Articles
DOI DOI: 10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1107

THE IMPACT OF THE PRAGMATIC POLITENESS MODEL ON THE PREVENTION OF CYBERBULLYING IN DIGITAL INTERACTIONS AMONG STUDENTS IN PHASE E

Subyantoro1, Suseno2, Zuliyanti1, Sisca Septiani 3
  1. 1 Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia.
  2. 2 Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia.
  3. 3 Universitas Ngudi Waluyo, Indonesia.

Abstract

Cyberbullying is a phenomenon of symbolic violence that continues to rise among Indonesian students and has serious impacts on mental health, academic performance, and digital communication ethics. Although technology-based interventions have been developed, approaches that explicitly target the linguistic-pragmatic dimension as a mechanism of social engineering remain very limited, particularly in the context of senior high school education in Indonesia. This study aims to (1) identify the characteristics of the need to develop a pragmatic courtesy-based anti-cyberbullying guide; (2) develop a prototype of an integrated guide; and (3) empirically test its effectiveness among high school students in Phase E in Semarang City. The study employed a Mixed-Methods Research and Development (R&D) design adapted from the Borg and Gall model (seven stages). Qualitative needs analysis was conducted through open-ended questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and observations of educators and students across three cultural regions (n = 48 informants). The effectiveness test was conducted on 20 Phase E students using a one-group pretest-posttest design. Data were analyzed using Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) and the Paired Samples T-Test; the effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d. The needs analysis yielded three main themes: the urgency of specific forensic linguistics material, the need for role-based guidelines for teachers as agents of transformation, and an interactive, scenario-based design. The prototype was developed into three integrated components and validated with a CVI score of 0.91. Effectiveness testing showed an average score increase from 69.0 (pretest) to 87.0 (posttest) with a significant difference (t(19) = −11.978, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.68, very large effect category). The guide was found to be statistically valid and effective in enhancing students’ anti-cyberbullying competencies. These findings support integrating pragmatic literacy as the core of the digital education curriculum in secondary schools and demonstrate that language-based social engineering is an effective counter-violent mechanism against Bourdieu’s symbolic violence in the digital space.

