Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence

Trait anxiety and bystander motivation to defend victims of school

T
bullying
Tomas Jungert∗, Sean Perrin
Lund University, Box 213, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Introduction: School-based bullying is an omnipresent problem, but is less frequent when by-
School bullying standers are inclined to defend victims. This makes it important to focus on motivation to in-
Bystanders tervene in bullying.
Prosocial motivation Methods: 202 students (Mage = 16.44 years, 52% boys) from public Swedish high schools par-
Trait anxiety
ticipated in a vignette experiment. Students were randomized to one of two vignettes (victim
Ingroup
belonging to/not belonging to ingroup). Self-report measures of motivation to defend and trait
anxiety were used.
Results: Participants reported more autonomous motivation when the victim belonged to the
ingroup and more extrinsic motivation when the victim did not belong to the ingroup. Trait
anxiety interacted with the manipulation: bystanders high in anxiety reported low levels of au-
tonomous motivation when the victim did not belong to the ingroup and low levels of extrinsic
motivation when the victim belonged to the ingroup.
Conclusions: Findings suggest that anti-bullying-programs should focus on how defender moti-
vation is influenced by the way in which victim ingroup status is perceived and address the
bystander's level of anxiety as this interacts with such perceptions.

1. Introduction

School-based bullying is an omnipresent problem throughout the world with mean prevalence rates of 35% (Modecki, Minchin,
Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014) and significant societal and health impacts (Harel-Fisch et al., 2011). Victimization by bullying
is associated with a host of problems developing during childhood and later in life, including: lower levels of academic achievement
and self-esteem; and higher levels of anxiety, depression, suicidal attempts, and substance use/abuse (Barzilay et al., 2017; Bjereld,
Daneback, & Petzold, 2015; Klomek et al., 2013; Landstedt & Persson, 2014; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010). School
bullying incidents often have many witnesses (Salmivalli, 2010) and are more frequent in school settings where bystanders reinforce
bullying and less frequent when bystanders are more inclined to defend the victims (Nocentini, Menesini, & Salmivalli, 2013). This
observation makes it highly important to focus on what motivates children and adolescents to intervene in school bullying incidents.
Several theoretical approaches have highlighted various motivational influences on the occurrence of prosocial behaviors, in-
cluding (but not limited to) empathy, introversion/extraversion, and self-efficacy (Cialdini et al., 1987; Clary et al., 1998; Grube &
Piliavin, 2000). As applied to the bystander effect, studies have found that bystanders are more willing to intervene to defend the
bully when the bystander is high in empathy, extraversion, and defender self-efficacy (Freis & Gurung, 2013; Pöyhönen, Juvonen, &
Salmivalli, 2010). It has also been argued, based partly on evidence, that the bystander effect (inaction to assist a victim) may be

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tomas.jungert@psy.lu.se (T. Jungert).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.10.001
Received 9 April 2019; Received in revised form 29 September 2019; Accepted 1 October 2019
0140-1971/ © 2019 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

viewed as a fear-driven “freezing” or avoidance response, that is triggered by high levels of personal distress when other bystanders
are present (Hortensius & de Gelder, 2018). However, these theories are drawn from studies carried out almost exclusively with
adults, and their applicability to adolescents, particularly in relation to bystander behaviour in bullying situations warrants further
investigation.
Researchers have begun to examine the bystander effect with children in school bullying situations (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017;
Machackova, Dedkova, & Mezulanikova, 2015). Bystanders are usually unmotivated to intervene if they do not know the victim, have
low defender self-efficacy, fear being bullied themselves, and are morally disengaged from the bullying (Latané & Darley, 1970;
Thornberg & Jungert, 2014; Van Cleemput, Vandebosch, & Pabian, 2014), but these studies have been cross-sectional studies that
have not investigated the role of the bystander's anxiety. An exception is (Plötner, Over, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2015), who in an
experimental setting found that young children showed the bystander effect in helping situations, but they did not explore school
bullying situations.
As noted above, the level of fear experienced by adults while witnessing another person at risk of injury/harm is likely a con-
tributing factor to the bystander effect (Fischer et al., 2011; Hortensius & de Gelder, 2018). However, research on the motivational
underpinnings of bystander behaviour have generally failed to take account of the role that trait anxiety may play in the individual's
willingness to intervene. This is important because it has been empirically demonstrated that individuals (both children and adults)
who are higher in trait anxiety are more likely to perceive ambiguous situations as threatening, and to catastrophize situations
involving threat, and in both instances, are more likely to respond with avoidance (Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, & Van Ijzendoorn, 2007).
Understanding the impact of situational factors and trait anxiety on pro-social motivation in the context of school bullying is of both
theoretical and practical importance. Theories of prosocial motivation and the bystander effect are derived from research carried out
almost exclusively with adults; applicability to adolescents remain under-investigated. On a practical level, there is a growing body of
evidence that school-based, bullying prevention programs yield relatively small reductions in the frequency of bullying relative to
existing school policies and no intervention (Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014; Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2015; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017). These
small effects are found even in programs that involve interventions aimed at increasing empathy for victims and encouraging children to
intervene to assist victims of bullying (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012). It is important to note that there is no consensus in the
prevention literature as to the content of interventions aimed at bystander behaviour or whether they should be based on general
principles or an assessment of an individual child's experience of bullying, motivation, or levels of anxiety (Polanin et al., 2012).
Research that helps to identify the factors that influence a child's motivation to intervene in bullying situations may help inform the
development of more effective bystander-interventions and improve the overall efficacy of bullying prevention programs. The aim of
this study was to investigate the relationship between characteristics of the bullying situation (ingroup-status of the victim, i.e. whether
the victim belongs to the bystander's ingroup), the bystander's level of trait anxiety, and their motivation to defend the victim in an
experimental design. To our knowledge, this is the first such study to examine these relationships in adolescents.

