Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Scientific Reports
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Gratitude interventions reduce
cyber-aggression in adolescents:
gender and disposition eects
Tomaszek Katarzyna 1 & Muchacka-Cymerman Agnieszka 2
The study explores the impact of gender and gratitude disposition on the eectiveness of a classroom-
based gratitude intervention aimed at reducing cyber-aggression among Polish adolescents. Cyber-
aggression, linked to maladjustment and mental health issues like depression and anxiety, is a
growing concern. The intervention involved 548 students, divided into a control group (399) and an
experimental group (149), and lasted for seven days. Participants completed the Cyber-aggression
Types Questionnaire (CATQ) and a Gratitude Questionnaire. Results showed the intervention
eectively reduced overall cyber-aggression, particularly aversive controlled types, but increased
appetitive impulsive aggression. Girls responded better to the gratitude exercises, and those with
lower gratitude levels saw the most signicant reduction in cyber-aggression. However, students with
medium levels of gratitude showed increased impulsive and controlled appetitive cyber-aggression.
The study concludes that gender and gratitude disposition inuence the success of gratitude
interventions in reducing cyber-aggression.
Keywords Classroom gratitude intervention, Cyber-aggression types, Gender, Gratitude disposition
Cyber-aggression is a complex multi-type maladaptive behavior that was recognized as one of the most
concerning public health problems aecting adolescents1,2. Despite the importance of studying distinct proles
of cyber-perpetrators related to dimensions of valence and control, research suggests the need for more attention
to nding eective ways to allow individuals to avoid such aversive experiences due to their detrimental impact
on adolescents’ development3,4. Importantly, the meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of online perpetration
among children and adolescents ranged from 5.3 to 66.2%5. To date, multiple studies have addressed the risk
factors that may inuence the rate of adolescent cyber-aggression, with the most commonly studied person-
related characteristics. Evidence indicates mixed results for gender as a risk factor3. Moreover, given the
prominent eects of gratitude intervention in promoting various benets at every developmental stage, research
on adolescents’ cyber-aggression and gratitude is scarce. Notably, some previous studies suggest that gratitude-
based practices within natural social groups may eectively reduce negative states (aggression) and behaviors
(cyber-bullying) among adolescents and adults with comparable positive eects to classical psycho-educational
programs6,7. Furthermore, previous studies have predominantly focused on a cross-sectional examination of
the role of gratitude trait on the overall cyber-aggression, with limited evidence for the diversities caused by its
various types. Hence, this project tends to provide valuable insight into the role of Classroom gratitude induction
(CGI) with attention given to investigating the inuence of personal factors, such as gender and low gratitude
disposition.
Cyber-aggression among adolescent girls and boys
Cyber-aggression among adolescent girls and boys manifests in distinct patterns, reecting dierences in
socialization, emotional expression, and online behavior. Research suggests that while both genders engage
in cyber-aggression, the motivations and methods oen dier8,9. e heterogeneity of the cyber-oenders’
motivations contributing to developing several classications of cyber-aggression10. Most commonly proposed
types are based on classical typology of pro-active (instrumental aggressive actions focused on anticipated
reward, planned and organized, with no emotional arousal dened as cold-blooded and high aective control),
and reactive aggression (an impulsive response to perceived threat associated with adverse emotional states
such as anger, tension or anxiety)11,12. e second source of online aggression diversity is related to perpetrators’
motivation i.e. aversion induced aggression acts (aggression arising from aversive conditions such as violent
conicts) or appetitive motives (aggression initiated by the need for experiencing pleasure or fun that stems
1Rzeszow University, Kraków, Poland. 2Humanitas University in Sosnowiec, ul. Kilińskiego 43, Sosnowiec 41-200,
Poland. email: agnieszka.muchacka-cymerman@humanitas.edu.pl
OPEN
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 1
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
from attacking and ghting with others)13,10. For example in respect to these typologies, Runions et al.2 proposed
four forms of cyber-attacks: aversive: impulsive and controlled; and appetitive: impulsive and controlled. More
recently DeMarsico et al.14 have postulated eight forms of cyber-aggression: (1) Social Bonding - induced by a
need to be aliated by others; (2) Social Activism – initiated by the believes that the person have to advance
or defend political/social issues; (3) Reactive Aggression – motivated by anger; (4) Interpersonal Distress – acts
induced by relationship stress; (5) Impulsivity – conducted to mitigate impulsive urges; (6) Virtual Dissociation
– motivated to take on a dierentcyber-identity; (7)rill-Seeking – initiated to experience excitement; and (8)
Vengeance – pursued to gain revenge. Noteworthy, adolescent girls are more likely to participate in relational
forms of cyber-aggression, such as spreading rumors or social exclusion, which align with their tendency to
value social connections and relationships15. On the other hand, boys are more inclined towards direct and
overt forms of cyber-aggression, including threats and insults, which may be linked to traditional notions of
masculinity and dominance16. ese gendered dierences highlight the importance of tailored interventions that
address the specic ways in which girls and boys experience and perpetrate cyber-aggression. Understanding
these distinctions is crucial for developing eective strategies to prevent and reduce cyber-aggression, as well as
to support adolescents in navigating the complex dynamics of online interactions.
Cyber-aggression among adolescent girls and boys demonstrates notable dierences in both prevalence and
expression, which are inuenced by gender-specic social dynamics and psychological factors. According to
research by León-Moreno et al.17, gender plays a signicant role in shaping how adolescents engage in cyber-
aggression, with boys generally showing higher involvement in such behaviors compared to girls. However,
the study also reveals that girls, particularly those who are rejected or neglected by their peers, may engage in
cyber-aggression as a response to feelings of anger and helplessness caused by social exclusion. is behavior
is oen facilitated by the anonymity and indirect nature of online interactions, which can make it easier for
these girls to express their frustrations without direct confrontation. Conversely, boys who are categorized as
controversial—both liked and disliked by their peers—tend to exhibit the highest levels of cyber-aggression,
suggesting that their involvement in both prosocial and antisocial behaviors in the physical world extends into
their online interactions. Research conducted by Álvarez-García et al.18 reveals that boys tend to display higher
levels of cyber-aggression than girls, with key factors such as impulsivity and antisocial behavior serving as
signicant predictors. Although girls are generally less involved in cyber-aggressive acts, they are not entirely
exempt; their participation in such behaviors is oen inuenced by social factors, particularly peer relationships
and experiences of victimization. According to Uddin and Rahman19, boys tend to exhibit higher levels of both
cyber victimization and cyber aggression compared to girls. e study also found signicant gender dierences
in emotion regulation strategies, with girls more likely to use cognitive reappraisal, which helps them manage
their emotions eectively, thereby reducing the likelihood of engaging in cyber-aggression. On the other
hand, boys were more inclined to use expressive suppression, which was positively correlated with both cyber
victimization and aggression, suggesting that boys who suppress their emotions are more prone to retaliatory
aggressive behaviors online.
Gratitude as a protective factor against cyber-aggression
e available scientic evidence advocate that positive youth development indicators that is character strengths
such as grateful mood and predisposition toward thankfulness and appreciation are associated to a decreased
likelihood of engaging in various risk behaviors (i.e. substance use, smoking, sexual risk behaviors)20. Gratitude
dened as a positive emotional state characterized by recognition for the kindness and benets received from
others, plays a crucial role in mitigating cyber-aggression, particularly among adolescents21. Consistently with
Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory, the positive impact of gratitude on human behaviors stems from
improving people’s monetary thought-action repertoires and the increase in accessibility of personal resources,
what in a long-term positively impacts individuals’ mental health and social interactions22. As a protective factor,
gratitude promotes emotional regulation, fosters empathy, and strengthens social connections23. ese traits
not only enhance personal well-being but also create a buer against negative emotions such as anger, envy,
or frustration—key drivers of cyber-aggressive behaviors. Consequently, gratitude can contribute to a more
respectful and empathetic online environment, reducing instances of harmful behaviors like cyber-aggression7,22.
e protective role of gratitude is especially signicant in school environments, where adolescents are highly
susceptible to peer inuences and social dynamics. Research by Oliveira et al.24 highlights the interplay between
gratitude, forgiveness, and self-regulation in enhancing adolescents’ psychological well-being. is improved
well-being fosters prosocial behaviors and reduces the likelihood of engaging in cyber-aggression. Adolescents
who practice gratitude regularly show greater resilience to social challenges and are less likely to retaliate with
aggression during online conicts or provocations. Moreover, the relationship between gratitude and cyber-
aggression is mediated by factors such as self-compassion and moral disengagement. Studies indicate that
gratitude strengthens self-compassion, which in turn reduces moral disengagement—a process oen associated
with aggressive behaviors25. is sequential mediation underscores the complex interplay of psychological traits
that gratitude can inuence to mitigate cyber-aggression. Individuals who consistently practice gratitude tend
to experience positive emotions such as empathy and compassion, which are essential for fostering healthy
interpersonal relationships online and oine. For example, DeWall et al.26 found that gratitude encourages
individuals to focus on the positive aspects of their social interactions, reducing the likelihood of engaging in
harmful online behaviors. is is particularly relevant in digital spaces where anonymity and lack of physical
presence oen lead to dehumanization, making it easier to perpetrate cyber-aggression. By promoting a sense of
connection and respect for others, gratitude discourages such behaviors. Gratitude’s inuence extends beyond
individual benets to foster a supportive school culture. A school environment that promotes gratitude and
other positive emotional practices can reduce the prevalence of cyber-aggression by creating a community
where empathy and mutual respect thrive25. Such environments not only discourage harmful behaviors but also
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 2
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
prevent their escalation into more severe forms like cyberhate. Fulantelli et al.27 argue that while cyberbullying
and cyberhate dier, they share common predictors and consequences related to adolescents’ emotional well-
being. By embedding gratitude into school programs, communities can strengthen their resistance to these
harmful behaviors.
