Researchers and anti-bullying organisations have increasingly turned their attention to the role of bystanders in tackling bullying and peer victimisation (e.g. name-calling). The objective of this study was to develop and assess the impact of a role-play programme designed to strengthen adolescent’s defending behaviour to name-calling. This was measured in two contexts: defending intentions in an outgroup name-calling scenario and cyber-defender behaviour in a scripted online peer interaction. Participants (N = 121, Mage = 12.90 years) were randomly assigned to either a role-play condition or a control condition. Results showed that defender intentions in an outgroup name-calling scenario were higher in the role-play condition, compared to the control; in addition, cyber-defender behaviour was more likely and quicker in the role-play condition, compared to the control. Defender self-efficacy was found to be significantly higher in the role-play condition, and mediated the effect of the role-play programme on defender intentions. Findings also revealed that defender intentions were positively correlated with cyber-defender behaviour, highlighting a link between intentions and behaviour. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
AbbottN.CameronL. (2014) What makes a young assertive bystander? The effect of intergroup contact, empathy, cultural openness, and in-group bias on assertive bystander intervention intentions. Journal of Social Issues70: 167–182. doi:10.1111/josi.12053.
2.
AboudF. E.JoongA. (2008) Intergroup name-calling and conditions for creating assertive bystanders. In: LevyS. R.KillenM. (eds) Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 249–260.
3.
ArgyleM. (1994) The psychology of interpersonal behaviour, 5th ed. London, UK: Penguin Group.
4.
AtlasR. S.PeplerD. J. (1998) Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of Educational Research92: 86–99. doi:10.1080/00220679809597580.
5.
BanduraA. (1995) Self-efficacy in changing societies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BarchiaK.BusseyK. (2011) Predictors of student defenders or peer aggression victims: Empathy and social cognitive factors. International Journal of Behavioral Development35: 289–297. doi:10.1177/0165025410396746.
7.
BarhightL. R.HubbardJ. A.HydeC. T. (2013) Children’s physiological and emotional reactions to witnessing bullying predict bystander intervention. Child Development84: 375–390. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01839.
8.
BishA.SuttonS.GolombokS. (2000) Predicting uptake of a routine cervical smear test: A comparison of the health belief model and the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology and Health15: 35–50. doi:10.1080/08870440008400287.
9.
BlayaC. (2019) Cyberhate: A review and content analysis of intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior45: 163–172. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.006.
10.
BoalA. (2008) Theatre of the oppressed, London, UK: Pluto Press.
11.
CampbellM. A.SleeP. T.SpearsB.ButlerD.KiftS. (2013) Do cyberbullies suffer too? Cyberbullies’ perceptions of the harm they cause to others and to their own mental health. School Psychology International34: 613–629. doi:10.1177/0143034313479698.
12.
ChauxE.VelasquezA. M.Schultze-KrumbholzA.ScheithauerH. (2016) Effects of the cyberbullying prevention program Media Heroes (Medienhelden) on traditional bullying. Aggressive Behavior42: 157–165. doi:10.1002/ab.21637.
13.
DattaP.CornellD.HuangF. (2016) Aggressive attitudes and prevalence of bullying bystander behaviour in middle school. Psychology in the Schools53: 804–816. doi:10.1002/pits.21944.
14.
DeSmetA.VeldemanC.PoelsK.BastiaensensS.Van CleemputK.VandeboschH.De BourdeaudhuijI. (2014) Determinants of self-reported bystander behaviour in cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking17: 207–215. doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0027.
15.
ForsbergC.ThornbergR.SamuelssonM. (2014) Bystanders to bullying: Fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Research Papers in Education29: 557–576. doi:10.1080/02671522.2013.878375.
16.
FreisS. D.GurungR. A. (2013) A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture2: 11–19. doi:10.1037/a0030239.
17.
GaraigordobilM.Martinez-ValderreyV. (2015) Effects of Cyberprogram 2.0 on “face-to-face” bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy. Psicothema27: 45–51. doi:10.7334/psicothema2014.78.
18.
GarandeauC. F.PoskipartaE.SalmivalliC. (2014) Tackling acute cases of school bullying in the KiVa anti-bullying program: A comparison of two approaches. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology42: 981–991. doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9861-1.
19.
GiniG.AlbieroP.BenelliB.AltoèG. (2008) Determinants of adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence31: 93–105. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002.
20.
JohnsonC. (2001) Helping children to manage emotions which trigger aggressive acts: An approach through drama in school. Early Child Development and Care166: 109–118. doi:10.1080/0300443011660109.
21.
