences and the generation of malevolent creative ideas. A recent study revealed that ERSE may be a proximal predictor of clinical improvement that may be enhanced by therapeutic and digital mental health interventions (Macrynikola et al., 2024). Future research could explore the efficacy of such interventions in strengthening individuals’ ability to manage their negative emotional responses, which may prove effective in disrupting the pathway from negative experiences to harmful creative expression.

Additionally, we separated two aspects of ERSE to assess the moderating effects in the network. The results showed that ERSE regarding despondency-distress (DES) has more moderating effects than ERSE regarding anger-irritation (ANG), which does not align with our initial hypothesis 3. This unexpected finding may suggest that feelings of despondency-distress exert a distinct influence on the cognitive and behavioral processes underlying bullying and the deployment of malevolent creativity. Despondency often signals experiences of loss, rejection, or helplessness, and is closely linked to social pain and diminished self-worth, which may serve as critical triggers for both aggressive and creative retaliatory behaviors when not adequately regulated (Fu & Zhang, 2023).

While previous research has highlighted the role of emotional arousal in processes of emerging malevolent creativity, suggesting that high-arousal states like anger can enhance cognitive engagement and semantic network activation, hereby directly boosting malevolent creative output (Cheng et al., 2021), our findings suggested that the specificity of the emotion, rather than simply its arousal level, may be crucial in this context. Research shows that experiencing bullying shares neural pathways with physical pain, which alters the brain’s threat detection systems, leading to a heightened sensitivity to potential threats, including social threats like exclusion or rejection (Wu et al., 2025), which then increases the pain of rejection or exclusion. Specifically, low-arousal emotions characterized by internal focus and a sense of loss, such as despondency-distress, may more directly prompt individuals to deeply reflect on their experiences and seek ways to restore a sense of control or psychological equilibrium, rather than simply engaging in outward aggression (Walters & Espelage, 2018). Malevolent creativity, in this case, may be viewed as a unique coping strategy, offering a means to regain a sense of agency and address the emotional distress caused by victimization through creating novel plans and strategies, whether they are ever put into action.

Collectively, this differential pattern underscores the necessity of examining discrete emotion-specific self-efficacy beliefs rather than treating emotion regulation as a unitary construct, as diverse negative emotions may distinctly shape the pathways to maladaptive behaviors. Thus, fostering specific emotional regulation self-efficacy emerges as a promising target for interventions aimed at mitigating both the emotional distress underlying bullying and the malevolent creativity it engenders.

Implications and Limitations

The present study offers several important implications for research, practice, and intervention in the context of bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity among adolescents. First, our findings underscore the complex, bidirectional relationship between bullying and victimization, revealing that individuals may simultaneously occupy both roles. This reciprocal association highlights the necessity of recognizing that bullying behavior may stem from their own experiences of victimization and emotional distress. Second, ERSE emerged as a key protective factor, mitigating the positive link among victimization, bullying, and malevolent creativity. The use of MNM allows for a comprehensive analysis of the complex interrelationships among these variables, capturing their dynamic interplay in a way that traditional methods cannot. Additionally, focusing on different dimensions of ERSE, specifically the regulation of despondency-distress and anger-irritation, provides a nuanced exploration of the underlying emotional processes. This allows for a targeted understanding of how these processes buffer the association among bullying, victimization, and malevolent creativity. Given the associations between malevolent creativity and traits such as callousness and externalizing problems, incorporating strategies to enhance students’ confidence in their emotional regulation abilities into mental health education programs could serve as a preventive measure against both bullying behaviors and their harmful creative expressions.

Nonetheless, several limitations must be acknowledged. The temporal sequencing between victimization and bullying is left unclear by the cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to conclude causality. This includes whether victimized individuals respond with bullying as retaliation or if aggressive behavior increases their risk of being victimized. Future longitudinal studies with intensive data collection protocols are essential to capturing these dynamic interactions over time. Moreover, reliance on self-reported measures introduces subjectivity and potential bias. For instance, while bullying and victimization were assessed through validated questionnaires, the absence of objective behavioral data, such as actual behavior time or frequency, limits the precision in characterizing bullying behaviors. Incorporating multimethod assessments in future research may enhance measurement reliability and validity, including teacher observations and peer nominations. A key limitation of our study is the difference in educational classifications between China and the United States. In China, 9th graders are categorized as middle school students, while in the United States, they are considered high school students. This distinction may influence the applicability of our findings across different contexts. Future research could benefit from cross-cultural studies that examine these differences in educational systems, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of whether and how varying educational structures influence student experiences.