1.1. Self-determined motivation to defend

Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017) has recently been used to explain children's motivation to defend victims of
bullying (Jungert, Piroddi, & Thornberg, 2016). SDT emphasizes two broad forms of motivation representing two ends on a continuum
of self-volition, which extends from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation. Four types of regulation are situated between these two end points;
integrated regulation (the most complete form of internalization), identification (when a behaviour is regulated by accepting its un-
derlying value), introjected regulation (involves the person's ego and the emergence of pride or guilt), and external regulation (the
classic case where behaviour is controlled by external contingencies). In SDT, integrated and identified regulations are considered
autonomous motivation, while introjected and external regulations are controlled motivation. Research in school bullying has found
that defending might also be intrinsically motivated by internal factors such as empathy (Thornberg et al., 2012), internalized moral
standards (Bellmore, Ma, You, & Hughes, 2012), sense of responsibility (Forsberg et al., 2018), or a perception that helping is simply
consistent with the sort of person they are (Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Moreover, warm student–teacher relationships have been positively
associated with both intrinsic motivation to defend victims and taking the role as a defender of victims (Jungert et al., 2016). It has also
been found that children may be motivated by extrinsic factors such as teacher approval (Thornberg et al., 2012), or gaining or
maintaining friendship with the victim (Bellmore et al., 2012; Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Several studies have found that low levels of
defender self-efficacy among children and adolescents are associated with being a passive bystander (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013;
Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017). The witnesses may also remain passive if they are extrinsically motivated by enjoy-
ment of the event (Rigby & Johnson, 2006) or because of self-protection (Bellmore et al., 2012). Another important motivational factor
to consider in the bystander effect is the level of danger that the witness perceives the victim is exposed to, and themselves if they choose
to intervene to defend the victim. Defending a bully victim can involve significant personal physical or social risk to the defender
(Dovidio & Gaertner, 2006). However, the most commonly occurring incidents of school bullying consist of attacks that appear to be
relatively minor (i.e., involve low levels of actual dangerousness) (Rivers & Smith, 1994; Salmivalli, 2010). In the cost-reward model
(Dovidio, 1991), it is assumed that when a person witnesses a victim exposed to an unambiguously dangerous threat, this triggers high
levels of arousal in the bystander, which in turn fosters the identification and attribution of a “real emergency” where one should help,
with helping relieving or reducing the sense of arousal (Fischer et al., 2011). If this model is correct, the low level of dangerousness may
partly explain why the bystander effect is unusual in school bullying (Song & Oh, 2017).
By way of contrast, Hortensius and de Gelder (2018) argue that bystander apathy (passivity) is at its core, a reflexive avoidance
response, triggered by a heightened sense of personal distress; that is in turn dependent upon situational factors (particularly the

2
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

presence of bystanders) and dispositional factors of an emotional nature. Trait anxiety is a dispositional, emotional factor char-
acterized by increased heart rate reactivity to novel stimuli, a tendency to either misinterpret ambiguous cues as ‘threatening’, and/or
to focus on and ‘catastrophize’ the most threatening or dangerous elements of a situation, and to avoid or escape from threatening
situations (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Garfinkel et al., 2014). From this perspective, an individual high in trait anxiety might have
difficulty assessing the actual level of danger involved in a school bullying incident, perceive it as highly threatening, and in contrast
to the cost-reward model, refrain from intervening. However, trait anxiety has largely gone unexamined in relation to the bystander
effect, including in school bullying situations. A study by (Wu, Luu, & Luh, 2016) provides some evidence of the relation between
mental health, including anxiety, and willingness to defend a victim of bullying. They found that students with higher levels of social
anxiety indicated a greater willingness to defend victims when they were a bystander to an incident of bullying. Depression was
unrelated to defending behaviour.
It is important to note that with few exceptions, studies on the bystander effect mostly involve adults and rarely relate to school
bullying. One exception is Machackova et al. (2015), who found that adolescent bystanders provided more support to cyberbully
victims when they were the sole witnesses than when there were more witnesses, which is in line with previous findings on the
bystander effect (Fischer et al., 2011). In addition, two recent exceptions are Barhight, Hubbard, Grassetti, and Morrow (2017) where
the results indicated that children felt a reduced sense of responsibility to help victims if they believed their classmates were not
willing to help and Jenkins and Nickerson (2017) who found that early adolescents who reported defending others were more likely
to interpret bullying situations as an emergency. However, all of these studies investigated the bystander effect of children in bullying
in cross-sectional studies, and none of them explored the role of the children's level of anxiety. More research on the factors that
influence the behaviour of children and adolescent when exposed to situations involving bullying is warranted, not least because of
the frequency with which children and adolescents are exposed to bullying and the relatively weak effects found for school-based
bullying prevention programs. It seems reasonable to assume that an adolescents' willingness to intervene in any given bullying
situation to protect the victim reflects an interaction between factors previously shown to influence pro-social motivation and the
level of trait anxiety. Trait anxiety is relevant in the context of SDT as a potential source of introjected motivation, which is ex-
perienced as a sense that one “should” or “must” do something or face anxiety. Compliance with such demands can lead to certain
forms of self-satisfaction and feelings of pride about oneself and moral righteousness (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

