Bystanders play a crucial role in encouraging or preventing bullying situations and feature prominently in several international antibullying programs (e.g., KiVa). Despite a surge of recent interest in bystanders, relatively little is known about the functional reasons why individuals choose to engage with or ignore bullying incidents. Given the importance of bystanders’ influence on bullying, we argue that further consideration needs to be given to the individual costs and benefits of bystanders’ intervention. Adolescents in our study (N = 101, M = 15.37 years) read different bullying scenarios and were then asked to respond with how the bystander would react in each scenario while considering and explaining potential personal costs and benefits. We focused on the cognitive reasoning of important factors adolescents may consider when faced with the decision of whether to intervene or not in a bullying situation. Our study provides novel evidence that adolescents engage in quite explicit cost–benefit decisions regarding their decisions of whether or not they would intervene in bullying. The content and structure of these cost–benefit decisions support an adaptive model of bullying behavior and may be helpful in developing more targeted peer-based antibullying programs.
BaumanS.Del RioA. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219-231.
2.
BerkowitzR. (2013). Student and teacher responses to violence in school: The divergent views of bullies, victims, and bully-victims. School Psychology International, 35, 485-503.
3.
BookA. S.VolkA. A.HoskerA. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: An adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 218-223.
4.
BoultonM. J.BucciE.HawkerD. D. (1999). Swedish and English secondary school pupils’ attitudes towards, and conceptions of, bullying: Concurrent links with bully/victim involvement. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 277-284.
5.
CappadociaM.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.
6.
CaravitaS.Di BlasioP.SalmivalliC. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140-163.
7.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Lincoln: Sage.
10.
CypressB. S. (2015). Qualitative research: The “what,” “why,” “who,” and “how!”Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 34, 356-361. doi:10.1097/DCC.0000000000000150
11.
EllisB. J.VolkA. A.GonzalezJ. M.EmbryD. D. (2016). The meaningful roles intervention: An evolutionary approach to reducing bullying and increasing prosocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 622-637.
12.
FerránsS. D.SelmanR.FeigenbergL. F. (2012). Rules of the culture and personal needs: Witnesses’ decision-making processes to deal with situations of bullying in middle school. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 445-470.
13.
ForsbergC.ThornbergR.SamuelssonM. (2014). Bystanders to bullying: Fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Research Papers in Education, 29, 557-576. doi:10.1080/02671522.2013.878375
14.
GarandeauC. F.LeeI. A.SalmivalliC. (2014). Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1123-1133.
15.
GiniG.PozzoliT.BorghiF.FranzoniL. (2008). The role of bystanders in students’ perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 617-638.
16.
GlaserB. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. San Francisco, CA: Sociology Press.
17.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The development of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Alden.
18.
GuerraN. G.WilliamsK. R.SadekS. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82, 295-310.
19.
KohJ. B.WongJ. S. (2017). Survival of the fittest and the sexiest: Evolutionary origins of adolescent bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 2668-2690. doi:10.1177/0886260515593546
20.
KolbertJ. B.CrothersL. M. (2003). Bullying and evolutionary psychology: The dominance hierarchy among students and implications for school personnel. Journal of School Violence, 2(3), 73-91.
21.
LambeL. J.HudsonC. C.CraigW. M.PeplerD. J. (2017). Does defending come with a cost? Examining the psychosocial correlates of defending behaviour among bystanders of bullying in a Canadian sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 112-123.
22.
MariniZ. A.VolkA. A. (2017). Towards a transdisciplinary blueprint to studying bullying. Journal of Youth Studies, 20, 94-109. doi:10.1080/13676261.2016.1184239
23.
MenesiniE.SalmivalliC. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22, 240-253.
24.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
MishnaF. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives. Children & Schools, 26, 234-247.
26.
MishnaF.SainiM.SolomonS. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1222-1228.
27.
MishnaF.WienerJ.PeplerD. (2008). Some of my best friends—Experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology International, 29, 549-573.
28.
MorseJ. M. (2012). Qualitative health research: Creating a new discipline. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
29.
O’ConnellP.PeplerD.CraigW. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.
30.
OlweusD. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In JuvonenJ.GrahamS. (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
PellegriniA. D.BartiniM. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 699-725.
32.
PeplerD. J.CraigW. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic observations of aggressive children with remote audiovisual recording. Developmental Psychology, 31, 548-553.
33.
PouwelsJ. L.LansuT. A.CillessenA. H. (2017). Adolescents’ explicit and implicit evaluations of hypothetical and actual peers with different bullying participant roles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 219-241.
34.
PouwelsJ. L.SalmivalliC.SaarentoS.van den BergY. H. M.LansuT. A. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2018). Predicting adolescents’ bullying participation from developmental trajectories of social status and behavior. Child Development, 89, 1157-1176. doi:10.1111/cdev.12794
35.
PozzoliT.GiniG. (2012). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A multidimensional model. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 315-340.
36.
ReijntjesA.VermandeM.GoossensF. A.OlthofT.van de SchootR.AlevaL.van der MeulenM. (2013). Developmental trajectories of bullying and social dominance in youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 224-234.
37.
RockP. F.BairdJ. A. (2011). Tell the teacher or tell the bully off: Children’s strategy production for bystanders to bullying. Social Development, 21, 414-424.
38.
RodkinP. C.EspelageD. L.HanishL. D. (2015). A relational framework for understanding bullying: Developmental antecedents and outcomes. American Psychologist, 70, 311-321.
39.
SalmivalliC. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112-120.
40.
SalmivalliC. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions?Theory Into Practice, 53, 286-292.
41.
SalmivalliC.GarandeauC. F.VeenstraR. (2012). KiVa anti-bullying program: Implications for school adjustment. In RyanA. M.LaddG.W. (Eds.), Adolescence and education. Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 279-305). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
42.
SalmivalliC.VoetenM.PoskipartaE. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 668-776.
43.
SijtsemaJ. J.VeenstraR.LindenbergS.SalmivalliC. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57-67.
44.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
ThomasD. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-246.
46.
ThornbergR. (2015). School bullying as a collective action: Stigma processes and identity struggling. Children & Society, 29, 310-320. doi:10.1111/chso.12058
47.
ThornbergR. (2018). School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory field study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39, 144-158.
48.
ThornbergR.TenenbaumL.VarjasK.MeyersJ.JungertT.VanegasG. (2012). Bystander motivation in bullying incidents: To intervene or not to intervene?Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13, 247-252.
49.
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 Psychology, 65, 1-10.
50.
van der PloegR.SteglichC.VeenstraR. (2016). The support group approach in the Dutch KiVa anti-bullying programme: Effects on victimisation, defending and well-being at school. Educational Research, 58, 221-236. doi:10.1080/00131881.2016.1184949
51.
van ManenM. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press.
52.
VolkA. A.CamilleriJ. A.DaneA. V.MariniZ. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation?Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222-238.
53.
VolkA. A.DaneA. V.MariniZ. A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review, 34, 327-343.
54.
VolkA. A.DaneA. V.MariniZ. A.VaillancourtT. (2015). Adolescent bullying, dating, and mating: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(4), 1-11. doi:10.1177/1474704915613909
55.
VolkA. A.LagzdinsL. (2009). Bullying and victimization among adolescent girl athletes. Athletic Insight, 11, 12-25.
56.
VolkA. A.VeenstraR.EspelageD. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003
57.
YbarraM. L.EspelageD. L.MitchellK. J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 293-300.
58.
YeagerD. S.FongC. J.LeeH. Y.EspelageD. L. (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36-51.
59.
YoonJ.KerberK. (2003). Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and intervention strategies. Research in Education, 69, 27-35.
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.
