New Approaches to Defender and Outsider Roles in School Bullying

Do classroom relationships moderate the association between peer defending in school bullying and social-emotional adjustment?

Peer defending has been shown to protect bullied peers from further victimization and social-emotional problems. However, research examining defending behavior has demonstrated positive and negative social-emotional adjustment effects for defending students themselves. To explain these mixed findings, researchers have suggested that associations between defending behavior and social-emotional adjustment may be buffered by protective factors (i.e., defender protection hypothesis) or exacerbated by vulnerability or risk factors (i.e., defender vulnerability hypothesis). Consistent with these hypotheses, the present study aimed to investigate whether relationships with teachers and peers would moderate the association between defending behavior and social-emotional adjustment. This three-wave longitudinal study examined the association between peer nominated defending behavior and later self-reported depressive symptoms and self-esteem in 848 Belgian students in Grades 4-6 (53% girls; Mage = 10.61 years, SD = 0.90 at Wave 1). Peer nominated positive and negative teacher-student relationships (i.e., closeness and conflict) and peer relationships (i.e., acceptance and rejection) were included as moderators. Clustered multiple linear regression analyses demonstrated that defending behavior did not predict later depressive symptoms (β = -0.04, p = .80) or self-esteem (β = -0.19, p = .42). The lack of these associations could be explained by the defender protection and vulnerability hypotheses. However, contrary to our expectations, teacher-student closeness and peer acceptance did not play a protective role in the association between defending behavior and social-emotional adjustment (β = -1.48-1.46, p = .24-0.96). In addition, teacher-student conflict and peer rejection did not put defending students at risk for social-emotional maladjustment (β = -1.96-1.57, p = .54-0.97). Thus, relationships with teachers and peers did not moderate the association between defending behavior and later depressive symptoms and self-esteem.

They Are Not All the Same: Defenders of Ethnically Victimized Adolescents

Developing a comprehensive understanding of adolescents' defending behaviors in peer victimization incidents is crucial, as these behaviors are instrumental in preventing victimization in schools. Despite recent efforts to examine various defender subgroups and their characteristics, the heterogeneity in defending behaviors within the context of ethnic victimization remains unclear. To address this gap in knowledge, the current study examined naturally occurring subgroups of defenders in ethnic victimization incidents and investigated whether these subgroups differ in their socio-cognitive skills, class norms, and social status within peer relationships. The sample included adolescents in Sweden (N = 1065; Mage = 13.12, SD = 0.41; 44.5% females). Cluster analysis yielded four distinct subgroups: victim-oriented defenders (41.3%), hybrid defenders (23.5%), bully-oriented defenders (9.8%), and non-defenders (25.4%). Hybrid and victim-oriented defenders had higher levels of perspective taking skills and positive attitudes toward immigrants than non-defenders. All three defender subgroups perceived their classroom climate as more socially cohesive than non-defenders. All four subgroups did not significantly differ in their peer status. These findings emphasize the importance of fostering inclusive class norms and implementing classroom practices that facilitate the development of perspective taking skills among students. Such effort can enhance adolescents' active defending behaviors in instances of ethnic victimization.

Different Ways to Defend Victims of Bullying: Defending Profiles and Their Associations with Adolescents' Victimization Experiences and Depressive Symptoms

Adolescents use various strategies to help their victimized peers during bullying episodes. However, prior research has primarily adopted a variable-centered approach that examines the effect of each defending strategies separately and does not address whether there were different types of defenders who exhibit specific combinations of defending strategies and how these profiles related to youth's adjustment outcomes. Using latent profile analysis, this study identified defending profiles among a sample of Chinese adolescents (N = 1618, Mage = 13.81, SDage = 0.94, 42% girls) and examined whether these profiles differ on victimization experiences and depressive symptoms. The results yielded four defending profiles: nonaggressive defenders (15%), aggressive defenders (7%), average defenders (54%), and infrequent defenders (24%). Aggressive defenders and infrequent defenders exhibited the highest levels of self-reported victimization and depressive symptoms, whereas nonaggressive defenders demonstrated the lowest. There were no statistical profile differences in peer-reported victimization. Findings suggest that investigating the heterogeneity of youth using defending strategies is important for understanding whether defending actually puts youth at increased risk for negative adjustment.

The Contribution of Bullying Involvement and Alexithymia to Somatic Complaints in Preadolescents

Somatic complaints during preadolescence are connected to individual and contextual factors, and extant research highlights the relevance of alexithymia and bullying involvement. In this cross-sectional study, we explored the joint and unique influence of bullying involvement-as perpetrators, victims, or outsiders-and alexithymia on somatic complaints in a sample of 179 Italian middle-school students (aged 11-15). Findings revealed an indirect association between bullying perpetration and victimization complaints through alexithymia. We also found a significant direct association between victimization and somatic complaints. No significant association between outsider behavior and somatization was found. Our results revealed that bullying perpetration and victimization could increase youths' risk for somatic complaints and clarify one of the processes underlying this association. The current findings further emphasize the relevance of emotional awareness for youths' well-being and propose that implementing social-emotional skills might prevent some of the adverse consequences of being involved in bullying episodes.

