This study aimed to describe the prevalence of cyber-victimisation and bystanding of cyberbullying behaviours among adolescents and to identify possible common predictors to both roles. The prevalence of cyber-victimisation in our sample are in line with previous studies in our country, both in terms of occasional cyberbullying (4.1–25.6%) and frequent cyberbullying (1.1–6.1%), depending on the modality [
3,
24]. Regarding the observation, our work shows the bystanding of at least one episode of cyberbullying in 15.5–51.3%, depending on the type of behaviour, while other studies show somewhat higher values (35.4–65%) [
3,
33]. Differences could be explained by the methodology (e.g., modalities of cyber-bullying taken into account, period of time covered by the items, etc.). In addition, results show a direct relationship between cyber-victimisation and bystanding (Hypothesis 1) (
Table 3). In general, the high degree of cyber-victimisation among non-observers is almost residual (0.3–1.9%). However, within most frequent bystanders, the figures increase to 5.3–25%.
4.1. Canonical Correlations: Predictors and Relationships
In our analysis, we tested the fit of several models. The inclusion of the variable bystanding increased explained variance, although excluded other variables from the model, which could mean that it might moderate other predictable variables (Hypothesis 2).
Results show greater explanatory power for profiles of minors that have a high degree of bystanding behaviours and cyber-victimisation, but feebly explains the profile of cyber-victims that do not refer to bystanding. It suggests that adolescents with high scores on cyber-victimisation and bystanding would also have a higher favourable attitude towards violence (as a form of entertainment, as an improvement of self-esteem, as a form of management of their problems), together with a greater attention to their emotions. In addition, minors with higher cyber-victimisation, but with a low degree of observation of cyberbullying behaviours, would present a lower degree of positive attitudes toward violence (considered legitimate), as well as fewer contacts on social networks/messaging, and higher levels of parental monitoring. This can be considered evidence of the relationship between attitude toward violence and a higher degree of both cyber-victimisation and bystanding of cyberbullying (Hypothesis 2). Other studies have shown that not only cyber-aggressors, but also bystanders, presented greater use of aggressive strategies to resolve interpersonal conflicts [
8,
22]. Our results coincide with this proposal, suggesting that in many cases, the roles overlap [
12]. In fact, the complexity of interactions between cyber-aggressors, cyber-victims, and the possibility of playing multiple roles simultaneously has been referenced as a line of research [
11,
34]. Thus, in our sample, favourable attitudes to violence and cyberbullying would be a common element for bystanders, but also for cyber-victims, who could legitimise acts of cyberbullying and frame the virtual interactions of minors, establishing “rules of online behaviour” among a certain group of minors.
Emotional self-regulation is related to higher cyber-victimisation (Hypothesis 2). This data makes sense when we consider other studies in which an excessive score of emotional self-regulation is associated with greater neuroticism and worse psychological adjustment [
35,
36]. Likewise, minors who have witnessed cyber-victimisation have been found to have greater degrees of neuroticism and worse psychological adjustment than minors who have not been victims [
3]. Thus, we may be looking at an indirect measure of neuroticism, which in this study would be shared by minors who report greater cyber-victimisation and who are also observers of a higher number of episodes of cyberbullying. These minors would pay more attention and concern to their moods, but would not put in place shock-absorbing mechanisms (evaluated by the other two subscales of the instrument: emotional clarity and emotional repair). In other words, these minors would have worse emotional regulation, supporting postulates of Cyclic Process Model [
7]. In this sense, another study [
37] on the subject of traditional bullying shows that victims exhibited a similar pattern, having higher attention to emotions, but low scores in clarity and emotional repair. To determine if this greater attention and perception of emotions is a product or antecedent of the greater cyber-victimisation and observation of cyberbullying is something that future longitudinal studies should attend to.
Regarding family factors, contrary to what was described by other studies, parental control did not behave as a protective factor [
10,
11] (Hypothesis 2). In the line of another study, where a greater parental control predicted a higher degree of cyber-victimisation [
33], our analysis show that stronger parental monitoring is related to a higher degree of cyber-victimisation along with a low degree of bystanding. Being cross-sectional studies, a possible explanation could be that this is due to ineffective attempts of parental control and monitoring, or that parents increase their parental control monitoring once their minors have given some sign of suffering cyber-victimisation. Our analysis prevents clarifications in this regard.
In relation to contextual factors, contrary to what was expected and observed by other authors [
11], in our sample, we put into place behaviours regarding privacy or not was not related to cyber-victimisation or the bystanding of episodes of cyberbullying (Hypothesis 2). Differences also were not found between the group with the highest cyber -victimisation and the rest of the sample regarding privacy practices. In line with the previous result, it could be that those adolescents who reported greater cybervictimisation had implemented compensatory privacy practices once they had suffered cybervictimisation, possibly as a result of parental mediation.
4.2. Practical Implications
In summary, our results support the presence of an overlap between the roles of bystanders and cyber-victims in cyberbullying, showing a possible profile of minors that share favourable attitudes towards aggressive behaviours and inadequate emotional regulation. These results contribute useful information for practical applications such as preventive school or familiar interventions. In this regard, it would be reasonable to include in universal prevention programs components aimed at changing attitudes towards violence and towards cyberbullying, as well as not only focusing on cyber-aggressors but on all adolescents, given the fact that they can all be a predictors of cyber–victimisation, due to the high level of bystanding. Decreasing positive attitudes towards violence and making minors aware that cyberbullying has negative consequences on cyber-victims, are basic steps for bystanders to shift from a passive to an active style and contribute to stopping cyberbullying [
38,
39]. Besides, it could be an influential component for fostering constructive bystander active interventions [
6].
In addition, it is necessary to incorporate components of emotional education to compensate minors’ inadequate attention to their emotions [
35]. More effective emotional regulation could reduce the cyclical process that turns cyber-victims and bystanders into cyber-aggressors later. Thus, in the preventive school setting, it would be of interest for practitioners to pay attention to high scores on emotional regulation scales. On the other hand, and in reference to cyber-victimisation, the data obtained also stresses the importance of taking into account parent’s involvement in prevention programs, once the sense of the relationships of the strategies, put in motion by them, is confirmed. Thus, other studies support our findings, noting that adolescents who perceive lower levels of parental control are involved in cases of cyberbullying [
2,
12].
4.3. Limitations of the Study and Future Lines of Research
Our proposals must be interpreted taking into account the usual limitations of a cross-sectional study based on self-reports. Therefore, our results only allow us to suggest relationships. Besides, not assessing cyber-aggression prevents us from triangulating the three main roles of the phenomenon. However, the interest of this study was to consider the observers as key characters. In this sense, the role of bystanders is complex and ranges from assistants of cyber-bullies to defenders of the cyber-victims [
21,
40]. Although our study contributes the reduction of aggressive attitudes as a possible factor for the mobilization of bystanders, this makes it necessary to accept the results with caution in future studies. Besides, it would be advisable for future research to consider these aspects, seeking repeated or longitudinal measures, as well as delving into possible differences that address sociodemographic variables such as sex and age. Additionally, to carry out analysis that would allow to establish profiles with the aim of differentiating subgroups that require prevention or specific intervention (e.g., only cyber-victims, but also observers and/or aggressors, etc.) would be of interest. Likewise, it would be of interest to consider variables related to online risk behaviours (e.g., privacy, parental mediation and control).