English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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