Wise Intervention for Reducing Aggressive Behaviors and Promoting Prosocial Behaviors Toward LGB-TNB Individuals
Phase: NA
Conditions: Aggression, Adolescence
Sponsor: University of Deusto

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wise Intervention for the Reduction of Aggressive Behaviors and the Promotion of 
Prosocial Behaviors toward LGB-TNB People 
Project 
September 25, 2025 
 
 
University of Deusto. Bilbao. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Wise Intervention for the Reduction of Aggressive Behaviors and the Promotion of 
Prosocial Behaviors toward LGB-TNB People 
Justification for the Project 
Despite the growing visibility, public awareness, and recognition of the rights of lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, trans, and non-binary (LGB-TNB) people, discrimination based on sexual 
orientation and gender identity continues to be a highly relevant social problem (Nogueira et al., 
2022). In the past year, 20.3% of participants reported having experienced harassment, 22.9% 
discrimination, and 6.8% physical or sexual assaults (FELGTBI+, 2024). This indicates that 
greater exposure and recognition of the problem does not guarantee an effective reduction in 
discrimination and violence. Moreover, all these types of violence are associated with numerous 
social and mental health problems among LGB-TNB individuals during adolescence (e.g., 
Almeida et al., 2009; Guz et al., 2021; Lozano-Blasco & Soto-Sánchez, 2022), and they may 
persist into adulthood (Wang et al., 2018). This reality highlights the need to implement effective 
interventions aimed at addressing these aggressive behaviors and the mechanisms that sustain 
them. In this regard, numerous interventions have been carried out in school settings, but meta-
analytical studies indicate that the effectiveness of universal preventive interventions with 
adolescents is very limited. 
Why Do Interventions Targeted at Adolescents Fail? 
Some characteristics of adolescence may cause traditional interventions to fail. Compared 
to children, adolescents are more sensitive to being respected and having their status and autonomy 
recognized (Yeager et al., 2018). Therefore, if adolescents perceive that adults are trying to 
manipulate them or impose behavior patterns in such a way that their autonomy is threatened, they 
will often resist. 
Wise Interventions to Prevent Aggressive Behaviors among Peers 
Wise interventions involve a set of rigorous techniques, grounded in theory and research, 
that address specific psychological processes to help individuals thrive in diverse life settings (see 
Walton & Wilson, 2018, for a review). In recent years, a proliferation of intelligent interventions 
has addressed countless social and personal problems with striking results. These are very brief 
interventions that lead to long-lasting changes in people’s behavior (Calvete et al., 2021; Miu & 
Yeager, 2015). In fact, the results obtained with this type of intervention in adolescent behaviors 
are highly promising (Calvete et al., 2021; Calvete et al., 2023; Fernández-González et al., 2020; 
Miu & Yeager, 2015; Yeager et al., 2013). 
 

 
 
Objectives of the Project  
 
The aim of this project is to adapt an intelligent intervention to the LGB-TNB context. 
In addition, its effectiveness will be evaluated, primarily aimed at (1) reducing online and offline 
aggression among adolescents, especially based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and (2) 
increasing the intention to support and prosocial behaviors when participants witness such 
aggression, particularly that directed at LGB-TNB individuals. As a secondary objective, (3) age 
will be evaluated as a possible moderating variable of the intervention’s effectiveness. 
Methodology 
Participants: The participants will be students from 9th grade to 12th grade, aged between 14 
and 18 years. The final sample will consist of approximately 1,000 adolescents (500 in each 
group). Inclusion criteria include adequate reading comprehension and both parental and self-
informed consent. 
 
Design and Procedure: A randomized controlled trial with two groups will be used. 
Randomization will be done by clusters, using the classroom as the unit. First, the schools will be 
selected according to their characteristics. Then, half of the participants will be randomly assigned 
to the experimental condition (condition 1) and the other half to the control condition (condition 
2). Participants will complete an online assessment protocol using Qualtrics, which will be 
composed of different questionnaires at five time points: (1) pretest (one week before the 
intervention), (2) immediate-posttest (immediately after the intervention), (3) a three-month 
follow-up, (4) a six-month follow-up, and (5) a nine-month follow-up. The study has the approval 
of the Ethics Committee of the University of Deusto. The trial will be registered on 
ClinicalTrials.gov. 
 