Additionally, the sample was drawn exclusively from middle school students in China. This geographical and developmental specificity limits the generalizability of our findings to other age groups, cultural contexts, and educational systems. Future research should aim to replicate and extend these findings using more diverse samples, including participants from various countries, socioeconomic backgrounds, and age ranges, to enhance the broader applicability of the conclusions. Finally, while this study primarily focused on traditional bullying, we acknowledge the increasing importance of cyberbullying due to the proliferation of information technology. Cyberbullying’s digital nature allows for rapid dissemination of harmful content to a potentially vast audience (Kowalski et al., 2018). The reduced visibility of cyberbullying to adults and peers leads to a potential underestimation of its prevalence and impact (Li et al., 2025), which warrants further investigation by integrating the concept of malevolent creativity in online contexts (C. Liu, Li, & Gong, 2024).

Conclusion

The current study explored the associations among bullying/victimization, malevolent creativity, and emotion regulatory self-efficacy utilizing a MNM approach. Our results revealed that the link between bullying/victimization and malevolent creativity was positive and bidirectional. In addition, as the level of emotion regulatory self-efficacy increased, the positive conditional effect of victimization on malevolent creativity decreased, in networks with emotion regulatory self-efficacy regarding both despondency-distress and anger-irritation. Moreover, the positive conditional effect of bullying on malevolent creativity was observed only in the network with emotion regulatory self-efficacy regarding despondency-distress as a moderator.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605251412374 – Supplemental material for Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy as a Buffer: Unraveling the Link Among Bullying, Victimization, and Malevolent Creativity

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605251412374 for Emotion Regulation Self-Efficacy as a Buffer: Unraveling the Link Among Bullying, Victimization, and Malevolent Creativity by Qi Dai, Yuzhuo Liang, Baojuan Ye and Caiyun Zhu in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the participants and volunteers who provided support for this study.

ORCID iDs

Qi Dai

Yuzhuo Liang

Ethical Considerations

All the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Jiangxi Normal University.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all the students included in the study and from their parents.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72164018), and Jiangxi Social Science Foundation Project (21JY13).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The main data of this article will be made available by the authors.

Declaration of Generative AI in Scientific Writing

During the preparation of this work, the author utilized DeepSeek to correct grammatical errors and refine the language. Following the use of this tool, the author reviewed and edited the content as necessary, and assumes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Qi Dai is a Master’s student at the School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University of China. Her main interests include school interpersonal mental health and adolescents’ aggressive behavior.

Yuzhuo Liang is a PhD candidate at the School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University of China. Her research takes on the development of malevolent creativity, adolescents’ aggressive behavior, and emotional mental health.

Baojuan Ye is a professor at the Center of Mental Health Education and Research, School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, China. Her research interests include clinical health psychology, aggressive behavior, student development, and school well-being.

Caiyun Zhu is a Master’s student at the School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University of China. Her primary research interests include bullying perpetration and adolescent development.

References

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

Alonso

Romero

(2017). Aggressors and victims in bullying and cyberbullying: A study of personality profiles using the five-factor model. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, Article E76. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.73

Baas

Roskes

Koch

Cheng

De Dreu

C. K.

(2019). Why social threat motivates malevolent creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(11), 1590–1602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219838551

Bandura

Freeman

W. H.

Lightsey

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158

Barker

Arseneault

Brendgen

Fontaine, N

Maughan

. (2008). Joint development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: Relations to delinquency and self-harm. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1030–1038. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e31817eec98

Bettencourt

A. F.

Farrell

A. D.

(2013). Individual and contextual factors associated with patterns of aggression and peer victimization during middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9854-8

Bien

Taylor

Tibshirani

(2013). A Lasso for hierarchical interactions. Annals of statistics, 41(3), 1111–1141. https://doi.org/10.1214/13-AOS1096

Borsboom

Cramer

A. O.

(2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608

Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108(1), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.273

10.