1.2. Ingroup identification

Individuals are often less likely to help strangers who belong to a different social group, compared to strangers belonging to the
same group (Batson & Ahmad, 2009). Cikara, Bruneau, and Saxe (2011) term this the intergroup empathy bias. Sometimes, people
may even experience pleasure in response to out-group members' suffering, which is stronger for individuals who feel stronger
empathy to the ingroup. From the developmental intergroup approach (Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010) we may comprehend
variation in attitudes across contexts of social exclusion (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003), aggression (Duffy & Nesdale, 2012),
and prosocial behaviour (Sierksma, Thijs, Verkuyten, & Komter, 2014). This perspective shows that children and adolescents who
perceive that an aggressor belongs to their ingroup are relatively more positive towards the aggressor than when this is not the case
(Nesdale, Killen, & Duffy, 2013).

1.3. Present investigation

We sought to examine the impact of situational factors and the bystander's trait anxiety on the motivation to defend bully victims
and helping behaviour. The purpose was to investigate the impact of ingroup-status of the victim and the level of the bystander's trait
anxiety and if this would be associated with motivation to defend the victim. We presented participants with detailed, context-laden
vignettes of bullying situations capable of eliciting emotional responses and appraisals that are similar to those that would be
experienced in real-life bystander situations.
Our goal with this study was to investigate the impact of the ingroup status of the victim relative to the bystander and to study it
this situational factor would be associated with the participant's trait anxiety, and if these situational and individual factors would be
associated with the bystander's motivation to defend the victim. We hypothesized that individuals who witness a victim from their
ingroup are more likely to have higher levels of autonomous motivation to help ingroup victims compared to victims who do not
belong to the witness' ingroup (Hypothesis 1), that individuals who witness a victim that does not belong to their ingroup are more
likely to have higher levels of extrinsic motivation to help compared to victims who belong to the witness' ingroup (Hypothesis 2) and
that higher levels of trait anxiety enhance ingroup preference in bystanders, increasing their autonomous motivation to defend a
victim of bullying from their ingroup and lowering the motivation to defend a victim who does not belong to the ingroup out of fear
of losing status in the ingroup (Hypothesis 3).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 202 students from eight classes in four public Swedish high schools (Mage = 16.44 years (SD = 0.61), 48% were
girls and 52% were boys; 63% in grade 1 and 37% in grade 2 of secondary school, 94% response rate [N = 216]). School principals
and teachers authorized participation prior to the study. The sampling procedure consisted of the researchers visiting the eight

3
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

classrooms and inviting all students in each class to participate. Active individual consent for participation was obtained prior to data
collection. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary. Sampling was stratified in the southern part of Sweden to be
representative of the schools' student populations in this area. About 28% of the sample reported having been victims of school
bullying and 12% of the participants had an immigrant background. Even though socio-economic status was not directly measured,
the sample represented youths from a wide range of socioeconomic statuses. Participants were randomly assigned to experimental
conditions. Participants’ background in terms of age, grade, gender, victimization, and ethnical background reflects the population in
the four schools and were evenly spread over the experiment and control group of the experiment.

2.2. Stimuli

Two vignettes depicting situations of school bullying in which a student with a gender neutral name (Kim) was the victim. In one
of the vignettes, the person described as a victim belonged to the participant's ingroup and he or she “is a student in your school and
you are classmates” and “you live in the same neighborhood, and you often see each other during your leisure time because you play
in the same team.” In the second condition, the person described as a victim neither belongs to the participant's ingroup, as this
person “is a student in your school in the same school year, but you are not classmates. You don't know Kim and you do not see each
other during your leisure time.” (see appendix). The participants were asked to imagine that they were in their school and witnessed
everything that happened in the vignette and asked “If you would intervene and try to stop the bullying, what would motivate you
intervene?” The vignettes were both about 220 words long (see appendix).