Interventions: Two intervention models will be used, both of similar duration (approximately 1 
hour), so that the experimental intervention will be compared with a parallel control intervention. 
1. WISE Intervention LGB-TNB: This intervention will be designed to reduce aggressive 
behaviors based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to promote prosocial 
behaviors toward these individuals. The intervention will include three components: (1) 
reading scientific studies on people’s capacity for change. In addition, they will read other 
studies on how thoughts and emotions influence behavior through brain pathways, and 
how these pathways can be modified under certain circumstances; (2) reading testimonies 
that support the idea that people can change. These testimonies include accounts from 

 
 
victims or perpetrators based on sexual orientation and gender identity, incorporating 
important components of empathy and prosocial behaviors toward victims. To enhance 
credibility, participants will be informed that these accounts were written by other young 
people who had previously participated; and (3) self-persuasion exercises that involve an 
active commitment to change. 
2. Value Alignment Intervention: This intervention will be based on the same change 
strategies as the experimental intervention but will not address aspects related to prosocial 
or aggressive behaviors toward LGB-TNB individuals. Instead, it will be applied to 
improve adolescents’ eating habits. 
Instruments 
The target variables of this study will be measured using self-report questionnaires 
completed online through the Qualtrics® platform: 
Offline and Online Perpetration. Perpetration, both offline and online, among peers will be 
measured. On the one hand, offline perpetration will be assessed using the Spanish adaptation of 
seven items (Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2016) from the European Bullying Intervention Project 
Questionnaire (Brighi et al., 2012). For this study, six items will be used, rated on a 5-point Likert 
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (more than once a week) (e.g., “How often have you stolen or 
damaged someone’s belongings?”). On the other hand, online perpetration will be assessed by 
adapting items from the cyberbullying questionnaire (Calvete et al., 2010; Gámez-Guadix et al., 
2014). Although the original questionnaire evaluates the frequency of online perpetration with nine 
items, for this project five items will be used (e.g., “How often have you intentionally excluded 
someone from a social media group [Instagram, WhatsApp groups, TikTok]?”). These questions 
will be answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost every week). 
Beliefs and Attitudes. Beliefs and attitudes toward LGB-TNB individuals based on their 
sexual orientation and gender identity will be assessed. Negative attitudes related to sexual 
orientation will be measured using the adaptation of the Negative Attitudes Toward Gay Men 
questionnaire (Davies, 2004), specifically the Affective Reaction subscale. Although the original 
scale only assesses attitudes toward male homosexuality, in this study, attitudes toward both gay 
men and lesbian women will be evaluated. These will be measured with 10 items that will be 
rewritten in a positive way to avoid revictimization of any LGB participant in the study (e.g., 
“Homosexual behavior is morally acceptable”). Beliefs about gender identity will be assessed 
using the adaptation of the Transphobia Scale (Nagoshi et al., 2008), composed of 12 items. In 
this case, the items will also be rewritten positively to avoid revictimization of any TNB participant 
in the study (e.g., “A person’s genitals do not define their gender”). Both questionnaires will be 

 
 
evaluated using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). 
Affirming Support Behaviors toward LGB-TNB People. To assess actions and practices 
that support LGB-TNB individuals, the LGBT-Affirming Behavior questionnaire by Poteat (2015) 
will be used. These behaviors will be assessed with five items (e.g., “I participated in some act of 
advocacy for LGB-TNB people”), answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (0 times) to 
5 (7 or more times). 
LGB-TNB Microaggressions. Microaggressions toward LGB-TNB people based on their 
sexual orientation and gender identity will be assessed. Microaggressions related to sexual 
orientation will be measured using the 20 items of the Sexual Orientation Microaggression Scale 
(SOMS-P; Botor & Tuliao, 2025) (e.g., “I have used the term ‘that’s so gay’ when talking about 
something negative”). This questionnaire consists of four subscales: (1) Identity Invalidation, (2) 
Assumption of Pathology, (3) Heterosexist Language, and (4) Enforcement of the Binary Gender 
Role. On the other hand, gender identity–based microaggressions will be assessed using the 
Gender Identity Microaggression Scale (GIMS-P; Botor & Tuliao, 2025) (e.g., “I have been 
unfriendly to someone because they dressed in a way that does not conform to the gender norms 
expected of them”). This questionnaire consists of five subscales, but for this project participants 
will respond to five items corresponding to two subscales: (1) Behavioral Discomfort, and (2) 
Denial of Social Transphobia. For this project, the wording of items from both questionnaires will 
be adapted to be more understandable for adolescents. In addition, although the response scale in 
the original versions evaluates the occurrence of microaggressions (0 = No, 1 = Yes), in this study 
a 5-point Likert scale will be used, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost every week). 
Offline and Online Aggression toward LGB-TNB People. Offline aggression and 
discrimination behaviors based on sexual orientation and gender identity will be assessed using 
the Spanish version (Orue et al., 2018) of the Homophobic Bullying Scale (Prati, 2012). The scale 
will be adapted to capture aggressive behavior based on sexual orientation and gender identity 
(e.g., “You spread negative rumors/gossip about a trans or non-binary person”). On the other hand, 
online aggression and discrimination behaviors will be assessed using eight items from the 
subscales Sexual Orientation–Based Violence Perpetration and Gender Identity–Based Violence 
Perpetration of the Technology-Facilitated Gender- and Sexuality-Based Violence Questionnaire 
(TFGSV; Martínez-Bacaicoa et al., 2023) (e.g., “You insulted someone for being gay, bisexual, or 
non-heterosexual”). Both questionnaires will be answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 
1 (never) to 5 (daily). 
Sensitivity to Justice. Sensitivity to unjust situations will be assessed using 10 items from 
the Observer Sensitivity subscale of the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (Schmitt et al., 2010) (e.g., “I 