Camacho

Runions

Ortega-Ruiz

Romera

E. M.

(2022). Bullying and cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: Prospective within-person associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(2), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01704-3

11.

Camodeca

Nava

(2020). The long-term effects of bullying, victimization, and bystander behavior on emotion regulation and its physiological correlates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), NP2056–NP2075. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520934438

12.

Caprara

G. V.

Di Giunta

Eisenberg

Gerbino

Pastorelli

Tramontano

(2008). Assessing regulatory emotional self-efficacy in three countries. Psychological Assessment, 20(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.227

13.

Chan

H. C. O.

Wong

D. S. W.

(2015). The overlap between school bullying perpetration and victimization: Assessing the psychological, familial, and school factors of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3224–3234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0125-7.

14.

Cheng

Hao

(2021). The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 847. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2021.00847

15.

Choi

Park

(2018). Who becomes a bullying perpetrator after the experience of bullying victimization? The moderating role of self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(11), 2414–2423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0913-7

16.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

17.

Cropley

D. H.

Kaufman

J. C.

Cropley

A. J.

(2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802059424

18.

Crouch

Figas

Radcliff

Hunt

E. T.

(2023). Examining bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, and positive childhood experiences. Journal of School Health, 93(8), 669–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13323

19.

Epskamp

Borsboom

Fried

E. I.

(2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1.

20.

Espino

Guarini

Menabò

Del Rey

(2022). Why are some victims also bullies? The role of peer relationship management and anger regulation in traditional bullying. Youth & Society, 55(6), 1056–1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x221077712

21.

Fincher-Kiefer

(2019). An introduction to the theory of embodied cognition. In How the body shapes knowledge: Empirical support for embodied cognition (pp. 3–12). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000136-001

22.

Zhang

(2023). The relationship between honesty-humility and malevolent creativity: Sequential mediation models with prosocial moral emotional traits and prosocial tendencies. Current Psychology, 43(8), 7424–7436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04941-2

23.

Guy

Lee

Wolke

(2017). Differences in the early stages of social information processing for adolescents involved in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 43(6), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21716

24.

Hao

Tang

Yang

Wang

Runco

M. A.

(2016). A new tool to measure malevolent creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 682. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00682

25.

Hasking

Boyes

Greves

(2018). Self-efficacy and emotionally dysregulated behaviour: An exploratory test of the role of emotion regulatory and behaviour-specific beliefs. Psychiatry Research, 270, 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.09.045

26.

Haslbeck

J. M. B.

Waldorp

L. J.

(2020). MGM: estimating time-varying mixed graphical models in high-dimensional data. Journal of Statistical Software, 93(8), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v093.i08

27.

Kapoor

Mahadeshwar

Rezaei

Reiter-Palmon

Kaufman

J. C.

(2024). The ties that bind: Low morals, high deception, and dark creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2306447

28.

Kennedy

R. S.

(2018). Bully-Victims: An analysis of subtypes and risk characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), 5401–5421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517741213

29.

Kowalski

R. M.

Toth

Morgan

(2018). Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1302402

30.

Huebner

E. S.

Tian

(2025). Joint trajectories of traditional and cyberbullying in Chinese youth: Mental health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251368850

31.

Liang

Zhu

Jiang

Zhang

Xiao

(2024). The link between bullying victimization, maladjustment, self-control, and bullying: A comparison of traditional and cyberbullying perpetrator. Youth & Society, 57(3), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x241247213

32.

Liu

Gong

(2024). Development and testing of the cyber malevolent creativity behavior scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 58(3), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.669

33.

Liu

Yisongwake

Hao

Lyu

Zhao

Wang

(2024). The association between physical activity and positive affect in adolescents: The chain mediating role of psychological resilience and regulatory emotional self-efficacy. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 29(10), 1807–1819. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2024.2411635

34.

Luo

Zheng

Xiao

Xie

Liu

Zhu

Xiang

Song

(2022). Relationship between school bullying and mental health status of adolescent students in China: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 70, Article 103043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103043

35.

Macrynikola

Chang

Torous

(2024). Emotion regulation self-efficacy as a mechanism of alliance and outcomes in a brief, transdiagnostic digital mental health intervention: L’auto-efficacité de la régulation des émotions en tant que mécanisme d’alliance et de résultats dans une brève intervention transdiagnostique numérique en santé mentale. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 70(11), 824–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437241274201

36.