How to Cite

Subyantoro, Suseno, Zuliyanti, & Septiani , S. (2026). THE IMPACT OF THE PRAGMATIC POLITENESS MODEL ON THE PREVENTION OF CYBERBULLYING IN DIGITAL INTERACTIONS AMONG STUDENTS IN PHASE E. ACTA INNOVATIONS, 63, 388–396. https://doi.org/10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1107
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. 1. Al-Sulami, M. S. Z. (2023). The Role of Social Work in Facing the Negative Effects of Cyberbullying on Adolescents in Saudi Arabia. مجلة العلوم الإنسانية و الإجتماعية, 7(11), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.26389/AJSRP.N130723
  2. 2. Audrin, C., & Blaya, C. (2020). Psychological Well-Being in a Connected World: The Impact of Cybervictimization in Children’s and Young People’s Lives in France. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01427
  3. 3. Baidoo, C. E., Alvarez, M. J., & Hawkins, S. S. (2025). The impact of cyberbullying laws on student cyberbullying by sexual minority status. Preventive Medicine Reports, 58, 103221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103221
  4. 4. Chun, J., Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2023). A content analysis of South Korean newspaper coverage of adolescent cyberbullying. Children & Society, 37(6), 2011–2029. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12695
  5. 5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publication. https://www.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/designing-and-conducting-mixed-methods-research/book243940
  6. 6. Dewi Ardiyani, I., & Muhdi, N. (2021). Cyberbullying And Suicidal Behavior. International Journal of Research Publications, 92(1). https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP100921120222653
  7. 7. Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1143
  8. 8. Gallegos, A., García Ampudia, L., Morales Córdova, H., Londoño-Celis, W., Velazco Mendoza, O. A., & Valencia, J. (2025). Cyberbullying in students: forms of aggression, risk factors, and educational responses in digital environments. F1000Research, 14, 880. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168253.1
  9. 9. Hanks, W. F. (2005). Pierre Bourdieu And The Practices Of Language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143907
  10. 10. Ibipurwo, G. T., Suhartono, S., Mangesti, Y. A., & Setyorini, E. H. (2024). Legal Protection for Cyberbullying Victims Based on The Principle of Justice. International Journal of Religion, 5(11), 4435–4447. https://doi.org/10.61707/6rjzgr58
  11. 11. Kintonova, A., Vasyaev, A., & Shestak, V. (2021). Cyberbullying and cyber-mobbing in developing countries. Information & Computer Security, 29(3), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-02-2020-0031
  12. 12. Lukács J., Á., Takács, J., Soósné Kiss, Z., Kapitány-Fövény, M., Falus, A., & Feith, H. J. (2023). The Effects of a Cyberbullying Intervention Program Among Primary School Students. Child & Youth Care Forum, 52(4), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-022-09714-9
  13. 13. Mai, M.-H., Giang, T.-V., Dang, X.-D., & Dinh, D.-H. (2023). The context of school-based cyberbullying prevention in Vietnamese public schools: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 10(4), 674–681. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v10i4.5046
  14. 14. McCarthy, M. (2021). Social Media, Students, and the Law. Laws, 10(4), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10040081
  15. 15. Memon, M. A., Thurasamy, R., Ting, H., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Purposive Sampling: A Review And Guidelines For Quantitative Research. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.9(1)01
  16. 16. Mthembu, M. (2023). Challenges of Enforcing Anti-cyber Bullying Laws on Teen Sexting in South Africa. Commonwealth Youth and Development, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6549/11472
  17. 17. Nikolaou, D. (2022). Bullying, cyberbullying, and youth health behaviors. Kyklos, 75(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12286
  18. 18. Patchin, J. W., Schafer, J., & Jarvis, J. P. (2020). Law enforcement perceptions of cyberbullying: evolving perspectives. Policing: An International Journal, 43(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2019-0136
  19. 19. Patel, M.-G., & Quan-Haase, A. (2024). The social-ecological model of cyberbullying: Digital media as a predominant ecology in the everyday lives of youth. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5507–5528. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221136508
  20. 20. Rahamathulla, M. (2021). Cyber Safety of Children in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Region: a Critical Review of Legal Frameworks and Policy Implications. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice, 4(4), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-021-00087-5
  21. 21. Ramirez, M. R., Ryan, A., Lymn, K., Burris, S., Cook, A., Cloud, L. K., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2024). Building A Comprehensive, Longitudinal Dataset to Advance Research on the Efficacy of State-Level Anti-bullying Legislation: 1999 to 2017. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(4), 2598–2608. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231219256
  22. 22. Redmond, P., Lock, J. V., & Smart, V. (2020). Developing a cyberbullying conceptual framework for educators. Technology in Society, 60, 101223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101223
  23. 23. Siddiqui, S., & Schultze-Krumbholz, A. (2023). Successful and Emerging Cyberbullying Prevention Programs: A Narrative Review of Seventeen Interventions Applied Worldwide. Societies, 13(9), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13090212
  24. 24. Sripa, K., & Ninphet, T. (2024). Cyberbullying among Children and Youth in Thailand and Measures to Combat It. Rajabhat Chiang Mai Research Journal, 25(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.57260/rcmrj.2024.266344
  25. 25. Subyantoro., Suseno., Zuliyanti., & Fadilya Diani Putri, S. (2023).. Impoliteness Strategy for Cyberbullying in Indonesian on Instagram Social Media. KEMBARA Journal of Scientific Language Literature and Teaching, 9(2), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.22219/kembara.v9i2.25517
  26. 26. Vargas-Salas, O., Alcazar-Gonzales, J. C., Calle-Vera, Ó. F., Molina-Rodríguez, F. N., Fernández-Fernández, F. A., & Carcausto-Zea, M. L. (2025). Advances in Policies and Guidelines, and Other Measures Related to Social Networking and Video Game Use in Minors: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sage Open, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251393158
  27. 27. Wahanisa, R., Prihastuty, R., & Dzikirullah, H. Noho, M. (2021). Preventive Measures of Cyberbullying on Adolescents in Indonesia: A Legal Analysis. Lentera Hukum, 8(2), 267. https://doi.org/10.19184/ejlh.v8i2.23503
  28. 28. Xu, Y., & Trzaskawka, P. (2021). Towards Descriptive Adequacy of Cyberbullying: Interdisciplinary Studies on Features, Cases and Legislative Concerns of Cyberbullying. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 34(4), 929–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09856-4