 
 
brood for a long time when someone is treated better than others for no reason”). Items will be 
answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 
The variables described below will be measured using some initial scenarios. 
Bystander Intention. The intention of different courses of action will be evaluated when 
participants witness aggressive behaviour based on sexual orientation and gender identity. To do 
this, a measure previously developed by the research team and used in previous projects will be 
employed. After reading each scene, participants will respond to five items in which they will rate 
different ways of reacting to aggression on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 
(strongly agree). The items to be answered are as follows: (1) I would tell those doing it that it's 
not funny and to stop, (2) I would show support or give advice to the person being bullied, (3) I 
would tell an adult what is happening, (4) I would join in with the comments they are making, and 
(5) If I saw a similar situation on social media, I would forward those photos, messages, videos, 
etc.  
Moral Disengagement. To measure moral disengagement, participants will read the 
scenarios and respond to eight items for each scenario that represent the eight mechanisms that 
allow people to morally disengage (Bandura, 2016). As in previous research with similar 
characteristics (Martínez-Bacaicoa et al., 2024), the items will be adapted to fit the context of each 
scenario (e.g., “Gay people deserve to receive comments like this” or “Trans people deserve to 
receive comments like this”). Responses will be collected using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 
Exposure to LGB-TNB Aggressions. Exposure to LGB-TNB aggressions will be assessed 
through two questions about experiences as a witness of situations similar to those described in 
the scenarios, either in face-to-face or digital contexts. The questions will specifically address 
exposure to LGB aggressions on the one hand, and TNB aggressions on the other: “Have you ever 
witnessed a situation like this in which you hear offensive comments about trans or non-binary 
people, either in person or through social media?” and “Have you ever witnessed a situation like 
this in which you hear offensive comments about homosexual people, either in person or through 
social media?” Participants will be asked to select one of the following response options: “Yes, 
and I reacted in some way (e.g., defended, showed support, sought an adult, joined the negative 
comments, forwarded the content),” “Yes, but I did nothing,” or “No, I have never witnessed 
something like this.” 

 
 
Prosocial Behavior. Participants who report having been exposed and having reacted will 
complete an additional item to assess prosocial behavior, where they must select all the 
behaviors they carried out from the following: (1) I defended the person who was being targeted, 
(2) I showed support to the person who was being targeted after the incident, (3) I told an adult, 
(4) I joined in the comments or also laughed, (5) I forwarded or shared related content on social 
media. In addition, an open-response option will be included. 
Healthy and Unhealthy Food Intake. The intake of healthy and unhealthy foods will be 
assessed using the Spanish adaptation of the KIDMED 2.0 questionnaire, validated in a sample of 
Spanish children and adolescents (López-Gajardo et al., 2022). This scale consists of 16 items 
(e.g., “I eat 1–2 servings of fruit per day,” “I drink commercial sugary soft drinks, commercial 
juices, and/or milkshakes once or more per week”). Although the response scale of the original 
version is dichotomous (0 = No, 1 = Yes), in this project a 5-point Likert scale will be used, ranging 
from 1 (never) to 5 (always). 
Alignment of Healthy Eating Habits. The alignment between healthy eating habits and 
participants’ values will be assessed using seven items developed by Bryan et al. (2019). 
Specifically, the perception of healthy eating will be evaluated from two perspectives: four items 
to assess issues related to promoting social justice (e.g., “When I choose to eat healthy, I am 
helping to make the world a better place”) and three items to assess the expression of autonomy 
and independence (e.g., “When I eat healthy, I feel that I am taking control of my food choices”). 
The seven items will be answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 
5 (strongly agree). 
Statistical Analyses 
We will use several statistical analysis strategies, including Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) 
with HLM 7.03, using the FIML estimation method. At Level 1, the repeated measures of the 
dependent variables will be included (on the one hand, offline and online perpetration, LGB-TNB 
beliefs and attitudes, and offline and online microaggressions and aggressions toward LGB-TNB 
people; and, on the other hand, prosocial behaviors, sensitivity to justice, and bystander helping 
intention). At Level 2, the experimental condition and educational level (using dummy variables), 
as well as the interaction term between experimental condition and this variable, will be included. 
At Level 3, the average level of aggressive behaviors and prosocial behaviors in the classroom 
where the participant is located will be included. 
 