2.3. Measures

About a week before collecting data by means of the manipulation, participants completed the Revised Children's Anxiety and
Depression Scale (RCADS), which is a self-report scale used to assess anxiety and depression in children and adolescents (Chorpita,
Yim, Moffitt, Umemoto, & Francis, 2000). The RCADS consists of 47 questions assessing symptoms of DSM-IV (APA, 1992) anxiety
disorders (generalized anxiety, social phobia, panic disorder, separation anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders) and major
depression. Only the scores on generalized anxiety was used in this study and the Cronbach alpha value was good (0.85).
About a week later, all participants were randomized so that half of them belonged to the manipulation group and received the
ingroup vignette and half belonged to the control group and received the control vignette. Immediately afterwards they all completed
a questionnaire consisting of the Motivation to Defend Scale (MDS), which is a self-report scale used to assess adolescents’ auton-
omous and controlled motivation to defend a bully victim (Jungert et al., 2016). The MDS consists of 13 items that has been used in a
Swedish context before (Iotti, Thornberg, Longobardi, & Jungert, 2019), but in the current study, it was adapted to measure the
participants' motivation to defend the bullying victim depicted in the vignette. Participants were asked to report “why they would
engage in helping the bully victim.” The scale was composed of four subscales measuring the four types of motivation: “Because I like
to help other people” (intrinsic), “Because I think it is important to help people who are treated badly” (identified), “Because I would
feel like a bad person if I did not try to help” (introjected), and “To become popular” (extrinsic). Participants were asked to select an
answer from a continuum from 1 (“Completely disagree”) to 5 (“Completely agree”). In this study, the average of the two sub scales
for intrinsic and identified regulation were used to calculate autonomous motivation, which is common practice in SDT research (e.g.,
see Brunet, Gunnell, Gaudreau, & Sabiston, 2015). The scales had acceptable reliability: Autonomous motivation (0.74), Introjected
motivation (0.65), Extrinsic motivation (0.69).
After the participants had read the vignettes and filled in the motivation to defend scale, they were asked to report if they
themselves had experienced being victimized, and as a check on the manipulation of ingroup, participants rated how much they
identified themselves with the victim in the vignette. Victimization was assessed with single item, “I have been exposed to bullying
myself”, responded to with yes or no and identification with the victim was measured with a single item, “I identified myself with the
person who was exposed in the vignette” scored on a 3-point scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 3 = totally agree). Finally, par-
ticipants were asked to report their gender and age.

2.4. Procedure

Data were collected in a paper/pencil format, where a researcher visited the classrooms, distributed the material to all present
students in each class, and stayed in the classroom until the students had filled in the questionnaires. The present researcher could
answer questions if students had any queries. The study was ethically approved by the Department of Psychology at the university.
Students and their parents were made aware that their participation was voluntary and their responses anonymous, and both had to
give active written consent to participate. Participants used private and anonymous codes so that their scores on the RCADS and the
follow-up could be matched. At the end of the session the purpose of the study was explained to the participants and the researchers
thanked the participants for participating.

3. Statistical analyses

Validation of the motivation to defend scale constituted the first stage of analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to
assess the factor structure of this scale in order to validate it for the first time with a Swedish sample. In the second stage of analysis,
correlations between all variables were carried out. To test the hypothesis, three separate hierarchical multiple regressions were

4
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

Table 1
Item factor loadings for the confirmatory factor analysis.
Item Autonomous Introjected Extrinsic

“Because I like to help other people” .77

“Because I think is important to help people who are treated badly” .78
“Because I think is important to help people who are treated badly” .50
“Because I am the kind of kid who cares about others” .43
”Because I would feel like a bad person if I didn't help” .51
”To avoid feeling guilty” .58
”Because I feel I must help others” .50
“To be rewarded by a teacher” .59
“To become popular” .73
“Because I would get into trouble if I didn't help” .70
“To make new friends” .39

performed with the dependent variables of pro-social motivation. We used a resampling method with 1000 resamples from the
original data (i.e., bootstrapping) given the relatively small sample and in order to reduce error variance or bias due to violation of
distributional assumptions. The predictors in each regression was manipulations condition (‘ingroup’/‘not ingroup’ condition),
generalized trait anxiety, and a two-way interaction of condition with fear was entered. Finally, as the adolescents were nested within
four schools, linear mixed-effects models were used (Heck, Thomas, & Tabata, 2013)in order to consider the school-level. All pre-
dictors were standardized before entry in the regression equation. The interaction terms were created by calculating products.

4. Results

The statistics of the validation of the motivation to defend scale (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2(62) = 143.14, p < .001, CFI = 0.81,
RMSEA = 0.08, 90% CI [0.06, 0.10]) indicated a poor fit. The Lagrange Multiplier test indicated that two items ought to be removed
for model improvement: item 8 (“Because others would be angry with me if I didn't help”) and item 12 (“Because I would feel good
helping”). A second CFA on the remaining 11 items showed acceptable results; Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2(41) = 63.73, p < .001,
CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI [0.03, 0.08]. Table 1 shows the factor loadings (standardized solution). Overall, the three factors
(autonomous motivation, introjected motivation, and extrinsic motivation to help) were confirmed and did not differ from the factors
used in previous studies (Iotti, Thornberg, Longobardi, & Jungert, 2019; Jungert et al., 2016), but with a better fit in this sample
when items 8 and 12 were excluded. These items may reduce model fit because they fall between two different types of motivation.
For item 8, failing to intervene because others may be angry could be related to the person's ego and feelings of guilt (introjected
motivation) and/or to the fear of being punished (extrinsic motivation). For item 12, intervening because it feels good could reflect
either a sense of enjoyment (autonomous motivation) and/or boosting one's ego (introjected motivation).
Results of the manipulation check indicated that participants in the experimental condition identified themselves more with the
victim in the vignette than the participants in the control group, t(105) = −2.60, p = .012, Cohen's d = 0.49. This suggests that the
manipulation was induced. The correlations between all variables were in the small to moderate range. The correlations between
generalized anxiety and gender (r = −0.18) and having been victimized (r = 0.38) indicated that girls and students with experiences of
bully victimization had higher trait anxiety than boys and non-victims. In addition, manipulation correlated positively with autonomous
motivation to defend (r = 0.26) and negatively with extrinsic motivation to defend (r = −0.25). Finally, there was a moderate cor-
relation between autonomous and introjected motivation to defend (r = 0.49) and a negative correlation between autonomous and
extrinsic motivation (r = −0.39). Anxiety significantly correlate with introjected motivation (r = 0.20), see Table 2.
The regression for autonomous motivation was significant, R2 = 0.12, F(3, 197) = 8.93, p < .001. As shown in Table 3, ma-
nipulation (ingroup) was associated positively with autonomous motivation (β = 0.27 [SE = 0.10], p < .001). This means that
adolescents displayed higher autonomous motivation to defend when the victim belonged to their ingroup. Anxiety was not asso-
ciated with autonomous motivation. However, we found a significant interaction between anxiety and condition. Anxiety interacted

