Defenders in Bullying: What we Know and Where to Go

Bystanders in Bullying:What we Know and Where to Go

Amanda B. Nickerson, Ph.D. Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention | University at Buffalo

nickersa@buffalo.edugse.buffalo.edu/alberticenter

Colloquium September 30, 2015

OverviewBullying and Participant RolesResponses of BystandersBystander effectDefenders and outsiders (passive bystanders)5 Step Model for Bystander InterventionImplications for Practice and Future Directions

Anyunwanted aggressive behavior(s)by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves anobserved or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated.

Bullying may inflictharm or distresson the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014)

What is Bullying?

CDC defination3

Importance of Bystander ReactionsMay contribute to the problem or help resolve it Impact on the bullyOthers joining in, providing positive feedback by verbal or nonverbal cues (e.g. smiling, laughing) is rewarding Challenging the bully's power by taking sides with the victim provides negative feedback Impact on the targetTargets who have one or more classmates defend themAre less anxious and less depressedHave higher self-esteemSainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, & Salmivalli (2011); Salmivalli (2010)

(Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, and Salmivalli, 2011) even when the frequency of victimization experiences was controlled for

5

Historical Context

Bystander Effect(Latan & Darley) Presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situationVariables related to bystanders Diffusion of responsibility Cost (time, effort, distress)Social stigmatization of victim

7

Bystanders in BullyingBystanders witness 80% of bullying episodes, but intervene less than 20% of the time Most say they are disgusted by the bullying, but there are several reasons why they dont help:Diffusion of responsibility (No one else is doing anything)Pluralistic ignorance (Everyone else must think its OK) Power of bullies/fear of retaliation (It will just get turned on me)Attitudes toward the victims of bullying (He got what was coming he is so irritating)

Atlas & Pepler (1998); Boulton, Trueman, & Flemington (2002);Lodge & Frydenberg (2005); OConnell et al. (1999); Pepler & Craig (2001);Rigby & Johnson (2006)

-(Information from Obermann, 2012) Bullying episodes have multiple witnesses. Research has shown that bystander intervention becomes less likely when many individuals are witnessing a potentially harmful situation (the so-called bystander effect; see Darley & Latane, 1968; Latane & Darley, 1968). Thus, children witnessing bullying may expect others to take action before they themselves will become likely to intervene, or they may interpret the inaction of other bystanders as a sign that the interaction between the bully and the victim is not that serious; therefore, it is unnecessary to intervene.

-Diffusion of responsibility, where an individual feels a reduced sense of responsibility to act when in a group rather than when alone, may be due, in part, to audience inhibition, or the fear of being embarrassed in front of other people (Latan & Nida, 1981). Particularly in ambiguous situations, the bystander looks to others for social cues; when observing others who do not respond, the bystander also models inaction. Reduced sense of responsibility to act when in a group Assume that someone else will interveneTaking action (or blame for not taking action) will be diffused throughout the group (Darley & Latan, 1968). Feeling that it was not their place to intervene because they were not directly involve (Cappadocia, Pepler, Cummings, & Craig, 2012; Barhight, Hubbard, & Hyde, 2013).

-Bullies are often perceived as popular and powerful (e.g., Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008), thus it may take a lot of courage to stand up against them.

-Attitudes toward the victims of bullying-Pergolizzi et al. (2009) revealed an alarming level of apathy toward bullying. A total of 50% of 587 seventh- and eighth-grade students said that they did nothing when they last witnessed some of their peers being bullied, and 40% of the bystanders did not consider the bullying any of their business. Salmivalli (2010) suggested that although children are generally against bullying and supportive of helping hypothetical or imaginary victims they are more likely to have negative attitudes, such as blaming and disliking toward the actual victims in their own school class. These negative attitudes may be the reason why bystanders are unlikely to intervene. Even though victimized children are already rejected when chosen as victims, they tend to get even more rejected over time (Hodges & Perry, 1999, Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003). Thus, bullying research indicates that victims are disliked by peers and become even more disliked by their peers the longer they are victimized.

There is a disconnect: Something prevents children from defending their bullied peers even if they think that it would be the right thing to do and have intentions of doing so.

8

Guiding Questions for My ResearchWhat contributes to some students defending victims of bullying and others to stand by passively?Individual variables (e.g., empathy) and contextual factors (relationships with parents, peers)

How can we encourage more to intervene to decrease bullying and its negative impact?

Attachment and Empathy as Predictors in Defenders vs. OutsidersHypothesis: Attachment to mother, attachment to father, and empathy, after controlling for gender, would predict whether children nominated themselves as defenders in bullying situations105 middle school students Nominated themselves as defenders or outsiders using Participant Role Descriptions (adapted from Salmivalli et al., 1996)Reported on attachment to mother and father using Kerns Attachment Security Scale (Kerns, Klepac, & Cole, 1996)Reported empathy on Olweus Empathic Responsiveness Questionnaire (Olweus & Endresen, 1998)

Nickerson, Mele, & Princiotta (2008)

10

Findings

11

Empathy, Group Norms, Prosocial Affiliations in Bullying RolesHypotheses: Empathetic Responsiveness will be an inverse predictor of bullying and positive predictor of defendingAfter accounting for empathetic responsiveness, group norms and prosocial affiliations will be inversely related to to bullying and positively related to defender role