JoronenK.KonuA.RankinH. S.Åstedt-KurkiP. (2012) An evaluation of a drama program to enhance social relationships and anti-bullying at elementary school: A controlled study. Health Promotion International27: 5–14. doi:10.1093/heapro/dar012.
22.
KärnäA.VoetenM.LittleT. D.PoskipartaE.KaljonenA.SalmivalliC. (2011) A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4–6. Child Development82: 311–330. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.
23.
LambL. M.BiglerR. S.LibenL. S.GreenV. A. (2009) Teaching children to confront peers’ sexist remarks: Implications for theories of development and educational practice. Sex Roles61: 361–382. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9634-4.
24.
LuoA.BusseyK. (2019) The selectivity of moral disengagement in defenders of cyberbullying: Contextual moral disengagement. Computers in Human Behavior93: 318–325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.038.
25.
MaT.MeterD.ChenW.LeeY. (2019) Defending behavior of peer victimization in school and cyber context during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of individual and peer-relational characteristics. Psychological Bulletin145: 891–928. doi:10.1037/bul0000205.
26.
MidgettA.DoumasD. M. (2019) The impact of a brief bullying bystander intervention on depressive symptoms. Journal of Counselling & Development97: 270–280. doi:10.1002/jcad.12267.
27.
NickersonA.AloeA.LivingstonJ.FeeleyT. (2014) Measurement of the bystander intervention model for bullying and sexual harassment. Journal of Adolescence37: 391–400. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.003.
28.
PalmerS. B.AbbottN. (2017) Bystander responses to bias-based bullying in schools: A developmental intergroup approach. Child Development Perspectives12: 39–44. doi:10.1111/cdep.12253.
29.
PoteatV. P.VechoO. (2016) Who intervenes against homophobic behavior? Attributes that distinguish active bystanders. Journal of School Psychology54: 17–28. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.002.
30.
PöyhönenV.JuvonenJ.SalmivalliC. (2012) Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development21: 722–741. doi:10.1111/j.1467-95072012.00662.
31.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40: 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
32.
SalmivalliC. (2014) Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions?Theory Into Practice53: 286–292. doi:10.1080/00405841.2014.947222.
33.
SalmivalliC.KärnäA.PoskipartaE. (2010) From peer putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In: JimersonS. R.SwearerS. M.EspelageD. L. (eds) Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective, New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 441–454.
34.
SmithP. K.AnaniadouK.CowieH. (2003) Interventions to reduce school bullying. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry48: 591–599. doi:10.1177/070674370304800905.
35.
TanrikuluI. (2018) Cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs in schools: A systematic review. School Psychology International39: 74–91. doi:10.1177/0143034317745721.
36.
ThornbergR.JungertT. (2013) Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence36: 475–483. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.003.
37.
Timmons-MitchellJ.LevesqueD. A.HarrisL. A.FlanneryD. J.FalconeT. (2016) Pilot test of StandUp, an online school-based bullying prevention program. Children and Schools38: 71–79. doi:10.1093/cs/cdw010.
38.
TopcuC.Erdur-BakerÖ. (2012) Affective and cognitive empathy as mediators of gender differences in cyber and traditional bullying. School Psychology International33: 550–561. doi:10.1177/0143034312446882.
39.
TrachJ.HymelS.WaterhouseT.NealeK. (2010) Bystander responses to school bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian Journal of School Psychology25: 114–130. doi:10.1177/0829573509357553.
40.
van der PloegR.KretschmerT.SalmivalliC.VeenstraR. (2017) Defending victims: What does it take to intervene in bullying and how is it rewarded by peers?Journal of School Psychology65: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2017.06.002.
41.
VerkuytenM.KinketB.Van der WielenC. (1997) Preadolescents’ understanding of ethnic discrimination. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development158: 97–112. doi:10.1080/00221329709596655.
42.
Vezzali, L., Birtel, M., Di Bernado, A., Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., Cadamuro, A., & Vistinin, E. P. (2019). Don’t hurt my outgroup friend: A multifaceted form of imagined contact promotes intentions to counteract bullying. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. doi:10.1177/1368430219852404.
43.
YunH. Y.GrahamS. J. (2018) Defending victims of bullying in early adolescence: A multilevel analysis. Youth Adolescence47: 1926–1937. doi:10.1007/s10964-018-0869-7.
44.
ZychI.BaldryA. C.FarringtonD. P.LlorentV. J. (2018) Are children involved in cyberbullying low on empathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of research on empathy versus different cyberbullying roles. Aggression and Violent Behavior45: 83–97. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.004.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
