The role of bystanders in bullying and cyberbullying prevention is crucial. Strategies must be tailored to address the shared and unique factors in online and offline contexts, ensuring that interventions create an environment where bystanders are empowered and feel responsible to act against bullying and cyberbullying. This meta-analysis examines and compares the effectiveness of interventions in enhancing bystander behaviors in bullying and cyberbullying scenarios. A comprehensive search was conducted using databases including PsycINFO, Medline, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts, ERIC, and Scopus. Quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trials published before March 31, 2024 that reported that the effects of bystander interventions were included. The synthesis comprised 49 studies, reporting an overall random effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.25. The results highlight the crucial roles of enhancing knowledge, self-efficacy, and coping skills. Subgroup analysis revealed that the effective bystander interventions include smaller sample sizes (<100 participants), shorter durations (<1 month), targeting college students, and utilizing offline intervention approaches and digital techniques. These findings emphasize the promising effects and tailored characteristics of bystander intervention programs in bullying and cyberbullying contexts. Our review identifies avenues for future research within educational settings to develop more effective bystander behavior interventions to reduce bullying and cyberbullying.
BarhightL. R.HubbardJ. A.HydeC. T. (2013). Children’s physiological and emotional reactions to witnessing bullying predict bystander intervention. Child Development, 84, 375–390.
2.
BastiaensensS.PabianS.VandeboschH.PoelsK.Van CleemputK.DeSmetA.De BourdeaudhuijI. (2016). From normative influence to social pressure: How relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development, 25, 193–211.
3.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
4.
BrenickA.ZureiqiM.WuR.SerajM.KellyM. C.BergerR. (2024). Why step in? Shifting justifications for bystander behaviors through interventions with youth in the Middle East. Journal of Research on Adolescence. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12941
5.
BruggemannP.RajguruK. (2022). Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) 3.0: A software review. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 10, 425–429.
6.
ChenQ.ChanK. L.GuoS.ChenM.LoC. K. M.IpP. (2023). Effectiveness of digital health interventions in reducing bullying and cyberbullying: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24, 1986–2002.
7.
ChenQ.XiaoQ.LiuB.LuZ. (2024). Bystander reaction differences between cyberbullying victims and non-victims among Chinese adolescents: The roles of online and offline social capitals. Child & Family Social Work, 29, 354–362.
8.
ClarkM.BusseyK. (2020). The role of self-efficacy in defending cyberbullying victims. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, Article 106340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106340
9.
CoccoV. M.BisagnoE.VisintinE. P.CadamuroA.Di BernardoG. A.ShamlooS. E.TrifilettiE.MolinariL.VezzaliL. (2023). Once upon a time: Using fairy tales as a form of vicarious contact to prevent stigma-based bullying among schoolchildren. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 33, 186–201.
10.
DengX.YangJ.WuY. (2021). Adolescent empathy influences bystander defending in school bullying: A three-level meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 690898. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.690898
11.
DeSmetA.BastiaensensS.Van CleemputK.PoelsK.VandeboschH.DeboutteG.HerrewijnL.MallietS.PabianS.Van BroeckhovenF.De BourdeaudhuijI. (2018). The efficacy of the Friendly Attac serious digital game to promote prosocial bystander behavior in cyberbullying among young adolescents: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 336–347.
12.
DillonK. P.BushmanB. J. (2015). Unresponsive or un-noticed?: Cyberbystander intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 144–150.
13.
DoaneA. N.EhlkeS.KelleyM. L. (2020). Bystanders against cyberbullying: A video program for college students. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2, 41–52.
14.
Domínguez-HernándezF.BonellL.Martínez-GonzálezA. (2018). A systematic literature review of factors that moderate bystanders’ actions in cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-1
15.
DoumasD. M.MidgettA.WattsA. D. (2019). A pilot evaluation of the social validity of a bullying bystander program adapted for high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 1101–1116.
16.
FergusonC. J. (2016). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. In KazdinA. E. (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed., pp. 301–310). American Psychological Association.
17.
ForsbergC.WoodL.SmithJ.VarjasK.MeyersJ.JungertT.ThornbergR. (2018). Students’ views of factors affecting their bystander behaviors in response to school bullying: A cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Research Papers in Education, 33, 127–142.
18.
FredrickS. S.JenkinsL. N.RayK. (2020). Dimensions of empathy and bystander intervention in bullying in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 79, 31–42.
19.
GaffneyH.FarringtonD. P.TtofiM. M. (2019). Examining the effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1, 14–31.
20.
GaffneyH.TtofiM. M.FarringtonD. P. (2021). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1143.
21.
Gámez-GuadixM. P. D.OrueI. P. D.SmithP. K. P. D.CalveteE. P. D. (2013). Longitudinal and reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and problematic Internet use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.030
22.