 
 
Timeline 
Year 1 
Year 2 
Quarter 
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 
Submission of the report and application 
to the UD Ethics Committee 
Approval obtained from the UD Ethics 
Committee 
Intervention design 
Contact 
with 
schools 
and 
obtaining 
permissions 
Fieldwork (implementation of assessment 
protocols and interventions) 
Drafting of the first progress report 
Data analysis 
Drafting of the second progress report 
Drafting of scientific manuscripts 
Diffusion 
Drafting of the final scientific and financial 
reports 
Q = Quarter. Q1: September to November; Q2: December to February; Q3: March to May; 
Q4: June to August 
 
 

 
 
References 
Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M., Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional distress 
among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual 
orientation. Journal 
of 
Youth 
and 
Adolescence, 38, 
1001-1014. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9397-9 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves. 
New York: Macmillan.  
Botor, N. J. B., & Tuliao, A. P. (2025). Measuring propensity to perpetrate microaggressions 
toward LGBTQ individuals: Sexual orientation microaggression scale (SOMS-P) and 
gender identity microaggression scale (GIMS-P) perpetration version. Journal of 
Homosexuality, 72(8) 1507–1533. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2381525 
Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Pyzalski, J., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P. K., Tsormpatzoudis, C., Barkoukis, 
V. y Thompson, J. (2012). European bullying intervention Project questionnaire (EBIPQ). 
Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority Stress and Lesbian Women. Lexington 
Bryan, C. J., Yeager, D. S., & Hinojosa, C. P. (2019). A values-alignment intervention protects 
adolescents from the effects of food marketing. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(6), 596-603. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0586-6 
Calvete, E., Cortazar, N., Fernández-González, L., Echezarraga, A., Beranuy, M., León, A., 
González-Cabrera, J., & Orue, I. (2021). Effects of a brief preventive intervention in 
cyberbullying and grooming in adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 30(2), 75-84. 
https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2020a22 
Calvete, E., Fernández-González, L., & Orue, I. (2023). A growth mindset and self-affirmation 
intervention to reduce violent and risky online behaviors: The moderating role of previous 
victimization. Journal 
of 
Interpersonal 
Violence, 38(7-8), 
5875-5901. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221127221 
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estévez, A., Villardón, L., & Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: 
Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1128‐1135. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017 
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Fernández-González, L., & Prieto-Fidalgo, A. (2019). Effects of an 
incremental theory of personality intervention on the reciprocity between bullying and 
cyberbullying victimization and perpetration in adolescents. PLoS One, 14(11), e0224755. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224755 

 
 