Table 2
Correlations between all variables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 1
1. Gender – .20** -.05 -.00 -.03 .00 .11 -.18**
2. Age – -.02 -.04 .03 .02 .10 -.03
3. Victim (yes/no) – .001 -.09 -.10 .07 .38***
4. Manipulation – .26*** .07 -.25*** -.04
5. Autonomous motivation to defend – .49*** -.39*** .08
6. Introjected motivation to defend – -.06 .20**
7. Extrinsic motivation to defend – .02
8. Generalized Anxiety –

1
Note. Spearman's rho; *** = p < .001; ** = p < .01; * = p < .05.

5
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

Table 3
Standard regression for the three types of motivation to defend.
Predictor Autonomous motivation Introjected motivation Extrinsic motivation

β [SE] t-test β [SE] t-test β [SE] t-test

Manipulation .27 [.10] 3.90*** .07 [.12] 1.00 -.27 [.11] −3.88*
Generalized Anxiety .09 [.04] 1.30 .20 [.05] 2.85** .01 [.04] 0.12
Manipulation * Anxiety -.69 [.03] −3.05** -.52 [.03] −2.23* .53 [.03] 2.34*

Note. *** = p < .001; * = p < .05. For autonomous motivation R2 = 0.12, F(3, 197) = 8.93, p < .001. For introjected motivation R2 = 0.07, F(3,
197) = 4.80, p = .003. For extrinsic motivation R2 = 0.10, F(3, 197) = 6.95, p < .001.

significantly with the ingroup manipulation (β = −0.69 [SE = 0.03], p = .003) and the pattern of this interaction is shown in Fig. 1.
Adolescents with high levels of generalized anxiety had lower autonomous motivation to defend when they were not in the ingroup
condition and higher autonomous motivation to defend when they were in the ingroup condition. In fact, adolescents scored the
highest on autonomous motivation to defend when they displayed high levels of generalized anxiety and the victim belonged to the
ingroup.
The regression for introjected motivation was significant, R2 = 0.07, F(3, 197) = 4.80, p = .003. The manipulation was not asso-
ciated with introjected motivation to defend, while anxiety was positively associated with introjected motivation (β = 0.20 [SE = 0.05],
p = .005), and the interaction between anxiety and condition was significant (β = −0.52 [SE = 0.03], p = .027), see Fig. 2. Adoles-
cents with low levels of generalized anxiety had higher introjected motivation to defend when they were not in the ingroup condition
and lower introjected motivation to defend when they were in the ingroup condition. Thus, adolescents scored the highest on introjected
motivation to defend when they displayed low levels of generalized anxiety and the victim belonged to the outgroup.
The regression for extrinsic motivation was significant, R2 = 0.10, F(3, 197) = 6.95, p < .001. The manipulation was negatively
associated with extrinsic motivation (β = −0.27 [SE = 0.11], p < .001). This means that adolescents displayed higher autonomous
motivation to defend when the victim belonged to their ingroup. Anxiety was not significantly linked to extrinsic motivation to
defend, but the interaction between manipulation and anxiety was significant (β = 0.53 [SE = 0.03], p = .020), and was in the
opposite direction than the interaction effects for autonomous and introjected motivation, see Fig. 3.
Finally, we tested whether there was significant variation in the school level as well as at the individual level. The analyses
showed that there was a significant variation at the individual level in autonomous motivation (Wald Z = 9.97, p < .001), but not at
the school level (Wald Z = 1.00, p = .317). There was also a significant variation at the individual level in introjected motivation
(Wald Z = 9.95, p < .001), but not at the school level (Wald Z = 0.97, p = .331). Finally, regarding extrinsic motivation, there was a
significant variation at the individual level (Wald Z = 9.95, p < .001) but not at the school level (Wald Z = 0.038, p = .402). In
other words, even though the data were nested within schools, there was no significant variation in the school level for any type of
motivation to defend.

5. Discussion

In the current study, we have investigated how situational factors and trait anxiety are associated with adolescent's motivation to
intervene when observing a bully victim. According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), when people are autonomously motivated, they gain
self-support and self-advocacy through actions that are consistent with values that have been integrated into the sense of self.

Fig. 1. Interaction effect of students' generalized anxiety and ingroup manipulation on autonomous motivation to defend.