Gratitude interventions among children and adolescents
Numerous past studies have investigated the impact of increasing gratitude among adult or university students
populations, with signicant eects of such practices on decreasing adverse mental states i.e. depression,
anxiety, and increasing the positive ones i.e. well-being, social functioning28. Yet, the gratitude implementation
among children and adolescents has received less attention. Among gratitude interventions dedicated to
youth population most focused on private gratitude expressions (e.g., counting blessings, gratitude journaling,
gratitude letters)29. Scholars have induced gratitude in school through several ways i.e. Grateful Recounting
(counting simple blessings received, list three good things), Grateful Reection (reecting on the kindness of
others, participants are asked to nominate events, things or people they are grateful and which happened in a
specied period), Grateful Expression (expressing gratitude and gratitude through letters or journals), Grateful
Reappraisal (looking back at the positive side of negative events that have been experienced)30. According
to past gratitude literature the recommended duration of gratitude intervention carried out is at least two
weeks, to give time for participants to process the information they have gained and provide an opportunity
for applying what they have studied during the training30. However, signicant eects were detected also in
short-term gratitude-based interventions31 conrmed that 1-day gratitude induction increased positive aect
and psychological emotionality). According to meta-analysis performed by Kirca et al.32 intervention length
and duration from baseline to nal assessment did not signicantly moderate eect sizes across studies.
Scholars further assert that through the systematic cultivation of gratitude, various types of benets have been
achieved i.e. school connectedness, academic success, strong peer and family relationships, higher absorption in
activities, better sleep quality33, . e most cited studies on gratitude intervention among youths were conducted
by Froh and colleagues33. Eleven classrooms - youth aged 11–14 years (6-7th grades) took part in two weeks
Counting blessings activities. Aer the intervention the experimental group presented greater optimism, life
satisfaction and gratitude disposition, experienced less negative emotions compared to their counterparts
without gratitude condition. Similar methodology was applied by Huebnar et al.34, who induced gratitude
towards school environment via 2-week intervention based on Counting good things at school. Students in
gratitude condition reported higher school satisfaction, were more interested in school activities, were more
positive towards attending school and engaging in learning. According to the authors the intervention mitigated
adverse educational appraisals, and at the same time increase emotional and social competences. A 2-weeks
positive Shamiri intervention implemented to 12–19 years old students, that included gratitude module has
revealed a positive eect on reducing internalizing symptoms and improved academic outcomes35. Similarly,
Sahar et al.36 found that the four-week improving gratitude program, which included counting blessings related
to school life, friends, studies and teachers, writing gratitude letters and loving kindness meditation increases
positive emotionality among adolescents aged 16 years. Chen et al.37 showed a signicant decline in stress and
depressive symptoms over time aer the 4-week writing of work-related gratitude diaries. Such an eect may
have preventive impact on impulsively motivated aggression, mostly derived from frustration and distress2.
Nevertheless, empirical studies on gratitude intervention and aggression among youth are scarce. One of such
gratitude- based interventions was a weekly group-based sharing gratitude and counting blessings exercises
implemented by Deng et al.21 among prisoners. Aer the 5-weeks the authors found that participants in the
gratitude sharing and blessing-counting subgroups had lower levels of aggression and higher of well-being than
the controls. Prior research also conrmed that expressing gratitude leads to the reduction behavioral aggression
in response to provocation, and to decrease the tendency of denigration of partners when confronting with
threatened feedbacks26,38. Interestingly, Cho et al.38 argued that the ameliorating eect of gratitude expression
on threatened power holders’ tendency to denigrate subordinates is mediated by increased perceptions of social
worth. Similarly, Chamizo-Nieto et al.7 emphasized that programs designed to enhance emotional intelligence
and gratitude in 12–18 aged adolescents yield promising results in mitigating cyber-aggression. ese programs
focus on fostering a deeper appreciation for positive emotions and social bonds, equipping individuals to
navigate online interactions constructively. By integrating gratitude practices into educational and community
initiatives, it is possible to develop a more resilient and empathetic digital culture that curtails the spread of
cyber-aggression.
Dierences in gratitude experiences across demographic characteristics
A review of past gratitude literature revealed that the feeling of gratitude and the ability to express this
complex emotion depends on a wide variety of contextual factors, including chronological gender (females
experience gratitude more frequently, with a greater intense, and are more sensitive to gratitude stimuli) Skalski,
Pochwatko39, age (older people are more willing to experience grateful mood and present their appreciation
towards other40, however the ndings regarding school-age children and youth are mixed. Empirical work by
O’Brien et al. (2018) suggested that older school-aged children express gratitude more oen compared to the
their younger counterparts. Chan41 observed a positive association between expressing gratitude and age during
adolescence period. In contrast, no signicant age-eect was detected by other scholars in samples aged 10–19
years old42. ese results may be related to dierent ways of grateful reactions. Baumgarten-Tramer43 proposed
four types of gratitude expressions: (a) verbal reaction, which is saying kindly thank you” to the benefactor,
without necessarily denoting any emotions; (b) concrete (repaying benefactor with something valuable for
child) (c) connective(dened as the creation of a spiritual relationship with the benefactor) (d) nalistic (child is
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 3
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
repaying a favor through positive actions that assists in the objects’ attainment, or that promotes own personal
development. All those types were related to age. More specically, youth aged 11–14 more frequently expressed
verbal and connective gratitude, whereas those aged 7–10 years old its concrete and connective types. Interestingly,
the nalistic type was recognized as typical for older adolescents44 (de Lucca Freitas et al., 2011). Similarly
Morgan et al.45 found developmental and cultural dierences in relation to more sophisticated reasoning around
gratitude, such as recognition of ulterior motives. More specically, Australian adolescents were less impacted
by the ulterior motive than were their UK counterparts, and the feature of obligation/indebtedness was named
signicantly more in the UK sample than in the Australian cohort. Other results suggest that subjects from
collectivistic cultures tend to report higher levels of gratitude than those from individualistic ones45. Moreover,
gratitude was associated with more negative features in the UK than in the US46. Similarly, Parker et al.47
observed that higher self-focused and more autonomous interpersonal style people experience less gratitude.
Present study
e current research used a two-wave longitudinal design to explore the eectiveness of classroom gratitude
intervention (CGI) in reducing cyber-aggression among early adolescents from Poland. e primary objective
of this study was to examine the pre- and post-intervention levels of cyber-aggression types to identify the
distinct impact of CGI on these maladaptive behaviors. Based on ndings from past research6,7,34, the following
hypotheses were formulated:
1. Adolescents will demonstrate a decrease in cyber-aggression aer the 7-day CGI intervention.
2. e eectiveness of CGI in minimizing the frequency of youth cyber-aggression will vary based on gender
and gratitude disposition.
3. Early adolescent girls with a high level of gratitude will exhibit the greatest decrease in overt cyber-aggres-
sion.
4. Adolescents who identify as male and have low levels of gratitude will not exhibit a signicant decrease in
cyber-aggression following the CGI intervention.
Method
Participants and procedure
Approximately 548 adolescents from 7-8th grade primary school participated in the paper-pencil survey
conducted during 2023. e randomly chosen primary schools located in urban and rural areas of Poland were
invited to participate in the quasi-experimental survey. ere were no specic criteria, except attending 7-8th
grade. We randomly chose classes from those schools that agreed to participate in the project. Aer receiving
consent classes were randomly assigned to intervention vs. control conditions (there was no variation in
assignment – a similar number of schools from urban and rural areas took part in the survey). All subjects
provided assent, with counselors and parental consent, to participate in a study. e psychological assessments
in the control group were introduced by teachers, and completed in the classroom during classes. Similarly,
teachers provided information on a one-week intervention, with a measurement one week before the study and
a one-week follow-up in the experimental group. e control sample consisted of 399 participants (177 girls, 222
boys) aged 12–15 years (Mage = 13.7, SD = 0.67). e experimental sample included 149 adolescents (80girls,69
boys) aged 12–15 years (Mage = 13.18, SD = 0.55) at Time1, and 142 youth at Time2 (77 girls, 65 boys)aged 12–15
(Mage = 13.66, SD = 0.55). Seven participants from the experimental group did not complete all parts of the
survey (4.7% of the sample), due to the absence at Time 2 at school. is paper refers a part of larger project on
school burnout, personality traits and cyber-aggression among early adolescents in Poland. e controlled group
was examined only at Time 1 with measurements of Cyber-aggression (CATQ) scale, and demographic items,
whereas the experimental sample was tested twice time, that is at Time 1 we used CATQ scale and demographic
items, at Time 2 (3 weeks later) they fullled CATQ scale and gratitude (GQ) scale. e gratitude intervention
was delivered to students by trained teachers, who participated in a set of online meetings with the researchers
before the project started. e teachers were learned how to conduct the intervention, they were delivered
gratitude materials to improve their knowledge of the subjects, and they were also informed how to use an online
tool i.e. an online gratitude classroom book. One week aer the rst examination students took part in a 7-day
Classroom Gratitude Intervention (CGI), that includes enhancing knowledge on the importance of expressing
gratitude by watching a lm and discussion during lectures with teachers and classmates, gratitude exercises
such as counting blessing, gratitude journaling completed jointly with other students, gratitude challenge
completed privately. Each gratitude activity was implemented by trained teachers during classes (the sessions
lasted 45min per day during school week), who instructed each gratitude exercise by presenting “A Gratitude
Week” researchers’ PowerPoint presentations (a gratitude quiz, a link to gratitude lm, a hand of gratitude,
a gratitude self-reported level, and an example of classroom gratitude book). Aer these sessions, students
were divided into small sub-groups and completed collectively gratitude journal in the classroom setting (the
task for each group was to nd a gratitude sentence for each day and discuss it publically). Students were then
encouraged to fulll the private gratitude challenge during weekend (the implementation of this exercise was not
controlled). Prior the survey we obtained an approval from the University of National Educational Commission
Research Ethics Committee (Nb. DNa.0046.13.2023).All studies were conducted in accordance with relevant
guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and their parents based on the
information provided to them by teachers (students were informed during classes and parents during parent-
teacher evenings). e study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 4
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Measurements
Cyber-aggression Types Questionnaire (CATQ) developed by Runions et al.2 measures four types of online
aggression aversive impulsive and controlled, appetitive impulsive and controlled. e instruments includes29
items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1-Very unlike me; 4-Very Like me) (e.g. Sometimes I can be mean to
people online to get what I want).e polish version of the CATQ was prepared by Tomaszek and Muchacka-
Cymerman48.e validity of the CATQ in Poland was conrmed by estimating correlations with oine
aggression (r = .42, p < .0001)28.Reliability in this study was very high (Control sample (n = 399): α /ɷ over 0.97
for CATQ Total score, and α/ɷ equal or over 0.90 for its subtype; Experimental sample (n = 149): α/ɷ over 0.90
for CATQ Total score, and α/ɷ equal or over 0.86 for its subtypes).
Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ) developed by McCullough et al.49, and adapted by Kossakowska and Kwiatek50
assess individuals’ gratitude disposition levels by using 7-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 7 – strongly
agree). e subject respond on the 6 items (i.e. “I have so much in life to be thankful for”).e signicant positive
relationships between gratitude and other psychological positive measurement i.e. life satisfaction (r = .29,p < .05),
religiosity (r = .35, p < .05), ethical openness (r = .46, p < .05), and harmony (r = .35, p < .05) conrmed the validity
of the GQ scale in Poland.e GQ reliability in this study was high, i.e. α/ɷ equal to or higher than 0.88.
Demographic items– all participants were asked to report their biological gender (Male vs. Female), and age.
Data analysis
To test the eectiveness of the CGI intervention on levels of cyber-agression types, we conducted paired-
parametric and non-parametric statistics (tStudent, rankWilcoxon, U Mann-Whitney). Required minimum
sample size equal to 45 (tStudent test for matched pairs), and 47 (Wilcoxon signed-rank test – matched pairs)
(G*Power 3.1.9.7.calculator conditions: eect size = 0.50, α = 0.05, 1-ß = 0.95). To compare samples unequal in the
number of participants (experimental vs. control; girls vs. boys) we calculated the tStudentWel c h, and the U Mann-
Whitney statistics. Required sample 105 (tStudent independent sample), and 110 per group (G*Power3.1.9.7.
calculator conditions: two tails, d = 0.50, α = 0.05, 1-ß = 0.95). To examine the dierences between students
varied in the levels of gratitude disposition we divided the experimental sample into three sub-groups: Low
gratitude n = 32; medium gratitude n = 79, high gratitude n = 17 (χ2(2) = 95.39, p < .001), and used Kruskal-Wallis
statistic to examine the sub-group dierences. Required minimum sample size equal to 66 (G*Power 3.1.9.7.
calculator conditions: eect size = 0.50, α = 0.05, 1-ß = 0.95, number of groups 3). e pre-and post intervention
results within the three gratitude conditions were examined by calculating paired Wilcoxon rank test. Required
sample size reported above. Finally, we used Repeated Measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA) to estimate interaction
eect between gender and gratitude. is procedure was used because regardingthe violations of normalityit
is robust (i.e. Type I error and power of the F-statistic are not altered) with skewness ≥ 2.31, and kurtosis ≥ 851.
Required minimum sample size equal to between factors: 51 subjects, and within factors: 12 subjects (G*Power
3.1.9.7. calculator conditions: f = 0.50, α = 0.05, 1-ß = 0.95). e conduct statistical analysis were performed by
using the IBM SPSS-22 (IBM Corp., NY) and the Jamovi 2.3.28 free soware.
Data availability
e datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions
related to participant privacy and the condentiality agreements required by the institutional review board.
However, the data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Results
Descriptive statistics
e CGI intervention signicantly decreased overall level of cyber-aggression (small eect size), and its aversive
controlled type (F2) (large eect size), however, slightly increased appetitive impulsive cyber-aggression (F3)
(small eect size) (see Table1).
Control vs. experimental sample
e controlled sample scored signicantly lower in CATQTime1 (z(546) =−7.56, p < .001, eect size = 0.42 -
average, Mean dierence = 6.50), and F2 Time1 (z(546) =−14.44, p < .001, eect size = 0.77 - average; Mean
dierence = 6.67) before CGI. Aer the intervention we detected one signicant dierence in aversive controlled
aggression (F2) (z(539) =−3.18,p = .001). Particularly, CGI intervention caused the decrease in overall CATQ
score among adolescents from experimental sample, hence, the controlled and experimental group were equal
in CATQ level (Mean dierence = 3.6, eect size = 0.05). In addition, students from experimental group still
scored higher in aversive controlled aggression (F2) (Mean dierence = 1.18; Eect size = 0.17 - small), however
the dierence was much smaller than at Time 1. An in-depth analysis reecting participants gender revealed
that before the intervention boys from control and experimental sample scored higher in aversive controlled
aggression (F2) (z(289) =−10.18, p < .001, Mean dierence = 6.81), and CATQ (z(289) =−5.29, p < .001, Mean
dierence = 7.57). However, unexpectedly aer the CGI boys from experimental sample scored signicantly
higher in some CATQ indicators (CATQ z(285) = −2.45, p = .014, Mean dierence = 10.61; F1 z(285) = −2.12,
p = .034, Mean dierence = 3.62; F3 z(285) =−3.25, p = .001, Mean dierence = 2.62). Importantly, dierences in F2
between both samples at Time 2 were smaller than at Time 1 (F2: z(285) =−3.53, p < .001, Mean dierence = 6.81),
indicating a decrease in aversive controlled cyber-aggression type. In girls sample the CATQ (z(255) =−5.47,
p < .001, Mean dierence = 5.42), and aversive controlled aggression (F2) (z(255) =−10.10, p < .001, Mean
dierence = 6.51) were higher in experimental sample. Aer the intervention we detected signicantly lower
scores in Aversive Impulsive type (F1) (z(252) =−2.28, p = − .023) among girls from the experimental sample.
Importantly, the scores in Aversive Controlled type (F2) (z(252) =−0.99, p = .324), and CATQ (z(252) =−1.22,
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 5
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
p = .224) decreased in experimental sample, so both groups were similar in F2 (Mean dierence = − 0.10) and
CATQ (Mean dierence = −2.31).
Gender dierences
Before the gratitude intervention the insignicant dierences between girls and boys were observed in almost all
cyber-aggression factors, except appetitive controlled type (F4) – boys scored slightly higher in this type of cyber-
aggression compared to girls (tWelch (147) = −2.34, p = .021, d = .39-average eect size, 95%CI[−2.45;−.20]). Aer
the intervention girls scored signicantly lower in all examined characteristics(F1: tWelch (140) = −3.33, p = .001,
d = .57, 95%CI[−8.41;−2.14]; F2: tWelch (140) = −3.06, p = .003, d = .52, 95%CI[−4.05;−.87]; F3: tWel ch(140) = −3.54,
p < .001, d = .60, 95%CI[−4.44;−1.25]; F4: tWel ch(140) = −2.73, p = .007, d = .46, 95%CI[−3.37;−.54]; CATQ Total
score: tWelch (140) = −3.31, p = .001, d = .56, 95%CI[−20.00;−5.02]).e pre-post intervention comparison in girls
sample’ revealed a signicant decrease in CATQ total score (average eect size), and its two aversive dimensions:
impulsive (F1) (small eect size), and controlled (F2) (large eect size), and insignicance of changes in both
appetitive dimensions (F3, F4). In boys’ sample we detected an increase in aversive impulsive cyber-aggression
(F1) (average eect size), and a decrease in aversive controlled cyber-aggression (F2) (large eect size), and
appetitive impulsive cyber-aggression (F3) (average eect size). e levels of appetitive controlled cyber-
aggression (F4), and CATQ total score were similar to pre-intervention ones (see Fig.1). To sum up, study
hypothesis 1 was mostly conrmed.
Gratitude disposition
e ndings suggest signicant dierences aer the gratitude intervention in all three gratitude subgroups
were in cyber-aggression total score (χ2 (2, N = 142) = 7.36, p = .025, ε2=0.06)and its three types, that is: aversive
Fig. 1. e eectiveness of CGI in reducing cyber-aggression among early adolescents’ girls and boys.
Variables
M(SD) Skewness Kurtosis
Reliability tStudent/
Wilc oxon ran k pEect sizeCyber-aggression α ɷ
Aversive
Impulsive (F1) Time 1 18.2(7.31) 1.40 1.68 0.91 0.92 −1.02 0.309 0.09
Time 2 19.1(9.51) 1.41 1.49 0.96 0.96
Controlled (F2) Time 1 15.2(3.16) −0.16 −0.41 0.90 0.91 12.9 < 0.001 6.24
Time 2 9.71(4.77) 1.42 1.48 0.91 0.91
Appetitive
Impulsive (F3) Time 1 8.30(3.49) 1.95 3.77 0.86 0.87 1299 0.020 0.29
Time 2 9.39(4.85) 1.44 1.36 0.92 0.93
Controlled (F4) Time 1 7.11(3.36) 2.04 1.48 0.88 0.90 2105 0.328 0.11
Time 2 7.88(4.26) 3.91 1.20 0.93 0.94
CATQ Total score
Time 1 49.9(13.9) 1.48 2.55 0.96 0.96 6326 0.007 0.26
Time 2 46.0(22.7) 1.45 1.55 0.98 0.98
Gratitude Time 2 27.2(9.44) 0.20 −1.00 0.88 0.89 – – –
Tab le 1. Descriptive statistics and comparison between pre-and post gratitude intervention measures of
CATQ scores in experimental group (n = 149). Paired Samples tStudent test and Wilcoxon rank test were used
for comparisons with hypothesis Time ≠ Time 2.