GreenJ.HoltM. K.OblathR.RobinsonE.StoreyK.MerrinG. J. (2020). Engaging professional sports to reduce bullying: An evaluation of the Boston Vs. Bullies program. Journal of School Violence, 19, 389–405.
23.
HallW. (2017). The effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying: A systematic review. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8, 45–69.
24.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta–analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558.
25.
HillR. M.MellickW.TempleJ. R.SharpC. (2017). The role of bullying in depressive symptoms from adolescence to emerging adulthood: A growth mixture model. Journal of Affective Disorders, 207, 1–8.
26.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2019). Connecting adolescent suicide to the severity of bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 18, 333–346.
27.
KimuraT.KoizumiR. (2020). Results of a social and emotional learning program for preventing bullying in junior high school in relation to students’ level of social ability: Teacher-led intervention. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 185–201.
28.
KoehlerC.WeberM. (2018). Do I really need to help?! Perceived severity of cyberbullying, victim blaming, and by-standers’ willingness to help the victim. Cyberpsychology, 12(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-4
29.
KowalskiR. M.LimberS. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, S13–S20.
30.
KubiszewskiV.FontaineR.PotardC.AuzoultL. (2015). Does cyberbullying overlap with school bullying when taking modality of involvement into account?Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 49–57.
31.
LambeL. J.CioppaV. D.HongI. K.CraigW. M. (2019). Standing up to bullying: A social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 51–74.
32.
LiverpoolS.MotaC. P.SalesC. M.ČušA.CarlettoS.HanchevaC.SousaS.CerónS. C.Moreno-PeralP.PietrabissaG. (2020). Engaging children and young people in digital mental health interventions: Systematic review of modes of delivery, facilitators, and barriers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e16317.
MacaulayP. J.BoultonM. J.BettsL. R. (2019). Comparing early adolescents’ positive bystander responses to cyberbullying and traditional bullying: The impact of severity and gender. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 4, 253–261.
35.
MachackovaH.DedkovaL.SevcikovaA.CernaA. (2018). Bystanders’ supportive and passive responses to cyberaggression. Journal of School Violence, 17, 99–110.
36.
MehariK. R.MooreW.WaasdorpT. E.VarneyO.BergK.LeffS. S. (2018). Cyberbullying prevention: Insight and recommendations from youths, parents, and paediatricians. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44, 616–622.
37.
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.
38.
NgE. D.ChuaJ. Y. X.ShoreyS. (2022). The effectiveness of educational interventions on traditional bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23, 132–151.
39.
NocentiniA.ZambutoV.MenesiniE. (2015). Anti-bullying programs and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 52–60.
40.
Olenik-ShemeshD.HeimanT.EdenS. (2017). Bystanders’ behavior in cyberbullying episodes: Active and passive patterns in the context of personal–socio-emotional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 23–48.
41.
OlweusD. (1993). Bullies on the playground: The role of victimization. In HartC. H. (Ed.), Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications (pp. 85–128). State University of New York Press.
42.
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.
43.
PozzoliT.GiniG. (2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A multidimensional model. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 315–340.
44.
RatkaA. (2018). Empathy and the development of affective skills. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(10), 7192. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7192
45.
SaarentoS.BoultonA. J.SalmivalliC. (2015). Reducing bullying and victimization: Student-and classroom-level mechanisms of change. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 61–76.
SongJ.OhI. (2018). Factors influencing bystanders’ behavioral reactions in cyberbullying situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 273–282.
48.
TaylorS. H.DiFranzoD.ChoiY. H.SannonS.BazarovaN. N. (2019). Accountability and empathy by design: Encouraging bystander intervention to cyberbullying on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–26.
49.
TorgalC.EspelageD. L.PolaninJ. R.IngramK. M.RobinsonL. E.El SheikhA. J.ValidoA. (2023). A meta-analysis of school-based cyberbullying prevention programs’ impact on cyber-bystander behavior. School Psychology Review, 52, 95–109.
50.
TtofiM. M.FarringtonD. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56.
51.
van GeelM.VedderP.TanilonJ. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 435–442.
52.
VlaanderenA.BevelanderK. E.KleemansM. (2020). Empowering digital citizenship: An anti-cyberbullying intervention to increase children’s intentions to intervene on behalf of the victim. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106459.
53.
WaasdorpT. E.FuR.ClaryL. K.BradshawC. P. (2022). School climate and bullying bystander responses in middle and high school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 80, 101412.
54.
WillifordA.ElledgeL. C.BoultonA. J.DePaolisK. J.LittleT. D.SalmivalliC. (2013). Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on cyberbullying and cybervictimization frequency among Finnish youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42, 820–833.
55.
WrightM. F.WachsS.HarperB. D. (2018). The moderation of empathy in the longitudinal association between witnessing cyberbullying, depression, and anxiety. Cyberpsychology, 12(4), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-6
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.