6
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

Fig. 2. Interaction effect of students' generalized anxiety and ingroup manipulation on introjected motivation to defend.

Fig. 3. Interaction effect of students' generalized anxiety and ingroup manipulation on extrinsic motivation to defend.

Controlled motivation reflects the influence of external contingencies of reward and punishment that have been incorporated into the
sense of self. In this study, we found that greater levels of autonomous motivation to defend was positively associated with the
manipulation where the victims belonged to the ingroup, while greater levels of extrinsic motivation to defend was negatively
associated with the manipulation. Moreover, introjected motivation was associated with higher levels of trait anxiety, while higher
trait anxiety interacted with all three types of motivation to defend.
In line with social identity developmental theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 2004, pp. 219–245) we found that adolescents' autonomous
motivation to help a victim was positively associated with the victim belonging to the ingroup. One explanation of this result may be
that stronger ingroup identification is associated with more positive assessments of members from their ingroup (Nesdale & Duffy,
2011); (Palmer, Rutland, & Cameron, 2015). Thus, adolescents seem to have a well-integrated set of values when the victim belongs
to the ingroup. SDT provides a second explanation as to why individuals are autonomously motivated to help victims of school
bullying. Combining these motivations with the importance of social identity, the findings add to previous research (Ojala & Nesdale,
2004) by showing that adolescents are motivated to help a victim of their ingroup without being exposed to social pressure or need to
get something in return. On the other hand, we found that when a victim does not belong to the ingroup, extrinsic motivation to
defend was higher. Taken together, these findings indicate that adolescents are more likely to help a victim of the ingroup because
they like to help and think it is important to help, while they are more likely to help a victim who does not belong to the ingroup
because they believe it will give them some kind of personal gains or it will help them avoid looking bad. Thus, the bystander effect
plays an important role, as the interpretation of the situation determines whether motivation to help is autonomous or extrinsic. This
is in line with (Thornberg et al., 2012) who found that social position, such as friendship status of the victim, plays an essential role
for witnesses’ decision whether to help or not.
Even though both SDT and SIT provide possible answers as to why individuals are motivated to help another in need, it is also
important to consider the adolescent's level of trait anxiety. Higher levels of trait anxiety was positively associated with introjected
motivation. Introjection is a type of internalization that involves adopting a regulation or value, and this type of motivation is
experienced as a demanding and internal force. It gives a sense that one “should” or “must” do something or face anxiety (Ryan &
Deci, 2017). The findings of our study provide further evidence of this SDT perspective as we found that higher levels of anxiety is
associated with introjected motivation. Just as Pérès, Cury, Famose, and Sarrazin (2002) proposed that anxiety may serve as a

7
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

motivational agent in relation to performance in physical education and sport, trait anxiety seems to serve as a motivational agent in
relation to pro-social behaviour in school bully situations. Thus, adolescents with high levels of trait anxiety may feel that they should
help victims of bullying to avoid even higher levels of anxiety. This is also supported by the cost reward model (Dovidio, Piliavin,
Gaertner, Schroeder, & Clark III, 1991) and evidence in support of this model described in the meta-analysis by Fischer et al. (2011).
In addition, generalized trait anxiety interacted with the manipulation on all three types of motivation. Bystanders high in trait
anxiety showed greater autonomous and introjected motivation to help the bullied belonging to their ingroup, and less motivation to
help the bullied not belonging to the ingroup, whereas bystanders low in anxiety showed greater extrinsic motivation to help the
bullied belonging to the ingroup. Thus, in line with previous research (Fischer et al., 2011), the level of anxiety does affect moti-
vation, however, this varies depending on the type of motivation and depends on whether the victim belongs to the ingroup or not.
Bullying prevention programs rarely distinguish between individuals. However, as our study showed, there are important in-
dividual differences, which could be one of the reasons why prevention programs are not always successful. Our study also helps to
put a focus on the bystanders who are often overlooked, even though they have a lot of power in preventing the occurrence of
bullying (Salmivalli, 2014). Prevention programs might do better if they first assess the extent to which any individual student
perceives victims of bullying as more likely or not to be members of ingroups. The intervention might help the child to become aware
of how ingroup perceptions influence motivation. Efforts aimed at increased empathy might need to be preceded by efforts at
increasing the student's understanding of how ingroup perceptions influence their motivation. Likewise, the bystander effect in
adolescents may be reduced by first identifying their trait levels of anxiety and helping them to overcome their sense of anxiety in the
moment they witness an act of bullying by using standard self-talk/cognitive change methods or arousal reduction methods.