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 6
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
impulsive (F1:χ2 (2, N = 142) = 6.18, p = .046, ε2=0.05), aversive controlled (F2: χ2 (2, N = 142) = 7.09, p = .029,
ε2=0.06); appetitive impulsive (F3: χ2(2, N = 142) = 8.69, p = .013, ε2=0.07). We also observed a dierence on the
level of statistical tendency in appetitive controlled cyber-aggression type (F4: χ² (2, N = 142) = 5.71, p = .058,
ε2=0.04).e Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons showed that participants from medium
gratitude sample scored signicantly higher in cyber-aggression, and its two types, that is F2, and F3 measured
at Time 2 compared to their low gratitude counterparts (W = 3.54, p = .033, W = 3.71, p = .024; and W = 3.43,
p = .041, respectively). A non-parametric Wilcoxon rank statistic found a signicant decrease in CATQ total
score, and aversive impulsive (F1) and controlled (F2) cyber-aggression among subjects with low gratitude
sample. e aversive controlled cyber-aggression (F2) signicantly decreased, whereas the appetitive impulsive
and controlled cyber-aggression signicantly increased aer the intervention among individuals with medium
gratitude disposition. Finally, among adolescents with high gratitude disposition we detected a signicant
decrease only in aversive impulsive cyber-aggression (see Table2; Fig.2). Considering our study hypothesis 2 we
did not nd support for the notion that a high level of gratitude disposition will have the most positive impact
on the decrease in cyber-aggression.
The interaction eect of gender and gratitude disposition
e within subjects analysis: e RM-ANOVA showed signicant interaction eects for time and gender for
cyber-aggression total score, and its three types, i.e. aversive impulsive (F1), aversive controlled (F2); appetitive
impulsive (F3). Time and gratitude interaction was signicant in cyber-aggression total score, and its type
appetitive impulsive cyber-aggression (F3). is interaction was on the level of statistical tendency (i.e. p = .057)
in aversive impulsive cyber-aggression (F1) (see Table3).
e between subjects analysis: e ndings indicate a signicant dierences in cyber-aggression between
participants with low, medium, and high gratitude disposition in both aversive types of cyber-aggression (i.e.
impulsive and controlled). e results for gender, as well as the interaction between gender and gratitude were
insignicant (see Table4).
Discussion
We investigated the eect of gender and gratitude disposition on the eectiveness of a 7-day classroom gratitude
intervention in reducing cyber-aggression among early adolescents from Poland.
e rst study hypothesis referred to the decrease in cyber-aggression aer the 7-day CGI intervention. We
observed a signicant reduction in cyber-aggression (small eect size), and its aversive controlled (F2) type
(large eect size), however, slightly increased in appetitive impulsive cyber-aggression (F3) (small eect size).
Compared to adolescents in a control group, those who completed the CGI intervention reported signicant
decrease in cyber-aggression (g = 0.42 – average eect size). Our nding aligns with prior studies that highlighted
the positive eect of gratitude interventions on youth behavioral functioning20,26. For example, Ma et al.20 found
that greater life-orientation gratitude was associated with abstinence from sexual intimacy, sexual intercourse,
likelihood of engaging in sex during primary school, and abstinence from drug/alcohol use. According to the
authors, higher appreciation leads to personally and socially productive behaviors such as avoidance of high-
risk behaviors, but also serves as a resources reservoir that can be used when young people confront with life
demands. Our ndings, partially conrm the Wood’s coping hypothesis, according to which increasing gratitude
utilizes positive coping mechanisms, and reducing avoiding behaviors (i.e. risky activities) when confronting
Variables Gratitude level
Before
intervention Aerintervention
zpHedges gM(SD) M(SD)
Aversive
Impulsive
(F1)
Low 18.63(7.11) 16.09(7.32) -2.13 0.034 0.35
Medium 17.86(6.62) 21.18(10.46) -1.69 0.090 0.38
High 16.41(5.01) 16.59(7.33) -0.05 0.964 0.03
Controlled
(F2)
Low 14.19(3.14) 8.03(3.03) -4.48 < 0.001 2.00
Medium 15.30(3.32) 10.68(5.32) -5.75 < 0.001 1.04
High 16.00(3.37) 9.29(4.82) -3.36 0.001 1.61
Appetitive
Impulsive
(F3)
Low 8.50(3.19) 8.06(3.72) -0.94 0.348 0.13
Medium 7.81(3.06) 10.68(5.31) -3.79 < 0.001 0.66
High 8.24(3.63) 8.11(3.90) -0.07 0.943 0.03
Controlled
(F4)
Low 7.06(2.14) 6.72(3.39) -1.26 0.209 0.12
Medium 6.89(3.20) 8.81(4.82) -2.46 0.014 0.61
High 6.94(3.53) 6.88(3.10) 0.00 1.00 0.02
CATQ Total score
Low 48.38(12.24) 39.91(16.92) -3.05 0.002 0.57
Medium 47.86(12.62) 51.15(25.26) -1.00 0.921 0.16
High 47.59(13.12) 40.88(18.63) -1.33 0.185 0.42
Tab le 2. Means and standard deviation among low gratitude (n = 32), mediumgratitude (n = 79, and high
gratitude (n = 17) samples before and aer gratitude intervention. Non-parametric Wilcoxon rank statistic was
used for group comparison.
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 7
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
with socially challenges situations i.e. conicts. e data are also in line with the notion that gratitude activates
moral self-schemas that are positively related to self-control, and manifests as a greater emotional and behavioral
regulation (i.e. reduces proactive and reactive aggression)52.
In our research, the classroom gratitude induction shared with natural counterparts was found to have a
signicant positive eect mostly its aversive controlled online acts. is type of cyber-aggression is an eect
of perceived provocation that is related to uncomfortable emotional states (e.g., shame, embarrassment). At
the same time, individuals maintain high capacities for self-control, hence aggressive acts are more likely to
take the form of calculated payback, or revenge2. e observed decline in aversive controlled cyber-aggression
may be explained through the typical gratitude-based benets i.e. an increase in positive emotions and
gratitude disposition33,53 what causes more positive attitudes towards others, and makes people less reactive to
provocations. For instance, studies conducted on a large sample of adolescents aged 12–17 years old by García-
Vázquez et al.52 showed that forgiveness and gratitude had an indirect relationship by decreasing both proactive
Variables
Aversive
impulsive Aversive
controlled Appetitive
impulsive Appetitive
controlled CATQ
total score
F η²pF η²pF η²pF η²pF η²p
Gender 0.57 0.01 0.84 0.01 2.39 0.02 2.90 0.02 1.52 0.01
Gratitude 3.05*0.05 4.12*0.06 1.45 0.02 1.91 0.03 2.86 0.05
Gender x Gratitude 1.07 0.02 1.15 0.02 1.19 0.02 0.76 0.01 1.15 0.02
Tab le 4. Between subjects eects for cyberaggression. Type 3 Sums of Squares; F statistic and Partial η² are
reported.
Variables
Aversive
impulsive Aversive
controlled Appetitive
impulsive Appetitive
controlled CATQ
total score
F η²pF η²pF η²pF η²pF η²p
Time 0.31 0.003 119.72*** 0.50 2.08 0.02 1.13 0.01 2.04 0.02
Time x Gender 7.28** 0.06 4.82*0.04 4.36*0.03 1.02 0.01 5.57*0.04
Time x Gratitude 2.94 0.05 1.82 0.03 4.56*0.07 2.56 0.04 3.39*0.05
Time x Gender x Gratitude 1.09 0.02 1.58 0.03 0.29 0.01 0.83 0.01 1.06 0.02
Tab le 3. Within subjects eects for cyber-aggression. Type 3 Sums of Squares; F statistic and Partial η² are
reported;
Fig. 2. e eectiveness of CGI in reducing Cyberaggression among individuals with dierent level of
gratitude disposition.
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 8
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
and reactive aggression through their positive eects on self-control. Corresponding to the abovementioned
explanation prior research has found that practices based on cultivating gratitude activate greater generosity and
sensitivity exhibited towards others, as well as more empathetic and compassionate reactions, hence attenuating
students’ aggression21,26. According to the broaden-and-build framework, even a single positive experience (i.e.
expressing thanks for small gis) can extend and intensify due to positive creating upward spirals of emotions
and actions22. Such a positive circle may initiate the deep transformation of possessed interpersonal relationships,
hence the social environment is perceived and actually becomes more friendly and safe. e prosocial eect of
cultivating gratitude was conrmed by many scholars i.e. McCullough et al.49 posited that gratitude prompts
people to change their behaviors into more social. According to these authors the prosociality of gratitude
stems from its three core functions: (1) a moral barometer function (being the beneciary of someone’s moral
actions), (2) a moral motive function (motivation to behave morally toward the benefactor), and (3) a moral
reinforce function (being encouraged to behave morally in the future). ese gratitude functions may also
directly reduce the tendencies to behave immorally i.e. taking revenge through an online aggression. It is worth
adding, that moral disengagement mediated the relationship between gratitude and cyberpetration25. Gratitude
decreased the tendency to engage in unethical behavior without guilt or self-sanctions, because activated the
need for maintaining positive moral self-image. Noteworthy, the laboratory induced gratitude also increased the
distribution of self-resources to another54, which in turn may decrese the provocative acts from others. Another
possible mechanism underlying the eectiveness of gratitude-based interventions is related to an increase in self-
worth38. Prior studies have shown that expressing gratitude activates positive self-schemas and shis individuals’
thoughts on self-strengths, hence people are less prone to perceive conicts as threatened, and are more willing
to look for adaptive and creative ways of solving such situations via reconciliation55. For example, teams worked
under the gratitude condition experienced an increase in information elaboration and generated highly creative
ideas more than those in the neutral condition56. Dizon55 argued that participation in a gratitude journaling
by intimate partners increases adoption of more positive conict resolution styles, and decreased adherence of
negative ones.
