Research involving 1,162 Chinese students suggests anxiety, depression and stress after peer victimisation drive harmful online coping more strongly than low self-esteem or poor teacher relationships.
Peer victimisation is linked to a greater risk of internet addiction among adolescents, with negative affect emerging as the strongest pathway, according to research published in Psychology Research and Behaviour Management. The study, based on 1,162 senior high school students in eastern China, found that emotional distress explained far more of the association than self-esteem or basic psychological needs, suggesting that the immediate psychological fallout from being bullied may matter more than longer-term motivational factors.
The findings are notable because they separate the effects of several overlapping influences. Peer victimisation was associated with higher internet addiction scores, but the direct link disappeared once the authors accounted for the role of negative affect, self-esteem and basic psychological need satisfaction. In practical terms, that means the internet may function as a coping space for adolescents who feel anxious, depressed or under stress after hostile peer experiences.
Negative affect accounted for roughly two-thirds of the indirect association between victimisation and internet addiction, making it the dominant route in the model. Self-esteem also played a meaningful role, while basic psychological needs such as autonomy, competence and relatedness had more limited and mostly indirect effects. The authors argue that this pattern fits the I-PACE framework, which sees addiction as driven largely by emotional and cognitive responses to stress.
Teacher-student relationships were also examined as a possible protective factor. The study found that stronger relationships with teachers were associated with higher self-esteem, greater satisfaction of psychological needs and lower internet addiction overall. But the moderating effects were mixed and mostly small. Two interaction effects were statistically significant yet too weak to be considered practically important, while the larger effects mainly suggested that teacher support may help adolescents turn inner resources such as need satisfaction into better self-esteem outcomes.
The researchers say this means teacher support should not be viewed as a simple shield against victimisation. Instead, it appears to work in a more selective way, strengthening certain protective pathways without fully offsetting the harm caused by bullying. That nuance matters for schools, where anti-bullying efforts are often framed around boosting supportive adult relationships alone.
The study also used fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to check whether different combinations of risk factors could lead to high internet addiction. That approach supported the main statistical model: emotional distress, low self-esteem and weak support from teachers tended to cluster together in the riskiest profiles. The authors say this reinforces the idea that internet addiction does not arise from one single cause, but from several overlapping vulnerabilities.
For schools and parents, the practical message is straightforward. Supportive teachers matter, but the strongest signal in this study is that emotional distress should be addressed early. The authors suggest that prevention efforts should focus on emotion regulation, early identification of victimisation and targeted support for students who show signs of distress, rather than relying on teacher rapport alone to prevent harmful online coping.
The study has important limits. It was cross-sectional, so it cannot prove cause and effect. It also relied on self-reported data from one region of China, which means the findings may not generalise cleanly to other countries or school systems. Even so, the research adds weight to a growing view that adolescent internet addiction is often less about screen time itself than about what young people are trying to escape.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