5.1. Limitations and future directions

While the study benefitted from a large sample size, experimental methods, and the use of standardized measures, certain lim-
itation need to be noted. First, all data was collected via questionnaire, thus there is as risk for common method variance (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Second, while we tried to eliminate social desirability through the use of anonymous surveys, it
cannot be entirely ruled out that this presentation phenomena influenced our results. Third, while the manipulation check confirmed
that participants in the ingroup condition did identify themselves more with the victim than the participants in the control condition,
it is possible that the aggression was perceived as intergroup. Future research should examine a range of aggressor/victim or possibly
third-party group membership combinations in bystander intergroup contexts, and use stronger manipulations (e.g. videotapes of
simulated bullying incidents). Fourth, predictors of bystander motivation and not actual behaviour were the focus in the present
study. Even if previous studies on prosocial interventions have shown that intentions powerfully indicate real behaviour (Smith &
McSweeney, 2007), further studies are needed involving mixed methodologies, including observational designs and peer nominations
(Duffy & Nesdale, 2012; Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2003; Obermann, 2011). Finally, school bullying can take on different forms
in different cultures (Morcillo et al., 2015) and findings may differ across alternative intergroup contexts such as ethnicity (Abbott &
Cameron, 2014; Mulvey, Hitti, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2014) and combinations of bystander, victim, and aggressor group
memberships (Nesdale et al., 2013). Further studies are needed in other countries and involving more diverse range of ethnic groups.

6. Conclusion

Taken together, these results advance our understanding of when and why adolescents are motivated to help school-bully victims.
Importantly, our findings reiterate the relevance of examining the importance of trait anxiety in bystanders. Results suggest that
individuals show increased autonomous motivation to intervene when the victim belongs to the ingroup and that the generalized
anxiety of the bystander interacts with external factors of the bullying situations. Findings suggest that anti-bullying-programs can
counteract bullying by focusing on how bystander defender motivation is influenced by whether the victim belongs to the ingroup or
not. Importantly, anti-bullying programs need to consider that the bystander's overall level of anxiety interacts with such perceptions.

Appendix

Manipulation (ingroup)

Kim is a student in your school and you are classmates. Kim and you live in the same neighborhood, and you often see each other
during your leisure time because you play in the same team. In your class, you know that Kim is included and takes part in activities
both in the classroom and during recess just like everyone else. However, you have noticed that other kids in your school often make
nasty comments and say mean things both about Kim when Kim can hear, and directly to Kim in the corridor and in the school yard.
You have also seen how Kim sometimes has been pushed in an unfriendly way by kids in school. A few times, there have also been
quite degrading comments on Kim's locker.
One day you see how a person from the group who usually bully Kim prevents Kim from reaching the locker. On the locker there is
a photo of Kim who poses undressed, a picture that Kim previously sent to someone Kim thought was a crush. You see that Kim gets
very embarrassed and upset while struggling to get a chance to remove the photo from the locker before more people see it. If you
would intervene and try to stop the bullying, what would motivate you to do this?

8
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

Control vignette

Kim is a student in your school in the same school year, but you are not classmates. You don't know Kim and you do not see each
other during your leisure time, but you know that Kim is included and takes part in activities both in the classroom and during recess
just like everyone else in Kim's class. However, you have noticed that other kids in your school often make nasty comments and say
mean things both about Kim when Kim can hear, and directly to Kim in the corridor and in the school yard. You have also seen how
Kim sometimes has been pushed in an unfriendly way by kids in school. A few times, there have also been quite degrading comments
on Kim's locker.
One day you see how a person from the group who usually bully Kim prevents Kim from reaching the locker. On the locker there is
a photo of Kim who poses undressed, a picture that Kim previously sent to someone Kim thought was a crush. You see that Kim gets
very embarrassed and upset while struggling to get a chance to remove the photo from the locker before more people see it. If you
would intervene and try to stop the bullying, what would motivate you to do this?