On the contrary, the CGI was found to be ineective in appetitive impulsive cyber-aggression, named recreation.
is type of aggression refers to the self-generated violent acts by oenders, with a positive perception of violence
perpetration, recognized as fascinating and appealing2,57. According to Runions et al.2 it reects spontaneous
and immediate aggressive reactions, conducted without heed of long term consequences. is is an instrumental
and goal-oriented type of aggression, dened by the primary intrinsic enjoyment of aggressive activity58. e
origins of appetitive aggression are related to the adverse childhood experiences, that manifest through PTSD
symptoms later, produced by an ongoing climate of violence in families57. According to some scholars it can
be considered a stable and long-term adaptation to cope with an insecure and negative environment59. e
instances of impulsive-induced appetitive aggression are in the service of individuals’ protective mechanism
(attaining social status) and striving for signicance. In this context, increasing grateful moods through short-
term interventions may ineective, as this group of students may found hard to produce positive appraisals of
benets. It is possible, that this group of young people found it dicult to notice help from benefactor i.e. interpret
al.l benets as less valuable, costless or non-altruistically intended. Prior research has found that adolescents,
who experienced family abuse and school violence presented lower level of gratitude disposition60. Noteworthy,
although gratitude decreases PTSD symptoms among victims, individuals with traumatic experiences are
characterized by diminished level of gratitude disposition61. According to Kim et al.61 such a regularity is
related to negative self-attributions i.e. an increased amount of self-stigma (negative perspective and opinion
one carries about themselves) and social stigma. It is also worth to add, that the relationship between gratitude
and cyberperpetration was found to be mediated by other psychological characteristics i.e. self-compassion and
moral disengagement25. In accordance, the I3 metatheoretical model of aggression by Finkel and Hall62 posits
three orthogonal processes that causes violent reactions. e rst one is instigation, which includes immediate
environmental stimuli (e.g., provocation), the second one is impellance, situational or dispositional qualities
that decide on the intensity of aggressive response, and the third one is inhibition characterized by situational
or dispositional qualities responsible for overridden the proclivity. According to Zeng et al.63 gratitude and all
character strengths may be recognized as inhibitors of aggression, because grateful people tend to be more
compassionate and less critical towards themselves, which in turn inhibits violent acts in space and contributes
a higher tendency to develop healthy attitude towards others (i.e. all human beings deserve kindness). Finally, as
cyber-aggression may be an element of classroom in-group rivalry, the ineectiveness of CGI may be an eect of
class social hierarchy. According to social distance theory of power higher-power individuals experience higher
social distance towards others compared to low-powered ones64. In addition, those high in power are more
prone to perceive relationships in the context of social exchange. Hence, the level of engaging in group-gratitude
activities may be lower and the gratitude indebtedness may be higher among high-power people. Indeed, studies
conducted by Anicich et al.65 revealed that individuals with relatively low social power tend to be characterized
by increased feelings and expressions of gratitude aer beneting from a favor. Drawing on the above-presented
ndings, it is recommended to precede the gratitude-based intervention with a shiing perspective from rivalry
to equality, and to include activities that increase classroom positive climate.
e next three study hypothesis referred to gender and gratitude disposition as a signicant factors for the
eectiveness of CGI in minimizing the frequency of youth cyber-aggression. Our ndings conrmed that the
eect of CGI on cyber-aggression depended on participants’ gender (girls benet more from this intervention
compared to boys), and gratitude disposition (students with low gratitude levels experienced the highest
decrease in cyber-aggression, whereas the medium gratitude appeared as a risk factor for the increase in aversive
impulsive and controlled as well as appetitive controlled cyber-aggression).
Gender dierences: Gender was found to be a signicant factor that interacted with time and explained changes
in adolescent cyber-aggression, (i.e. aversive impulsive and controlled types, and appetitive impulsive type).
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 9
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Additionally, we detected that boys exhibit a higher rate of cyber-aggression (before and aer the intervention)
compared to girls. e results remain a consensus with the past ndings suggesting that being an adolescent boy
is a risk factor for engaging in online perpetration66–68. Moreover, the CGI intervention appeared ineective
among boys. Particularly, the changes in CATQ total score were either insignicant or indicated an increase
in some indicators - aversive and appetitive impulsive types of cyber-aggression. In contrast, we observed a
small decrease in the aversive controlled cyber-aggression type among boys’ experimental sample. e CGI
program seems to be more benecial when implemented among adolescent girls. We observed a decrease in
the overall level of cyber-aggression at pre-to-post intervention, and its all types. e comparison focused on
cyber-aggression subtypes revealed a signicant decrease in two aversive dimensions: impulsive and controlled,
but no changes in its appetitive types. e above results suggest that gratitude intervention may not be a
fruitful practice among all adolescents as its eectiveness is limited to some cyber-aggression types and varies
regarding recipients’ gender. e ndings coincide with prior notions that practitioners should dierentiate
cyber-aggression preventive strategies by sex69. Particularly, the main explanation for this suggestion stems from
diversity addressed for boys and girls in: (1) gender socialization, (i.e. a greater approval of direct – physical
aggression for boys, and an indirect – relational aggression for girls)70, (2) social norms (i.e. the experiences
of being perpetrator or victim are grounded in hegemonic masculinity - masculine dominance and gender
inequalities)69, and (3) the relatives’ normative expectations regarding resolving conict situations (i.e. the
belief that boys will attack during the confrontation, and girls will look for compromise) and building social
bonds (i.e. gender-normative girls have a greater vested interest than gender-normative boys in maintaining
friendships and resolving conicts)71. To understand more about sex diversity in cyber-perpetration it is worth
adding that gender is a signicant factor in motives, types, and consequences of this maladaptive behavior. More
interestingly, individuals with more feminine traits were found to engage in more cyber-relational aggression via
social networking sites and mobile phones, whereas those who identify themselves as more masculine carried
more oen cyber-verbal aggression through online gaming72. Moreover, boys not only report more tolerance
toward cyberbullying but also present more frequently impulsive cyber-aggression geared towards fullling their
immediate needs or heightening their social status and power (i.e. intrasexual competition between males)72,73.
In contrast, girls are mostly motivated to conduct spontaneous cyber-attacks in order to gain peer’s attention74.
erefore, the observed in our study higher decrease in cyber-aggression among girls may be related to satisfying
their need to attract attention and approval from classmates during CGI. However, the CGI practices could not
support the participants’ need for domination or power, which may explain the low eectiveness of gratitude
induction among males. Additionally, according to Kashdan74, the promptness to express positive emotions (i.e.
gratitude) is also mediated by gender. Particularly, men are less willing to feel and present their appreciation
to a benefactor, but also are more critical and suspicious of gratitude induction, thus deriving less goodness
from such practices. Moreover, gender signicantly dierentiates the preferred ways of expressing gratitude and
the urge need to reciprocate75. Consistently to these ndings, the CGI might be related to a higher feeling of
debt activated by gratitude induction among males and the preference of showing it privately to the benefactor.
In other words, improving gratitude among boys’ adolescents may be more eective when includes individual
face-to-face rather than classroom exercises. Finally, it is also worth mentioning, that past research pointed to
the adolescents’ identication with the role or motive they played in online aggressive behaviors. Particularly,
engaging in aggressive online attacks was more associated with the form of aggression rather than role (i.e.
sending aggressive posts more frequently was motivated by reactive reasons, whereas creating hostile websites
with proactive ones76. e above diversity in actions and motives underlying online aggression may also be
related to the sex dierences in CGI eectiveness (i.e. higher decrease in impulsive compared to controlled
aggression, and an increase in appetitive controlled aggression). Gratitude interventions are focused on exercises,
that enhance the willingness to express this feeling towards the benefactor and re-pay the goodness by prosocial
behaviors. erefore, such practices mostly strengthen the positive meaning of individuals’ lives (i.e. activates the
perspective of being supported and loved), and the capacity to control negative impulses (i.e. activates cognition
by initiating positive thoughts about others), however, for those who are motivated to commit aggression by
instrumental purposes (increase the power or domination over others), that is emotionally callousness proactive
aggression, typical strategy to increase prosocial emotions in order to reduce aggressive acts may be ineective
because must be preceded by an inner change of personal goals and fundamental values.
Gratitude disposition: Our study indicates that students with a low level of gratitude experienced a signicant
decrease in cyber-aggression, and in its two aversive types, whereas participants from the medium gratitude
sample scored signicantly higher in cyber-aggression, and in its two appetitive types. A decrease in aversive
impulsive cyber-aggression type was observed among medium and high gratitude adolescents. Signicant
interaction eects were detected between the gratitude disposition and the time when explaining cyber-
aggression total score and its appetitive Impulsive type. e above ndings are partly in line with McCullough’s
et al.77 resistance hypothesis, reecting that a high grateful mood inhibits the benets of discrete positive
emotional episodes because of a lack of reasons for looking new benets to be appreciated for. In fact, youth
high in gratitude disposition may believe that a grateful attitude is something obvious, and there is no need to
present privately experienced emotions jointly with the classmates as the benefactor has already received the
thanks. Additionally, low gratitude individuals may experience the “halo eect” related to a new meaningful
perspective (i.e. ‘Being thankful for all the advantages in your life makes your life better) activated by the CGI,
and thus they might start to see more positives around them, which stopped them from acting out aversive
emotions through the digital devices. It is worth highlighting that these ndings are not in line with the notion
that low gratitude adolescents typically magnify the daily adversities’ distress by blindly adopting accidental and
inappropriate coping strategies, and thus they are constantly frustrated which results in inner disturbance and
adverse states78. erefore, momentarily activated appreciation by the CGI might have initiated the process of
looking for highly valued benet, which is shared by the entire class group. In this context, the relative size of
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 10
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
goodness proposed by the classmates might allow for changing the perspective regardless of the low gratitude
trait. In other words, youth may be guided by trained group leaders to be grateful for all things received from
others facilitating a positive perception of a person’s life and the owned strength and resources. Similarly to other
studies79 gratitude alleviated stress related to school events and reduced the frequency of externalized behaviors,
such as cyber-aggression.
