Bystanders and bullying: a reflective examination of college students' experiences

This study examines the individual responses of bystanders to bullying based on situational and personal variables. Using self-report data collected on 935 university students, these variables were used to determine if there was a relationship between the variables and the decision to intervene in a bullying situation for a friend. The results suggested that race, sexual orientation, and direct forms of bullying (physical and cyber bullying) have a relationship between an individual’s choice to intervene in a bullying situation for a friend. The findings failed to support the hypothesis that personal factors such as gender, socio-economic status, and a history of being a bully and/or victim had an effect in the individual choice to intervene. Bystanders and Bullying 3 Bullying can be defined as unprovoked, intentional, longstanding physical or psychological violence conducted by an individual or group directed toward individuals who cannot defend themselves (Kumpulainen, Rasanen, & Henttonen, 1999). Bullying can manifest in either direct or indirect forms. Direct forms of bullying include physical aggression, verbal bullying, teasing, and cyber bullying, while indirect forms include alienation, social isolation, social ostracism, and denial of friendship. Bullying and peer victimization is a prevalent and serious problem for many youths. This subcategory of aggressive behavior is a common experience for children and has been linked to negative outcomes (Hymel, Rocke-Henderson, & Bonanno, 2005). Prior research suggests victims and perpetrators of bullying suffer emotional, psychological, and behavioral effects (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Olweus, 1993), which may result in poor academic performance, health problems, delinquency, and criminality (Hymel et al., 2005). Adolescents, many who are considered to be kind and caring by peers, are witness to these negative effects of bullying and stand idly by. These bystanders act in ways that condone, encourage and maintain bullying, with a number of the adolescents actively engaging in bullying or failing to intervene (Hymel et al., 2005). Since bullying behaviors are typically a group phenomenon, often occur in public places (i.e. schools), and are maintained by the indirect involvement of others (i.e. bystanders); it is critical to examine what factors predict intervention in acts of bullying and why individuals fail to act and remain bystanders (Trach et al., 2010). This analysis will examine (1) what demographic factors played a role in the decision to intervene in Bystanders and Bullying 4 instances of bullying, (2) whether bystanders are more likely to intervene in direct methods of bullying, and (3) whether a past history with bullying as a bully or victim influenced the decision to intervene. Literature Review Many studies have been conducted regarding bullying, which have focused specifically on the victim and the aggressor. The role of the bystander and the influence of a bystander, however, have been seemingly overlooked, and it is imperative that more research be conducted on the issue of bystanders and bullying (Oh & Hazler, 2009). Since the role of the bystander can hinder or encourage bullying, dependent on the response, the bystander is critical in influencing whether and how volatile a situation may become. Role of Bystanders The role of bystanders is a pivotal aspect in understanding bullying and school violence. As bullying is a collective act, influenced by the size and reaction of the audience, bystanders’ reactions are crucial to the prevention or promotion of aggressive behavior (Kanetsuna & Smith, 2002). There have been specific roles of bystanders identified during a situation involving bullying: reinforcer, defender, encourager, and ignorer (Wiens & Dempsey, 2009). These roles, however, tend to disagree with individual bystander’s private beliefs on bullying. Most children, about 80-85%, report that they do not approve of bullying (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001). Research has provided evidence, which suggests that peers intervene in 19% of all bullying episodes, which correlate with other findings suggesting that 17% of peers play the role of the Bystanders and Bullying 5 defender of the victim (Hawkins et al., 2001). Most children witness bullying on many occasions, and the majority of these children identify aggressive bullying behavior as wrong (Rock & Baird, 2011). Regardless, few children intervene and stand up to bullies. Research suggests that failure to intervene during bullying situations may be due to a number of factors including unpleasant and anxious feelings experienced during the bullying situations, or failing to recognize the best way to confront the bully (Rock & Baird, 2011). Since intervention is crucial in the prevention of bullying, it is critical to further understand the motives behind the bystander’s choice as it may conflict with his or her personal beliefs (Poyhonen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012). The presence of bystanders strongly influences the promotion or the prevention of violence. The likelihood of a verbal dispute turning into a violent situation is strongly correlated with the presence of bystanders (Stueve et al., 2006). The aggressor may feel pressure to display power and authority, and if there is no intervention, the acts against the victim are then deemed as acceptable. Hence, the presence of a bystander may serve as a stimulus for continued and increasing aggressive behavior by the bully (Stueve et al., 2006). Bullies are motivated by attaining and maintaining a position of power, and the gathering of peers may foster and encourage the bully’s desire for power (Salmivalli et al., 1996; Salmivalli et al., 2005). The bully’s choice to harass peers of a less powerful position is dependent on the maintenance of perceived status. If peers disapprove or act negatively towards the aggressor in a bullying situation, the rate of bullying should decrease (Karna et al., 2010). Thus, the response of the bystander to the volatile situation, whether remaining passive or active, reinforces the actions of the aggressor. Bystanders and Bullying 6 Research has provided evidence demonstrating that defenders of victims and passive bystanders share some characteristics and differ on others (Pozzoli & Gini, 2012). Both defenders and passive bystanders tend to be low in aggression, are able to avoid harassment for themselves, have average-to-good theory of mind and social skills (Pozzoli & Gini, 2012). Defenders of the victim, however, tend to have higher levels of empathic responsiveness, and experience the moral conflict of the innocent bystander, in which one witnesses another in pain or danger and experiences a moral conflict of intervention (Pozzoli & Gini, 2012). Additionally, bystanders who have experienced prior victimization at the hands of a bully may be more likely to defend another. The extant literature addressing prosocial attitudes toward victims of bullying support this notion those victims are more likely to be supportive of other victims. There is a need for further investigation into student decisions for intervention, especially if those students themselves had once been victims of bullying (Pozzoli et al., 2012). Factors which Influence Bystanders Social norms, social standing, type of bullying, and peer relationships are all factors that are considered in bullying intervention (Oh & Hazler, 2009). Bystanders are strongly influenced by the type of bullying that is witnessed. Many bystanders choose to intervene when direct bullying is observed, such as aggressive physical attacks and verbal abuse (Oh & Hazler, 2009). When bystanders witness multiple forms of bullying, they are less likely to intervene, as this situation may create a concerned feeling of retaliation and greater threats for attacks (Oh & Hazler, 2009). Additionally, cyber bullying is now being used as a forum for the extension of traditional bullying (Jose, Kljakovic, Scheib, Bystanders and Bullying 7 & Notter, 2011), and research indicates that many cyber bullies had a higher level of engagement in other forms of peer aggression (Low & Espelage, 2013). Many bystanders choose to intervene in cyber bullying situations, as the electronic interpersonal dynamic is not as established or robust as face-to-face interactions, creating less risk for the bystander (Jose et al., 2011). In addition, peer relationships and social norms significantly impact the decision of the bystanders. Bystanders are more likely to intervene if they have a close, personal relationship with one of the parties involved or if the victim is one who is deemed to have high social standing (Oh & Hazler, 2009). The establishment of social norms also drives the motivation to intervene in social situations. Many bystanders decide to intervene only if breaking social norms provides more benefits than remaining passive. Bystanders seek to identify and belong to a group, in order to enhance self-esteem. Group membership creates a social identity and provides social rules to follow, which may conflict with personal beliefs. The desire to be included in groups may drive bystanders to not only remain passive in bullying situations, but to encourage or support the bully (Gini, 2006). Individuals who are members of groups not only follow specific rules but also create discriminating social attitudes against those not involved in the group. Many group members consider aggressive behavior acceptable if it is consistent with group rules and directed towards a threat to the