Malamut

S. T.

van den Berg

Y. H. M.

Lansu

T. A. M.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2020). Dyadic nominations of bullying: Comparing types of bullies and their victims. Aggressive Behavior, 46(3), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21884

37.

Mitchell

K. S.

Reiter-Palmon

(2023). Malevolent creativity: Personality, process, and the larger creativity field (pp. 47–68). Elsevier eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-85667-6.00004-9

38.

Moore

S. E.

Norman

R. E.

Suetani

Thomas

H. J.

Sly

P. D.

Scott

J. G.

(2017). Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60

39.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell.

40.

Olweus

(2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516

41.

Perchtold-Stefan

C. M.

Fink

Rominger

Papousek

(2020). Creative, antagonistic, and angry? Exploring the roots of malevolent creativity with a real-world idea generation task. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.484

42.

Perchtold-Stefan

C. M.

Fink

Rominger

Papousek

(2021). Failure to reappraise: Malevolent creativity is linked to revenge ideation and impaired reappraisal inventiveness in the face of stressful, anger-eliciting events. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34(4), 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2021.1918682

43.

Perchtold-Stefan

C. M.

Rominger

Fink

(2023). Depressive symptoms are positively linked to malevolent creativity: A novel perspective on the maladaptive nature of revenge ideation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(2), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.580

44.

Randa

Reyns

B. W.

Nobles

M. R.

(2016). Measuring the effects of limited and persistent school bullying victimization: Repeat victimization, fear, and adaptive behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(2), 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516641279

45.

Runco

M. A.

(2010). Creativity has no dark side. In Cropley

A. J.

Kaufman

J. C.

Runco

M. A.

(Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 15–32). Cambridge University Press.

46.

Shu

Luo

(2021). Peer victimization and reactive aggression in junior high-school students: A moderated mediation model of retaliatory normative beliefs and self-perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 47(5), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21982

47.

Swanson

T. J.

(2020). Modeling moderators in psychological networks (Unpublished Ph.D). University of Kansas.

48.

Tang

D. L.

Dong

G. L.

Wen

S. F.

(2010). The regulatory emotional self-efficacy: A new research topic. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(4), 598–604. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2010/V18/I4/598

49.

Tao

Niu

Liu

Wang

Hou

Liu

(2023). Effects of personal relative deprivation on the relationship between anger rumination and aggression during and after the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: A longitudinal moderated network approach. Journal of Adolescence, 95(3), 596–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12140

50.

Van Dijk

Poorthuis

A. M. G.

Malti

. (2017). Psychological processes in young bullies versus bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 43(5), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21701

51.

Veldkamp

S. A. M.

Boomsma

D. I.

de Zeeuw

E. L.

van Beijsterveldt

C. E. M.

Bartels

Dolan

C. V.

van Bergen

(2019). Genetic and environmental influences on different forms of bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and their co-occurrence. Behavior Genetics, 49(5), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09968-5

52.

Walters

G. D.

Espelage

D. L.

(2018). From victim to victimizer: Hostility, anger, and depression as mediators of the bullying victimization–bullying perpetration association. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.12.003

53.

Liu

Jiao

(2025). The effects of different types of social exclusion on malevolent creativity: The role of self-construal. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 57, Article 101837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101837

54.

Yang

Salmivalli

(2013). Different forms of bullying and victimization: Bully-victims versus bullies and victims. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.793596

55.

Zhang

Huang

(2025). Emotional regulation self-efficacy and impulsivity effects on college students’ risk-taking behavior: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1566618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1566618

56.

Zhang

W. X.

J. F.

Kevin

(1999). Revision of the Chinese version of Olweus Child Bullying questionnaire. Psychological Development and Education, 15(2), 7–11,37. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.1999.02.002

57.

Zhao

Pang

(2022). When do creative people engage in malevolent behaviors? The moderating role of moral reasoning. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, Article 111386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111386

58.

Zhou

Wei

Jiang

Tuo

Liang

Xiao

(2023). The link between exposure to violent media, normative beliefs about aggression, self-control, and aggression: A comparison of traditional and cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 49(2), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22057

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.35 MB