e fact that medium gratitude students experienced an increase in cyber-aggression aer the CGI is more
dicult to explain, as somehow is inconsistent with past research52. Notably, our results suggest that gratitude
intervention is more eective in minimizing reactive cyber-aggression, that is an impulsive action initiated
by a provocation or an actual or conceived threat80. Moreover, it is hostile aggression that “is a primordial
means for establishing one’s sense of signicance and mattering, thus addressing a frustration of a fundamental
social-psychological need”81. Past studies conrmed that by enhancing gratitude individuals activate cognitive
planning, emotional self-control, and emotional stability, but also increase the satisfaction of fullling extrinsic
and intrinsic needs82. us individuals are less motivated to react aggressively in response to frustration. e
detected ineectiveness of the CGI in reducing appetitive controlled online aggression may be also related to the
following characteristics: (1) most cyber-attacks are done by one or a few perpetrators, (2) cyber-aggressors are
usually from the same class group (3) cyber-attack oen lasts about a week and is committed outside of school83.
e CGI intervention was provided only for one week, inside the school, with no control for the internee’s
engagement and expectations in the proposed grouped gratitude exercises. e complex long-term adverse
relation between perpetrator and victim, and the self-identication of aggressor with the played role may be so
strong that a one-week lasting induction of gratitude perspective may not be enough to change these grounded
class-positions. erefore, although momentary cyber-aggression attacks inside school may be less frequent,
this eect may not last aer schooling. Additionally, even though gratitude motivates individuals to be more
sensitive or more focused on others’ needs, and promotes prosociality, and by doing so mitigates intentional
aggression directed to harm others, the key determinant of these benets may lay in the level of empathy26. More
specically, higher empathy mediates the positive relational behaviors conveyed by gratitude expressions, since is
a social anchor, reducing antipathic behaviors during face-to-face contact84. Enhancing empathetic skills is also
thought to be an eective strategy in reducing youths’ involvement in cyber-perpetration3,50. Nevertheless, some
evidence demonstrates that aective empathy and anti-empathy (the tendency to feel a contradictory response
to others’ emotions) signicantly accounted for aggression, but its cognitive component did not85. Knowing
the appetitive controlled cyber-aggression is weakly related to empathy12, we may conclude that CGI, which is
built on emotional induction, may not be eective as a single strategy to mitigate aggressive acts on the Internet
committed for violence lust. Importantly, gratitude is dened as an interpersonal process, directly related to
social relationships, and depends on expected social costs. For example, Oishi et al.86 found that expressing
gratitude towards someone important vs. for something good is more costly, because elicits a higher rate of
indebtedness, and adverse emotions (guilt, shame). Furthermore, feelings of elevation and indebtedness caused
by writing gratitude letters were found to be unique to socially relevant expressions of gratitude (i.e., gratitude
to a specic benefactor)87. Considering the above limitations of gratitude interventions, if the CGI activated
among perpetrators negative emotions such as guild: ‘I have received so much and I have not repaid anyone’; or
shame: ‘I have received so much and I myself do not give good things’ the recipients may try to discard them by
minimizing the meaningfulness of gratitude exercises (i.e. making jokes from those who express gratitude), or
not engaging in those gratitude activities that were supposed to be done with counterparts. As a consequence,
the eectiveness of gratitude practices may be disturbed. Another barriers, that limit the benecial eects of
gratitude interventions, are related to the suppression of emotional expression of the experienced gratitude
due to social expectations. More specically, Kumar88 pointed out that people underestimate the goodness or
overestimate the costs of showing gratitude, which creates a misplaced barrier to interpersonal interaction.
Consequently, it undermines the pro-social values in daily life and creates social distance89. Noteworthy, past
results suggest that the positive eect of gratitude intervention on persons’ mental health is rather short-lived and
small90,91. Complementing the above explanations, it is also worth adding that the ability to respond to gratitude
induction may depend on the development of social-cognitive and emotional processes (i.e. empathetic attitude
towards classmates), that were found as signicant mediators between social normative beliefs about aggression
and aggressive behaviors92. Additionally, according to the bi-factor structural theory of gratitude, it consists of
either cognitive or aective dimension, however when the emotional aspect of gratitude (i.e. the feeling of being
grateful to a benefactor) positively predicts mental health outcomes (in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies),
the cognitive gratitude (i.e. one’s appreciation for the benefaction – reecting it as goodness) did it negatively.
Considering that most GQ items refer to cognitive gratitude, one week aer the CGI intervention data collection
could not capture the accurate level of gratitude feelings, which are rather connected to day-to-day interactions.
Furthermore, the meta-analysis revealed that the vast number of cyber-aggression interventions did not show
positive eects in the long term, especially as they were focused only on social skills and implemented only
through the classroom without delivering a wider program focused on the entire school society92.
To our knowledge, no previous studies have analyzed the impact of gratitude-based intervention on
dierent types of cyber-aggression. According to our ndings, the short-term activation of grateful attitudes
among youth eectively reduces aversive, but not appetitive cyber-aggression. Next, adolescent girls benet
more from gratitude intervention than adolescent boys (among the girls’ sample we observed a decline in all
types of cyber-aggression, whereas among boys only in the aversive controlled type). Finally, the last valuable
result is related to the level of gratitude disposition, the highest decrease was observed among the low-gratitude
subgroup in aversive cyber-aggression. In summary, we must conclude that the eectiveness of Classroom
Gratitude Intervention aimed to reduce adolescent cyber-aggression is limited regarding some early adolescent
groups, therefore practitioners should adopt a broader path of preventive strategies that is not focused only
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 11
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
on strengthening positive emotions, but provides students with knowledge about the phenomenon of cyber-
aggression itself and its adverse long-term consequences.
Study limitations
e study identied several important limitations that need to be considered. First, the eectiveness of the
Gratitude Classroom Intervention (CGI) was not consistent across all participant groups. In particular, boys and
students with medium levels of gratitude did not experience the same positive eects as others, and in some cases,
their levels of certain types of cyber-aggression actually increased. is raises concerns about the generalizability
of the intervention and suggests that it may not be equally eective for all groups. Next, 4.7% dropouts from
Time 1 to Time 2 in the experimental group were observed. Failing to measure the analyzed variables among
these students might impact the ndings. We thus recommend using mixed methods to improve gratitude, to
avoid possible participants attrition or boredom. Additionally, the short duration of the intervention—lasting
only one week—may have limited its potential to produce lasting behavioral changes. Interventions of longer
duration could provide more substantial eects and allow for a better understanding of how gratitude practices
inuence behavior over time. Another signicant limitation is the reliance on self-reported data through the
CATQ and GQ questionnaires. While these tools are validated, self-reported data may introduce bias, such as
social desirability or inaccurate self-assessment. Future studies could mitigate this limitation by incorporating
additional objective measures, such as behavioral obser vations or peer reports, to provide a more comprehensive
evaluation of outcomes. e study also measured outcomes only within the school setting, without considering
external inuences or behaviors that occur outside of the classroom. is limitation makes it challenging to
fully assess the overall impact of the gratitude intervention, as many relevant interactions and experiences may
have taken place in other environments. Lastly, the study’s sample was limited to a specic group of Polish
adolescents, which restricts the ability to generalize the ndings to other populations, age groups, or cultural
contexts. Broader studies that involve more diverse samples would be necessary to draw conclusions that are
applicable to a wider range of settings.
Future directions
Building on the limitations identied in the current study, future research should aim to address several key
areas. One of the main recommendations is to extend the duration of gratitude interventions. e one-week
timeframe used in this study may not have been sucient to foster lasting change in participants’ behaviors and
attitudes. Future research should consider implementing longer interventions that include follow-up activities or
booster sessions to reinforce the concepts learned and help maintain the benets over time.
Furthermore, the mixed methods of gratitude induction, including verbal, concrete, connective, and nalistic
ways of its expression seems reasonable to increase the eectiveness of such practices among early adolescents.
Another critical direction for future research is the need to tailor interventions to account for gender dierences.
e study’s ndings suggest that gender signicantly inuences how participants respond to gratitude
interventions, with girls beneting more than boys. Future programs should therefore consider oering more
personalized activities that cater to the distinct needs, motivations, and social dynamics of dierent genders.
Additionally, expanding the scope of research to include more varied and larger samples is crucial. Future
studies should aim to include participants from dierent cultural, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds,
as this would provide more robust and generalizable ndings regarding the eectiveness of gratitude-based
interventions. Finally, it is essential to investigate the long-term outcomes of such interventions. Conducting
longitudinal studies that track participants’ behaviors over extended periods would help determine whether the
observed eects of gratitude practices are enduring or whether they diminish over time. is type of research
would provide valuable insights into the sustained impact of gratitude interventions and inform the design of
more eective programs.
Conclusions
e ndings of this study indicate that gratitude-based interventions hold promise as a tool for reducing cyber-
aggression among early adolescents, but their eectiveness is not universal and is inuenced by several factors,
including gender and participants’ initial levels of gratitude. While the intervention was successful in reducing
aversive controlled typ es of cyber-aggression, it paradoxically led to an increase in impulsive appetitive aggression
in some cases. ese results underscore the complexity of using gratitude as a prevention strategy and highlight
the importance of tailoring interventions to the specic needs and characteristics of the target audience. e
study suggests that while gratitude can be a valuable component in eorts to curb cyber-aggression, it should be
integrated into more comprehensive approaches that combine emotional regulation strategies with educational
programs focused on the broader issue of cyber-aggression and its consequences. Overall, the study emphasizes
the need for more nuanced and exible approaches to addressing cyber-aggression, ones that take into account
the diverse factors that inuence adolescent behavior.
Data availability
e datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions
related to participant privacy and the condentiality agreements required by the institutional review board.
However, the data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Received: 28 October 2024; Accepted: 3 April 2025
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 12
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
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. Front. Public. Health. 9, 634909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909
(2021).