Teachers Can Make a Difference in Bullying: Effects of Teacher Interventions on Students' Adoption of Bully, Victim, Bully-Victim or Defender Roles across Time

School bullying is a serious problem worldwide, but little is known about how teacher interventions influence the adoption of bullying-related student roles. This study surveyed 750 early adolescents (50.5% female; average age: 12.9 years, SD = 0.4) from 39 classrooms in two waves, six months apart. Peer ratings of classmates were used to categorize students to five different bullying-related roles (criterion: >1 SD): bully, victim, bully-victim, defender, and non-participant. Student ratings of teachers were used to obtain class-level measures of teacher interventions: non-intervention, disciplinary sanctions, group discussion, and mediation/victim support. Controlling for student- and class-level background variables, two multilevel multinomial logistic regression analyses were computed to predict students’ bullying-related roles at wave 2. In the static model, predictors were teacher interventions at wave 1, and in the dynamic model, predictors were teacher intervention changes across time. The static model showed that disciplinary sanctions reduced the likelihood of being a bully or victim, and group discussion raised the likelihood of being a defender. Mediation/victim support raised the likelihood of being a bully. The dynamic model complemented these results by indicating that increases in group discussion across time raised the likelihood of being a defender, whereas increases in non-intervention across time raised the likelihood of being a victim and reduced the likelihood of being a defender. These results show that teacher interventions have distinct effects on students’ adoption of bullying-related roles and could help to better target intervention strategies. The findings carry practical implications for the professional training of prospective and current teachers.

The effectiveness of moral disengagement and social norms as anti-bullying components: A randomized controlled trial

This three-armed randomized controlled trial examined how moral disengagement and social norms account for change in bullying behavior and their potential as targets of anti-bullying components within separate interventions among 1200 French-speaking Belgian elementary students (48% boys, 9-12 year-olds, 57 classes, nine schools) during 2018-2019 (no ethnicity data available). Mediation analysis revealed that students' moral disengagement successfully decreased (β = -.46), which, in turn, reduced both bullying (β = .33) and outsider behaviors (β = .20), and increased defending (β = -.10). Intervening on social norms decreased bullying (β = -.18), but not through the perceived injunctive class norm as intended. Guidelines to open the "black box" of anti-bullying programs and determine the cost-effectiveness ratio of their components are provided.

The Healthy Context Paradox: When Reducing Bullying comes at a Cost to Certain Victims

Bullying remains one of the most serious problems affecting school systems around the world. The negative consequences of bullying in the short and long term have been widely documented, showing that victimized students are at greater risk of suffering psychosocial distress. In this paper, we first summarize the current situation of bullying prevention, adopting a contextual perspective, and briefly highlighting the characteristics of the most effective prevention programs. Secondly, we address a disturbing phenomenon detected in classrooms where bullying has been reduced through interventions and which has been termed “the healthy context paradox”. In these healthier contexts, students who remain in a situation of victimization have been found to present poorer psychological adjustment after the intervention. Understanding the causes of this phenomenon may offer clues for the prevention of bullying. In this regard, we present three hypotheses recently proposed to explain the phenomenon. Finally, we offer some implications for the study and prevention of bullying derived from “the healthy context paradox”.

Examining the Potential Mental Health Costs of Defending Victims of Bullying: a Longitudinal Analysis

It has been speculated that defending victims of bullying is stressful for youth, and may contribute to poor mental health among those who regularly intervene to defend their victimized peers. However, the extant literature is thus far primarily limited to correlational, single-informant studies. The current study examined the concurrent and prospective mental health costs (e.g., social anxiety, depressive symptoms) of peer-reported defending among 4085 youth (43.9% boys; M_age = 14.56, SD = 0.75). Moreover, we examined two potential moderators (victimization and popularity) of the association between defending and internalizing problems. Analyses revealed that there was no evidence of a direct, positive relationship between defending and internalizing symptoms. However, a positive, concurrent association was found between defending and social anxiety, but only among youth who reported that they were also victims – the association was negative among non-victimized youth. In addition, both peer-reported victimization and social status were found to moderate the longitudinal relationship between defending and later symptoms of depression. Specifically, among low-status highly victimized youth, defending was associated with an increased risk of experiencing symptoms of depression, whereas high-status youth who were rarely seen as victims reported decreased symptoms of depression at T2 if they also had a reputation for defending others. The findings suggest that defending others is likely not a risk factor for youth who are not already vulnerable and/or have the protection of high status, and may actually have a protective effect for these youth.

Navigating the Healthy Context Paradox: Identifying Classroom Characteristics that Improve the Psychological Adjustment of Bullying Victims

The healthy context paradox—an unexpected pattern in which victims’ psychological adjustment worsens as the overall level of victimization in a classroom or school declines—implies that reducing the frequency of bullying or victimization incidents does not do enough to help victims of bullying. In light of this finding, it is imperative to identify protective factors that alleviate victimization-related distress in the peer ecology. The current study examines classroom-level peer victimization and peer-defending behaviors as moderators of the association between individual-level victimization and psychological adjustment. These classroom-level moderators were tested with a sample of 1373 adolescents (40% girls, M_age: 14 years) from 54 classrooms in South Korean middle schools. Consistent with past findings documenting the healthy context paradox, the results of multilevel modeling indicated that victimized youth experienced a lower level of depressive symptoms in classrooms where victimization was more common. Most importantly, bullied students reported fewer depressive symptoms, on average, in classrooms with relatively high levels of bully-oriented (i.e., confronting the bully), rather than victim-oriented (i.e., comforting the victim), defending behavior. These findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the role of peers’ defending behaviors toward bullied adolescents and have significant implications for anti-bullying interventions.