References

Abbott, N., & Cameron, L. (2014). What makes a young assertive bystander? The effect of intergroup contact, empathy, cultural openness, and in‐group bias on
assertive bystander intervention intentions. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 167–182.
Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children's judgments of normative and deviant in‐group and out‐group
individuals. Child Development, 74(6), 1840–1856.
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious
individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1.
Barhight, L. R., Hubbard, J. A., Grassetti, S. N., & Morrow, M. T. (2017). Relations between actual group norms, perceived peer behavior, and bystander children's
intervention to bullying. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 46(3), 394–400.
Barzilay, S., Klomek, A. B., Apter, A., Carli, V., Wasserman, C., Hadlaczky, G., ... Keresztény, A. (2017). Bullying victimization and suicide ideation and behavior among
adolescents in europe: A 10-country study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(2), 179–186.
Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3(1), 141–177.
Bellmore, A., Ma, T.-L., You, J.-i., & Hughes, M. (2012). A two-method investigation of early adolescents' responses upon witnessing peer victimization in school.
Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1265–1276.
Bjereld, Y., Daneback, K., & Petzold, M. (2015). Differences in prevalence of bullying victimization between native and immigrant children in the nordic countries: A
parent‐reported serial cross‐sectional study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 41(4), 593–599.
Brunet, J., Gunnell, K. E., Gaudreau, P., & Sabiston, C. M. (2015). An integrative analytical framework for understanding the effects of autonomous and controlled
motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 2–15.
Chorpita, B., F., Yim, L., Moffitt, C., Umemoto, L., A., & Francis, S., E. (2000). Assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and depression in children: A revised child
anxiety and depression scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(8), 835–855.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 749.
Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. R. (2011). Us and them intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149–153.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., et al. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516.
Dovidio, J. F. (1991). The empathy-altruism hypothesis: Paradigm and promise. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 126–128.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). A multilevel perspective on prejudice: Crossing disciplinary boundaries.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark, R. D., III (1991). The arousal: Cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the
evidence.
Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2012). Understanding childhood aggression: A social identity perspective. International Journal of Psychology Research, 7(5/6), 385.
Evans, C. B., Fraser, M. W., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
19(5), 532–544.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., ... Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on
bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517.
Forsberg, C., Wood, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., et al. (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(1), 127–142.
Freis, S. D., & Gurung, R. A. (2013). A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 11.
Garfinkel, S. N., Minati, L., Gray, M. A., Seth, A. K., Dolan, R. J., & Critchley, H. D. (2014). Fear from the heart: Sensitivity to fear stimuli depends on individual
heartbeats. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(19), 6573–6582.
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9),
1108–1119.
Harel-Fisch, Y., Walsh, S. D., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Amitai, G., Pickett, W., Molcho, M., ... Craig, W. (2011). Negative school perceptions and involvement in school
bullying: A universal relationship across 40 countries. Journal of Adolescence, 34(4), 639–652.
Heck, R., H., Thomas, S., L., & Tabata, L., N. (2013). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. Routledge.
Hortensius, R., & de Gelder, B. (2018). From empathy to apathy: The bystander effect revisited. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(4), 249–256.
Iotti, N. O., Thornberg, R., Longobardi, C., & Jungert, T. (2019). Early adolescents’ emotional and behavioral difficulties, student–teacher relationships, and motivation
to defend in bullying incidents. Child & Youth Care Forum (pp. 1–17). US: Springer.
Jenkins, L. N., & Nickerson, A. B. (2017). Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 281–290.
Jungert, T., Piroddi, B., & Thornberg, R. (2016). Early adolescents' motivations to defend victims in school bullying and their perceptions of student–teacher re-
lationships: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 75–90.
Klomek, A. B., Kleinman, M., Altschuler, E., Marrocco, F., Amakawa, L., & Gould, M. S. (2013). Suicidal adolescents' experiences with bullying perpetration and
victimization during high school as risk factors for later depression and suicidality. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S37–S42.
Landstedt, E., & Persson, S. (2014). Bullying, cyberbullying, and mental health in young people. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 42(4), 393–399.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lee, S., Kim, C.-J., & Kim, D. H. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effect of school-based anti-bullying programs. Journal of Child Health Care, 19(2), 136–153.
Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., & Mezulanikova, K. (2015). Brief report: The bystander effect in cyberbullying incidents. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 96–99.
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253.
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and
traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611.
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, victims, and defenders in preschool: Peer, self-, and teacher reports. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(4),
453–469.

9
T. Jungert and S. Perrin Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 1–10

Morcillo, C., Ramos-Olazagasti, M. A., Blanco, C., Sala, R., Canino, G., Bird, H., et al. (2015). Socio-cultural context and bulling others in childhood. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 24(8), 2241–2249.
Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). Context differences in children's ingroup preferences. Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1507.
Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children's ethnic prejudice. The development of the social self.
Nesdale, D., & Duffy, A. (2011). Social identity, peer group rejection, and young children’s reactive, displaced, and proactive aggression. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 823–841.
Nesdale, D., Killen, M., & Duffy, A. (2013). Children's social cognition about proactive aggression. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(3), 674–692.
Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Level and change of bullying behavior during high school: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of
Adolescence, 36(3), 495–505.
Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement in self‐reported and peer‐nominated school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 133–144.
Ojala, K., & Nesdale, D. (2004). Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 19–35.
Palmer, S., B., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2015). The development of bystander intentions and social–moral reasoning about intergroup verbal aggression. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 419–433.
Pérès, C., Cury, F., Famose, J.-P., & Sarrazin, P. (2002). When anxiety is not always a handicap in physical education and sport: Some implications of the defensive
pessimism strategy. European Journal of Sport Science, 2(1), 1–9.
Plötner, M., Over, H., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Young children show the bystander effect in helping situations. Psychological Science, 26(4), 499–506.
Podsakoff, P., M., MacKenzie, S., B., & Podsakoff, N., P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs' effects on bystander intervention behavior. School
Psychology Review, 41(1), 47.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 56(2), 143–164.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 244–252.
Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of Australian schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educational
Psychology, 26(3), 425–440.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20(5), 359–368.
Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A new social-cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 279–291.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112–120.
Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286–292.
Sierksma, J., Thijs, J., Verkuyten, M., & Komter, A. (2014). Children's reasoning about the refusal to help: The role of need, costs, and social perspective taking. Child
Development, 85(3), 1134–1149.
Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and
behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363–386.
Song, J., & Oh, I. (2017). Investigation of the bystander effect in school bullying: Comparison of experiential, psychological and situational factors. School Psychology
International, 38(3), 319–336 0143034317699997.
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of
Adolescence, 36(3), 475–483.
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2014). School bullying and the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 40(2), 99–108.
Thornberg, R., Tenenbaum, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., & Vanegas, G. (2012). Bystander motivation in bullying incidents: To intervene or not to intervene?
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(3), 247.
Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). Classroom relationship qualities and social-cognitive correlates of defending and passive bystanding
in school bullying in Sweden: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 49–62.
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine “helping,”“joining in,” and “doing nothing”
when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 383–396.
Wu, W., C., Luu, S., & Luh, D., L. (2016). Defending behaviors, bullying roles, and their associations with mental health in junior high school students: a population-
based study. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1066.

10