Nickerson & Mele-Taylor (2014)

Method262 5th through 8th grade students (53.8% female, 46.2% male)Peer nomination of up to 5 closest friendsOlweus Empathetic Responsiveness QuestionnairePerceived Group Norms (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004)Higher scores more positive, anti-bullying normsProsocial Tendencies Measure Revised (Carlo et al., 2003)Average score of 3 closest friends (higher scores more prosocial)Bullying Participant Roles Survey (Summers, Demaray, & Becker, 2010) Role (defender: 52%, victim: 18%, bully: 15%, outsider: 10%; role undetermined: 5%) based on:Engaging in behavior at least 3 times per monthEngage in behaviors in role more frequently than those in other roles

Results

In Other Words.For boys, greater empathetic responsiveness and more positive group norms predicted role as defenderFor girls, none of variables predicted role as defender, but group norms and prosocial affiliations predicted involvement as a bully perpetrator and a victim of bullyingInteraction effect for girls: More prosocial affiliations but more negative (pro-bullying) perceived norms predicted role as perpetrator and role as victimBullying roles within girls friendship groups? Misperceptions about peer norms regarding bullying?

Multiple Roles: Bystanders who Have Been VictimizedHypothesesBystanders who were also victims of bullying will report more social and emotional maladjustment than bystanders who were not victimsFemales will experience more emotional maladjustment than males as a bystanderWitnessing verbal bullying, rather than physical bullying, would relate to more social-emotional maladjustment (Nishina & Juvonen, 2005)

Werth, Nickerson, Aloe, & Swearer (2015)

Method540 6th to 8th graders from two middle schools Bullying Survey Student Version (Swearer, 2001)Experiences of bystanders, bullies, victimsVerbal and physical bullying subscales (as victim and as bystander)Social maladjustment (difficulties with peers, family, school, etc.) and emotional maladjustment (felt mad or sad, sick)From a sample of 1157 students, 689 were witnesses (bystanders) to bullying; final sample of 540 270 bystanders who were victims of bullying matched to 270 bystanders who were not victims (logistic regression method of estimation of propensity scores on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and 5 items of anti-bullying attitudes)

FindingsVictimized bystanders experienced more social maladjustment (but not more emotional maladjustment) than bystanders who were not victimsYouth who reported more social and maladjustment as victims also experienced more social maladjustmentFemales reported more emotional maladjustment (but not social maladjustment) than malesContrary to expectations, witnessing physical bullying (not verbal bullying) related to more social maladjustment

Take-away PointsDefending behavior is predicted by empathy, and relationship to parent (especially mother) also appears to make a differenceMore positive group norms predict defending in boys but not for girls, for whom they predict involvement as a perpetrator or victimBeing both a victim and a witness to bullying predicts social maladjustment (but not emotional maladjustment)Defending in bullying is a complex process influenced by multiple individual and contextual factors need to better understand this process to encourage more to intervene in safe and effective ways

5 Step Model for Bystander Intervention

Classic model by Latan and Darley (1970)

The structural equation model also supported the sequential process of the model, with the standardized regression weights increasing for each successive step. Therefore, noticing the event was related to interpreting the event as an emergency that requires help, whereas viewing the event as an emergency was a significant predictor of accepting responsibility for helping. Moving from left to right in the model, accepting responsibility was subsequently highly predictive of knowing how to help, which in turn had the strongest relationship with implementing the intervention decision. As the complexity of the model suggests, noticing an issue is necessary but not sufficient for taking action. In addition, attitudes and interpretations of events are related to actions, yet knowledge and skill are also critical in the final implementation of an intervention decision.

Nickerson, Aloe, Livingston, & Feeley, 2013; Latan and Darley, 1970

20

Does the 5-Step Bystander Intervention Model Fit for Bullying and Harassment?This model was developed originally to understand helping in emergencies, but has been applied to helping behavior in contexts such as drunk driving (Rabow et al., 1990), sexual assault prevention (Burn, 2009), and organ donation (Anker & Feeley, 2011)Study Aims (Nickerson, Aloe, Livingston, & Feeley, 2014):Develop and validate measure of bystander intervention in bullying and sexual harassmentAssess extent to which each step of model predicts subsequent step of Latan and Darleys (1970) class bystander intervention modelExamine extent to which each step is associated with related constructs (awareness, empathy, attitudes)

Method562 high school studentsBystander Intervention in Bullying and Sexual Harassment Notice (e.g., I have seen other students being bullied or harassed at my school this year)Interpret (e.g., It is evident to me that someone who is being bullied needs help)Accept responsibility (If I am not the one bullying or harassing others, it is still my responsibility to try to stop it)Know how to help (e.g., I can help get someone out of a situation where he or she is being bullied or harassedImplement decision (e.g., I would say something to a student who is acting mean or disrespectful to a more vulnerable student)Awareness of bullying and sexual harassment facts (adapted from Taylor et al., 2011)Attitudes Toward Bullying and Sexual Harassment (Perkins et al., 2011)Olweus Empathetic Responsiveness Questionnaire

FindingsConfirmatory factor analysis in two nested modelsModel 1: all 16 items of Bystander Intervention as single factor (common factor)Model 2: five-factor structureModel 2 fit better than Model 1 (2 D (10) = 890.55, p