2. Runions, K. C., Bak, M. & Shaw, T. Disentangling functions of online aggression: e Cyber-Aggression typology questionnaire
(CATQ). Aggressive Behav. 43 (1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21663 (2017).
3. Xiao, B., Parent, N., Bond, T., Sam, J. & Shapka, J. Developmental trajectories of Cyber-Aggression among early adolescents in
Canada: e impact of aggression, gender, and time spent online. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 21, 429. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3
9 0 / i j e r p h 2 1 0 4 0 4 2 9 (2024).
4. Hollá, K., Sender, B. & Kosovac, S. Empathy in the prevention of Cyber-aggression. J. Educ. Teach. Social Stud. 5, 59–69. h t t p s : / / d
o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 2 1 5 8 / j e t s s . v 5 n 3 p 5 9 (2023).
5. Camerini, A. L., Marciano, L., Carrara, A. & Schulz, P. J. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among children and
adolescents: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Telematics Inform. 49, 101362 (2020).
6. Deng, Y. et al. Counting blessings and sharing gratitude in a Chinese prisoner sample: Eects of gratitude-based interventions on
subjective well-being and aggression. J. Posit. Psychol. 14 (3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1460687 (2018).
7. Chamizo-Nieto, M. T., Rey, L. & Pellitteri, J. Gratitude and emotional intelligence as protective factors against Cyber-Aggression:
Analysis of a mediation model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 12, 4475. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124475 (2020).
8. Rubio Hurtado, M. J., Donoso Vázquez, T. & VilàBaños, R. Factors related to gender cyber-victimization in social networks among
Spanish youth. Civilizar: CienciasSociales Y Humanas. 21 (40), 83–100 (2021).
9. Foody, M., McGuire, L., Kuldas, S. & O’Higgins Norman, J. Friendship quality and gender dierences in association with
cyberbullying involvement and psychological Well-Being. Front. Psychol. 10, 1723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01723
(2019).
10. Lewon, M., Houmanfar, R. A. & Hayes, L. J. e will to ght: Aversion-Induced aggression and the role of motivation in intergroup
conicts. Perspect. Behav. Sci. 42 (4), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00221-2 (2019).
11. Dodge, K. A. & Coie, J. D. Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53 (6), 1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146 (1987).
12. Euler, F., Steinlin, C. & Stadler, C. Distinct proles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: Associations with cognitive
and aective empathy. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry Mental Health. 11, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-016-0141-4 (2017).
13. Elbert, T., Moran, J. & Schauer, M. Appetitive aggression. In (ed Bushman, B. J.) Aggression and Violence: A Social Psychological
Perspective (119–135). Routledge, London. (2017).
14. DeMarsico, D., Bounoua, N., Miglin, R. & Sadeh, N. Aggression in the digital era: Assessing the validity of the cyber motivations
for aggression and deviance scale. Assessment 29 (4), 764–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191121990088 (2022).
15. Centifanti, L. C., FantiKA, omson, N. D., Demetriou, V. & Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, X. Types of relational aggression
in girls are dierentiated by Callous-Unemotional traits, peers and parental overcontrol. Behav. Sci. (Basel Switzerland). 5 (4),
518–536. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040518 (2015).
16. Wright, M. F. & Wachs, S. Adolescents’ cyber victimization: e inuence of technologies, gender, and gender stereotype traits. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 17 (4), 1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041293 (2020).
17. León-Moreno, C., Musitu Ochoa, G., Cañas Pardo, E., Estévez López, E. & CallejasJerónimo, J. E. Relationship between school
integration, psychosocial adjustment, and cyber-aggression among adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 18 (1), 108.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010108 (2021).
18. Álvarez-García, D., Núñez, J. C., García, T. & Barreiro-Collazo, A. Individual, family, and community predictors of cyber-
aggression among adolescents. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Legal Context. 10, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018a8 (2018).
19. Uddin, M. K. & Rahman, J. Cyber victimization and cyber aggression among high school students: Emotion regulation as a
moderator. Cyberpsychology: J. Psychosocial Res. Cyberspace. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2022-2-4 (2022).
20. Ma, M., Kibler, J. L. & Sly, K. Gratitude is associated with greater levels of protective factors and lower levels of risks in African
American adolescents. J Adolesc.. 36(5), 983–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.07.012 (2013).
21. Deng, Y. et al. Counting blessings and sharing gratitude in a Chinese prisoner sample: Eects of gratitude-based interventionson
subjective well-being and aggression. J. Posit. Psychol. 14 (3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1460687 (2019).
22. Fredrickson, B. L. e role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am.
Psychol. 56, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218 (2001).
23. Sansons, R. A. & SansoneLA Gratitude and well-being: e benets of appreciation. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 7, 18–22 (2010).
24. Oliveira, W. A., Esteca, A. M. N., Wechsler, S. M. & Menesini, E. Bullying and cyberbullying in school: Rapid review on the roles
of gratitude, forgiveness, and Self-Regulation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 21, 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070839
(2024).
25. Zeng, P., Wang, P., Nie, J., Ouyang, M. & lei, L. Gratitude and cyberbullying perpetration: e mediating role of self-compassion
and moral disengagement. Child Youth Serv. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105608 (2020)., 119, Article 105608.
26. DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Pond, R. S. Jr., Kashdan, T. B. & FinchamFD A grateful heart is a nonviolent heart: Cross-sectional,
experience sampling, longitudinal, and experimental evidence. Social Psychol. Personality Sci. 3 (2), 232–240. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1
1 7 7 / 1 9 4 8 5 5 0 6 1 1 4 1 6 6 7 5 (2012).
27. Fulantelli, G., Taibi, D., Scifo, L., Schwarze, V. & Eimler, S. C. Cyberbullying and Cyberhate as two interlinked instances of Cyber-
Aggression in adolescence: A systematic review. Front. Psychol. 13, 909299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.909299 (2022).
28. Froh, J. F. & Bono, G. Gratitude in youth: A review of gratitude inter ventions and some ideas for applications. Communique 39 (5),
26–28 (2011).
29. Wong, Y. J., Pandelios, A. L., Carlock, K. & ielmeyer, A. M. B. Stronger together: Perspectives on gratitude social processes in
group interventions for adolescents. Front. Psychol. 15, 1476511. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1476511 (2024).
30. Fadil, A. & Ayriza, Y. Eectiveness of gratitude interventions in schools to increase sense of belonging to high school students. Int.
J. Social Sci. Res. 4 (9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.46799/ijssr.v4i9.941 (2024).
31. Gajadien, J. & Hendriks, T. Grantangi: A feasibility study of a One-Day gratitude intervention in Suriname. Caribb. J. Psychol. 15
(1), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.37234/CJP.2023.1501.A005 (2023).
32. Kirca, A., Malou, J. & Meynadier, J. e eect of expressed gratitude interventions on psychological wellbeing: A Meta-Analysis
of randomised controlled studies. Int. J. Appl. Posit. Psychol. 8, 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-023-00086-6 (2023).
33. Froh, J. F., Seck, W. J. & Emmons, R. A. Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective
well-being. J. Sch. Psychol. 46, 213–233 (2008).
34. Huebner, E. S., Drane, W. & Valois, R. F. Levels and demographic correlates of adolescent life satisfaction reports. School Psychol.
Int. 21 (3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300213005 (2000).
35. Osborn, T. L. et al. Single-session digital intervention for adolescent depression, anxiety, and well-being: outcomes of a randomized
controlled trial with Kenyan adolescents. J. Consult Clin. Psychol. 88 (7), 657–668 (2020).
36. Sahar, N. U., Lea-Baranovich, D. & arbe, I. H. A. Promoting positive emotions among adolescents through school based
gratitude interventions: A preliminary study. GESJ: Educ. Sci. Psychol. 3 (60), 35–49 (2021).
37. Cheng, S. T., Tsui, P. K. & Lam, J. H. Improving mental health in health care practitioners: Randomized controlled trial of a
gratitude intervention. J. Consult Clin. Psychol. 83, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037895 (2015).
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 13
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
38. Cho, Y. & Fast, N. J. Power, defensive denigration, and the assuaging eect of gratitude expression. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 778–782
(2012).
39. Skalski, S. & Pochwatko, G. Gratitude is female. Biological sex, socio-cultural gender versus gratitude and positive orientation.
Curr. Issues Personality Psychol. 8 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2020.93624 (2020).
40. Chopik, W. J. et al. Changes in optimism and pessimism in response to life events: Evidence from three large panel studies. J. Res.
Pers. 88, 103985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103985 (2020).
41. Chan, D. W. Life satisfaction among highly achieving students in Hong Kong: do gratitude and the ‘good-enough mindset’ add to
the contribution of perfectionism in prediction? Educational Psychol. 32 (5), 613–626. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 1 4 4 3 4 1 0 . 2 0 1 2 . 6 8 5
4 5 1 (2012).
42. Obeldobel, C. A. & Kerns, K. A. A literature review of gratitude, parent–child relationships, and well-being in children. Dev. Rev.
61, 100948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100948 (2021).
43. Baumgarten-Tramer, F. Gratefulness in children and young people. J. Genet. Psychol. 53, 53–66 (1938).
44. de Lucca Freitas, L., Pieta, M. A. M. & Tudge, J. R. H. Beyond politeness: e expression of gratitude in children and adolescents.
Psicol. Reex Crit. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722011000400016 (2011).
45. Morgan, B., Gulliford, L. & Waters, L. Taking thanks for granted: A Cross-Cultural exploration of gratitude in the UK and Australia.
Cross-Cultural Res. 56 (2–3), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211067048 (2022).
46. Morgan, B., Gulliford, L. & Kristjánsson, K. Gratitude in the UK: A new prototype analysis and a cross-cultural comparison. J.
Posit. Psychol. 9 (4), 281–294 (2014).
47. Parker, S. C., Majid, H., Stewart, K. L. & Ahrens, A. H. No thanks! Autonomous interpersonal style is associated with less experience
and valuing of gratitude. Cogn. Emot. 31 (8), 1627–1637 (2017).
