The purpose of this study was to determine whether pro-bullying attitudes mediate the relation between affective and cognitive empathy and a student’s willingness to intervene in support of a bullied peer. Participants were 764 early adolescents (372 boys, 392 girls) from the Illinois Study of Bullying and Sexual Violence (ISBSV). As predicted, pro-bullying attitudes successfully mediated the prospective relation between affective empathy and bystander intervention but failed to mediate the relation between cognitive empathy and bystander intervention. These results indicate that affective empathy may promote bystander willingness to intervene on behalf of a bullied peer by inhibiting pro-bullying attitudes. Intervention strategies designed to enhance affective empathy and challenge pro-bullying attitudes in bystanders may be of assistance in reducing bullying behavior.
AhmedE. (2008). “Stop it, that’s enough”: Bystander intervention and its relationship to school connectedness and shame management. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 3, 203-213. doi:10.1080/17450120802002548
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
AllisonP. D. (2012). Handling missing data by maximum likelihood (SAS Global Forum 2012). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
5.
BarhightL. R.HubbardJ. A.HydeC. T. (2013). Children’s physiological and emotional reactions to witnessing bullying predict bystander intervention. Child Development, 84, 375-390. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01839.x
6.
BarlińskaJ.SzusterA.WiniewskiM. (2015). The role of short- and long-term cognitive empathy activation in preventing cyberbystander reinforcing cyberbullying behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 241-244.
7.
BatanovaM.EspelageD. L.RaoM. A. (2014). Early adolescents’ willingness to intervene: What roles do attributions, affect, coping, and self-reported victimization play?Journal of School Psychology, 52, 279-293. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.02.001
8.
BennettS.BanyardV. L.GarnhartL. (2014). To act or not to act, that is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 476-496. doi:10.1177/0886260513505210
9.
BlairR. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 98-718.
10.
BosworthK.EspelageD. (1995). Teen Conflict Survey. Bloomington: Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University.
11.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
12.
CappadociaM. C.PeplerD.CummingsJ. G.CraigW. (2012). Individual motivations and characteristics associated with bystander intervention during bullying episodes among children and youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 201-216. doi:10.1177/0829573512450567
13.
CaseyE. A.LindhorstT.StorerH. L. (2017). The situational-cognitive model of adolescent bystander behavior: Modeling bystander decision-making in the context of bullying and teen dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 7, 33-44. doi:10.1037/vio0000033
ColeD. A.MaxwellS. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
16.
CollinsL. M.SchaferJ. L.KamC. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330-351. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330
17.
CraigW. M.PeplerD. J. (1998). Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41-59. doi:10.1177/082957359801300205
18.
ElwertF.WinshipC. (2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 31-53. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455
19.
EspelageD. L.AsidaoC. S. (2001). Conversations with middle school students about bullying and victimization: Should we be concerned?Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 49-62. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_04
20.
EspelageD. L.GreenH.PolaninJ. (2012). Willingness to intervene in bullying episodes among middle school students: Individual and peer-group influences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 776-801. doi:10.1177/0272431611423017
21.
EspelageD. L.LowS. K.AndersonC.De La RueL. (2014). Bullying, sexual, and dating violence trajectories from early to late adolescence (Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice Grant #2011-MU-FX-0022). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/246830.pdf
22.
EvansC. B. R.SmokowskiP. R. (2015). Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2289-2307. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0338-5
23.
FreisS. D.GurungR. A. R. (2013). A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 11-19. doi:10.1037/a0030239
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
25.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
26.
IBM Corporation. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 25.0). Armonk, NY: Author.
27.
JolliffeD.FarringtonD. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589-611. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
28.
JuvonenJ.SchacterH. L.SainioM.SalmivalliC. (2016). Can a school-wide bullying prevention program improve the plight of victims? Evidence for risk × intervention effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 334-344. doi:10.1037/ccp0000078
LatanéB.DarleyJ. M. (1969). Bystanders “apathy.”American Scientist, 57, 244-268.
31.
MenolascinoN.JenkinsL. N. (2018). Predicting bystander intervention among middle school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33, 305-313. doi:10.1037/spq0000262
NickersonA. B.AloeA. M.WerthJ. M. (2015). The relation of empathy and defending in bullying: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Review, 44, 372-390. doi:10.17105/spr-15-0035.1
34.
PadgettS.NotarC. E. (2013). Bystanders are the key to stopping bullying. International Journal of Educational Research, 1, 33-41.
35.
PeyreH.LeplégeA.CosteJ. (2011). Missing data methods for dealing with missing items in quality of life questionnaires. A comparison by simulation of personal mean score, full information maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and hot deck techniques applied to the SF-36 in the French 2003 decennial health survey. Quality of Life Research, 20, 287-300. doi:10.17105/spr-15-0035.1
36.
PolaninJ. R.EspelageD. L.PigottT. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47-65. doi:10.1037/spq0000072
37.
PozzoliT.GiniG. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 815-827. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9
38.
PozzoliT.GiniG. (2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A multidimensional model. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 315-340. doi:10.1177/0272431612440172
39.
PozzoliT.GiniG.ThornbergR. (2017). Getting angry matters: Going beyond perspective taking and empathic concern to understand bystanders’ behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 61, 87-95. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.09.011
40.
PreacherK. J. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 825-852. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015258
41.
PreacherK. J.SeligJ. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77-98. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
42.
RiversI. (2013). Morbidity among bystanders of bullying behavior at school. In SrabsteinJ. C. (Ed.), Bullying: A public health concern (pp. 211-222). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
43.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359-371. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
44.
SchultzE.HeilmanR.HartK. J. (2014). Cyber-bullying: An exploration of bystander behavior and motivation. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research in Cyberspace, 8(4), Article 3. doi:10.5817/CP2014-4-3
45.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Mifflin.
46.
Shamay-TsooryS. C.Aharon-PeretzJ.PerryD. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132, 617-627. doi:10.1093/brain/awn279
47.
SobelM. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methods, 13, 290-312. doi:10.2307/270723
48.
SteigerJ. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 245-251. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245
49.
TrachJ.HymelS.WaterhouseT.NealeK. (2010). Bystander responses to school bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 114-130. doi:10.1177/0829573509357553
50.
YoungR.JohnsonD. R. (2013). Methods for handling missing secondary respondent data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 221-234. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01021.x