Dahl, R. E., Allen, N. B., Wilbrecht, L., & Suleiman, A. B. (2018). Importance of investing in 
adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature, 554(7693), 441-450. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25770 
Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and 
male 
sexuality. 
Journal 
of 
Sex 
Research, 
41(3), 
259–266. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552233  
Domínguez-Martínez, T., Rebeca, R. G., Fresán, A., Cruz, J., Vega, H., & Reed, G. M. (2023). 
Factores de riesgo de violencia en personas transgénero: Un estudio retrospectivo de 
experiencias durante la adolescencia. Psicología y Sexualidad, 14 (4), 659–675. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1802772 
FELGTBI+. (2024). Informe sobre delitos de odio y discriminación LGTBI+ 2024. Federación 
Estatal LGTBI+.  
Fernández-González, L., Calvete, E., & Sánchez-Álvarez, N. (2020). Efficacy of a brief 
intervention based on an incremental theory of personality in the prevention of 
adolescent dating violence: A randomized controlled trial. Psychosocial Intervention, 
29(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2019a14 
Gámez‐Guadix, M., Villa‐George, F., & Calvete, E. (2014). Psychometric properties of the 
Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CBQ) among Mexican adolescents. Violence and Victims, 
29(2), 232‐247. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886‐6708.VV‐D‐12‐00163R1 
Guz, S., Kattari, S. K., Atteberry-Ash, B., Klemmer, C. L., Call, J., & Kattari, L. (2021). 
Depression and suicide risk at the cross-section of sexual orientation and gender identity 
for 
youth. Journal 
of 
Adolescent 
Health, 68(2), 
317-323. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.06.008 
López-Gajardo, M. A., Leo, F. M., Sánchez-Miguel, P. A., López-Gajardo, D., Soulas, C., & 
Tapia-Serrano, M. A. (2022). KIDMED 2.0, An update of the KIDMED questionnaire: 
Evaluation of the psychometric properties in youth. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, 945721. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.945721 
Lozano-Blasco, R., & Soto-Sánchez, A. (2022). Violencia virtual contra el colectivo LGBTIQ+: 
Una 
revisión 
sistemática. En-claves 
del 
Pensamiento, 16(31). 
https://doi.org/10.46530/ecdp.v0i31.498  
Martínez-Bacaicoa, J., Alonso-Fernández, M., Wachs, S., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2023). 
Prevalence and motivations for technology-facilitated gender-and sexuality-based violence 
among 
adults: 
A 
mixed-methods 
study. Sex 
Roles, 89(11), 
670-684. 
84 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01412-7 

 
 
Martínez-Bacaicoa, J., Real-Brioso, N., Mateos-Pérez, E., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2024). The role 
of gender and sexism in the moral disengagement mechanisms of technology-facilitated 
sexual 
violence. Computers 
in 
Human 
Behavior, 152, 
108060. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108060 
Miu, A. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Preventing symptoms of depression by teaching adolescents 
that people can change: Effects of a brief incremental theory of personality intervention at 
9‐month 
follow‐up. 
Clinical 
Psychological 
Science, 
3(5), 
726‐743. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614548317 
Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008). 
Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521-531. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7 
Nogueira, M., Gaspar, M., & Gomes, S. (2022). Rising against LGBT taboos through 
communication and social marketing strategies: Using web TV series to challenge 
discriminatory behavior. En D. R. R. Fernandes (Ed.), Handbook of research on 
communication 
strategies 
for 
taboo 
topics 
(pp. 
153-176). 
IGI 
Global. 
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9125-3.ch008 
Ortega-Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R. y Casas, J. A. (2016). Evaluar el bullying y el cyberbullying 
validación española del EBIP-Q y del ECIP-Q. Psicología Educativa, 22(1), 71-79. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.01.004   
Orue, I., Calvete, E. y Fernández-González, L. (2018). Adaptación de la" escala de acoso escolar 
homofóbico" y magnitud del problema en adolescentes españoles. Behavioral 
Psychology/Psicologia Conductual, 26(3), 437-455. 
Orue, I., Fernández-González, L., Machimbarrena, J. M., González-Cabrera, J., & Calvete, E. 
(2023). Bidirectional relationships between cyberbystanders’ roles, cyberbullying 
perpetration, 
and 
justification 
of 
violence. Youth 
& 
Society, 55(4), 
611-629. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X211053 
Poteat, V. P. (2015). Individual psychological factors and complex interpersonal conditions that 
predict LGBT-affirming behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(8), 1494–1507. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0257-5 
Prati, G. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the homophobic bullying 
scale. Educational 
and 
Psychological 
Measurement, 72(4), 
649-664. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412440169  
Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: 
Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and 

 
 
normative data. Social Justice Research, 23, 211-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-
010-0115-2 
Testa, R. J., Habarth, J., Peta, J., Balsam, K. y Bockting, W. (2015). Development of the Gender 
Minority Stress and Resilience Measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender 
Diversity, 2(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000081   
Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions 
in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73‐82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413512856 
Walton, G. M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and 
personal 
problems. 
Psychological 
Review, 
125, 
617‐655. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115 
Wang, C. C., Lin, H. C., Chen, M. H., Ko, N. Y., Chang, Y. P., Lin, I. M., & Yen, C. F. (2018). 
Effects of traditional and cyber homophobic bullying in childhood on depression, anxiety, 
and physical pain in emerging adulthood and the moderating effects of social support 
among gay and bisexual men in Taiwan. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 14, 
1309-1317. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S164579 
Yeager, D. S., Dahl, R. E., & Dweck, C. S. (2018). Why interventions to influence adolescent 
behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 101‐
122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617722620 
Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. 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. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005 
Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). An implicit theories of personality 
intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion. 
Child Development, 84(3), 970‐988. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12003