48. Tomaszek, K. & Muchacka-Cymerman, A. Is it just a matter of impulse control?’ A cross-cultural study in oine and online
aggression among Japanese and European burnout students. Kwartalnikpedagogiczny 3 (269), 111–137. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 1 3 3 8 / 2
6 5 7 - 6 0 0 7 . k p . 2 0 2 3 - 3 . 6 (2023).
49. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A. & Tsang, J. A. e grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. J. Personality
SocialPsychology. 82 (1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112 (2002).
50. Kossakowska, M. & Kwiatek, P. Polska Adaptacja Kwestionariusza do Badania wdzięczności GQ-6. Przegląd Psychologiczny. 57 (4),
503–514 (2014).
51. Blanca, M. J., ArnauJ, García-Castro, F. J., Alarcón, R. & B ono, R. Non-normal data in repeated measures ANOVA: Impact on type
I error and power. Psicothema 35 (1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2022.292 (2023).
52. García-Vázquez, F. I., Valdés-Cuervo, A. A. & Parra-Pérez, L. G. e eects of forgiveness, gratitude, and Self-Control on reactive
and proactive aggression in bullying. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 17 (16), 5760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165760
(2020).
53. DeSteno, D., Li, Y., Dickens, L. & Lerner, J. S. Gratitude: A tool for reducing economic impatience. Psychol. Sci. 25 (6), 1262–1267.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614529979 (2014).
54. Tsang, J. A. Gratitude and prosocial behaviour: An experimental test of gratitude. Cogn. Emot. 20 (1), 138–148. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0
. 1 0 8 0 / 0 2 6 9 9 9 3 0 5 0 0 1 7 2 3 4 1 (2006).
55. Dizon, M.T.S. e Eect of Gratitude Journaling on Conict Resolution in Intimate Dyadic Relationships.Philippine Journal of
Psychology. 53(1), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.31710/pjp/0053.05 (2020).
56. Pillay, N., Park, G., Kim, Y. K. & Lee, S. anks for your ideas: Gratitude and team creativity. Organ. Behav. Hum Decis. Process.
156, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.11.005 (2020).
57. Augsburger, M., Meyer-Parlapanis, D., Bambonye, M., Elbert, T. & A Appetitive aggression and adverse childhood experiences shape
violent behavior in females formerly associated with combat. Front. Psychol. 6, 1756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01756
(2015).
58. Hemmings, S. M. J. et al. Appetitive and reactive aggression are dierentially associated with the STin2 genetic variant in the
serotonin transporter gene. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 6714. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25066-8 (2018).
59. Crombach, A. & Elbert, T. e benets of aggressive traits: A study with current and former street children in Burundi. Child.
Abuse Negl. 38, 1041–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.12.003 (2014).
60. Choi, J. H. & Yu, M. Correlates of gratitude disposition in middle school students: gender dierences. Technol. Health Care. 22 (3),
459 –466 https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-140804 (2014).
61. Kim, J. N. Dierences in the Protective Relation between Social Support, Gratitude, and PTSD across Sexual and Non-Sexual Trauma
473 (UVM Honors College Senior eses, 2022).
62. Finkel, E. J. & Hall, A. N. e I3 model: A metatheoretical framework for Understanding aggression. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 19,
125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.013 (2018).
63. Zeng, P., Wang, P., Nie, J., Ouyang, M. & Lei, L. Gratitude and cyberbullying perpetration: e mediating role of self-compassion
and moral disengagement. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 119, 105608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105608 (2020).
64. Magee, J. C. & Smith, P. K. e social distance theory of power. Personality Social Psychol. Rev. 17 (2), 158–186. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 .
1 1 7 7 / 1 0 8 8 8 6 8 3 1 2 4 7 2 7 3 2 (2013).
65. Anicich, E. M., Lee, A. J. & Liu, S. anks, but no thanks: Unpacking the relationship between relative power and gratitude. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 48 (7), 1005–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211025945 (2022).
66. Sourander, A. et al. Psychosocial riskfactors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: A population-based study. Arch.
Gen. Psychiatry. 67, 720–728. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79 (2010).
67. Sun, S., Fan, X. & Du, J. Cyberbullying perpetration: A meta-analysis of gender dierences. Int. J. Internet Sci. 11, 61–81 (2016).
68. Eriksson, L., McGee, T. R., Rosse, V., Bond, C. & Horstman, N. When cyberaggression is personal: Gender dierences in threats
and betrayals of partners and friends. J. Aggress. Con. Peace Res. 15 (2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-10-2021-0647
(2023).
69. Pérez-Rodríguez, P. et al. Peer cybervictimization and cyberaggression as a function of developmental stage during adolescence: A
preliminary study. Acta. Psychol. 246, 104280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104280 (2024).
70. Feijóo, S. et al. Sex dierences in adolescent bullying behaviours. Psychosocial Intervention. 30 (2), 95–100. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 5 0 9 3
/ p i 2 0 2 1 a 1 (2021).
71. Wright, M. F. e role of technologies, behaviors, gender, and gender stereotype traits in adolescents’ cyber aggression. J. Interpers.
Violence. 35 (7–8), 1719–1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696858 (2020).
72. Antipina, S. S. & Bakhvalova EV, Miklyaeva, A. Gender dierences in adolescent cyber-aggression. e Herzen University
Conference on Psychology in Education. Conference paper. https://doi.org/10.33910/herzenpsyconf-2019-2-7 [accessed Aug 24
2024]. (2019).
73. Lapierre, K. R. & Dane, A. V. Cyberbullying, cy ber aggression, and cy ber victimization in relation to adolescents’ dating and sexual
behavior: An evolutionary perspective. Aggressive Behav. 46 (1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21864 (2020).
74. Kashdan, T. B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E. & JJ Gender dierences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to
express emotions, and changes in psychological needs. J. Pers. 77 (3), 691–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00562.x
(2009).
75. Preś, J. E. et al. What regulates gratitude response of women and men?? e role of the received good, psychosocial factors, and
repayment. Psychol. Rep. 123 (2), 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118811620 (2020).
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 14
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
76. Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F. & Gagné, M. H. Are cyberbullies really bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive
online aggression. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.013 (2012).
77. McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J. A. & Emmons, R. A. Gratitude in intermediate aective terrain: Links of grateful moods to individual
dierences and daily emotional experience. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86 (2), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.295
(2004).
78. Sun, P., Sun, Y., Jiang, H., Jia, R. & Li, Z. Gratitude and problem behaviors in adolescents: e mediating roles of positive and
negative coping styles. Front. Psychol. 10, 1547. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01547 (2019).
79. Webb, M. S., Whitmire, J. B., Hills, K. J. & Huebner, E. S. Gratitude buers against the eects of stressful life events on adolescents’
externalizing behavior but not internalizing behavior. Contemp. School Psychol. Adv. Online Publication. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s
4 0 6 8 8 - 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 9 7 - 5 (2024).
80. Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E. & Pettit, G. Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and
psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 106, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.37
(1997).
81. Kruglanski, A. W. et al. Frustration–aggression hypothesis reconsidered: e role of signicance quest. Aggressive Behav. 49 (5),
445–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22092 (2023).
82. BoggioPS, Giglio, A. C. A. et al. Writing about gratitude increases emotion-regulation ecacy. J. Posit. Psychol. 15 (6), 783–794.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651893 (2020).
83. Smith, P. K. et al. Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry. 49 (4), 376–385.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x (2008).
84. Salem, A. A. M. S. et al. Empathic skills training as a means of reducing cyberbullying among adolescents: An empirical evaluation.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 20 (3), 1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031846 (2023).
85. Dry burgh, N. S. J. & Vachon, D. D. Relating sex dierences in aggression to three forms of empathy. Pers. Indiv. Dier. 151, 109526.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109526 (2019).
86. Oishi, S., Koo, M., Lim, N. & Suh, E. M. When gratitude evokes indebtedness. Appl. Psychology: Health Well-Being. 11 (2), 286–303.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12155 (2019).
87. Regan, A., Walsh, L. C. & Lyubomirsky, S. Are some ways of expressing gratitude more benecial than others?? Results from a
randomized controlled experiment. Aect. Sci. 4 (1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00160-3 (2023).
88. Kumar, A. Some things aren’t better le unsaid: Interpersonal barriers to gratitude expression and prosocial engagement. Cur r.
Opin. Psychol. 43, 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.011 (2022).
89. Davis, D. E. et al. ankful for the little things: A meta-analysis of gratitude interventions. J. Couns. Psychol. 63 (1), 20–31. h t t p s : /
/ d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 7 / c o u 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 (2016).
90. Cregg, D. R. & Cheavens, J. S. Gratitude interventions: Eective self-help? A meta-analysis of the impact on symptoms of depression
and anxiety. J. Happiness Studies: Interdisciplinary Forum Subjective Well-Being. 22 (1), 413–445. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 9 0 2 - 0 2
0 - 0 0 2 3 6 - 6 (2021).
91. Swit, C. S. & Harty, S. C. Normative beliefs and aggression: e mediating roles of empathy and anger. Child. Psychiatry Human
Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-023-01558-1 (2023).
92. Cantone, E. et al. Interventions on bullying and cyberbullying in schools: A systematic review. Clin. Practices Epidemiol. Mental
Health. 11 (Suppl 1 M4), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901511010058 (2015).
Author contributions
K.T. and A.M-C. wrote the main manuscript text and all prepared gures and tables. All authors reviewed the
manuscript.
Declarations
Competing interests
e authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary Information e online version contains supplementary material available at h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1
0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 5 9 8 - 0 2 5 - 9 7 2 1 4 - w .
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.-C.A.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional aliations.
Open Access is article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide
a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modied the licensed material. You do not have
permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. e images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence
and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o
n s . o r g / l i c e n s e s / b y - n c - n d / 4 . 0 / .
© e Author(s) 2025
Scientic Reports | (2025) 15:14602 15
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97214-w
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
