The Journal of Early

Adolescence
http://jea.sagepub.com/

Why Do Bystanders of Bullying Help or Not? A Multidimensional

Model
Tiziana Pozzoli and Gianluca Gini
The Journal of Early Adolescence published online 12 April 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0272431612440172

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jea.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/08/0272431612440172

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for The Journal of Early Adolescence can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jea.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 12, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

440172
zoli and GiniThe Journal of Early Adolescence
© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

JEAXXX10.1177/0272431612440172Poz

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

The Journal of Early Adolescence

Why Do Bystanders of XX(X) 1­–26

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Bullying Help or Not?  sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0272431612440172
A Multidimensional Model http://jea.sagepub.com

Tiziana Pozzoli1 and Gianluca Gini1

Abstract
The authors employed Latanè and Darley’s model about bystanders’ behav-
ior to explain children’s active defending and passive bystanding behavior in
school bullying.The three central steps of the model were operationalized by
measuring provictim attitudes, personal responsibility for intervention, and
coping strategies. Moreover, the role of perceived expectations from parents
and peers was investigated. A total of 759 children and 995 early adolescents
participated. The findings from structural equation modeling (SEM) con-
firmed the hypothesized relationships and the impact of perceived peer and
parent pressure on nearly all the study variables. The model was confirmed
for both age groups, with only a few differences in the paths’ magnitudes,
and the model demonstrated the importance of considering both strictly
individual characteristics and contextual variables. These results substantially
expand previous findings and have potential interest for both researchers
and educators.

Keywords
bystanders in bullying, perceived normative pressure, attitudes, personal
responsibility, coping responses

1
University of Padua, Padova, Italy

Corresponding author:
Tiziana Pozzoli, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, via
Venezia, 8, 35131, Padova, Italy
Email: tiziana.pozzoli@unipd.it

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

2 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

Bullying in schools is an international public health problem (Gini & Pozzoli,

2009) that has receiving increasing attention in recent years and has prompted
a large number of studies on the personal characteristics of bullies and vic-
tims (see Stassen Berger, 2007, for a review). However, the latest approaches
to bullying have criticized the exclusive focus on the bully-victim dyad and
indicated that the group nature of this phenomenon requires analysis of the
role of peer bystanders. Studies clearly indicate that onlookers can play dif-
ferent roles in the bullying process (e.g., Pepler & Craig, 1995; Swearer &
Espelage, 2004). For instance, some children can reinforce bullies’ behavior
by laughing or cheering, whereas others can support the bullying behavior by
silently witnessing it (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, &
Kaukiainen, 1996). Passive bystanders (also called “outsiders”), indeed, are
often perceived by victims and other observers as acting in collusion with
bullies, even though they are not directly involved in the bullying action
(Cowie, 2000; Gini, Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008). Finally, students
can intervene to stop the bullying and help the victimized classmate or ask
adults to intervene (Salmivalli et al., 1996).
Despite the fact that most children show attitudes against bullying and
report intentions to help victims in hypothetical situations (Boulton, Trueman,
& Flemington, 2002; Rigby & Johnson, 2006; Rigby & Slee, 1991; Whitney
& Smith, 1993), actual defending behavior is less common. For example,
through peer nominations, Salmivalli and colleagues (1996) showed that
only 17% of students typically defend the victim, whereas students identified
as remaining passively aside and not intervening accounted for about 24%.
While recent research has been devoted to the study of defenders, only a few
studies have directly compared active intervention with bystanders’ passivity.
The current study aims to fill this gap by concurrently analyzing individual
correlates of these two distinct types of observers’ reactions to bullying epi-
sodes. Understanding why some children personally intervene to stop bullying
while others look the other way may help us better understand the group
dynamics underlying bullying and provide fruitful insights for intervention
programs.
To date, we know that defenders and passive bystanders both share some
characteristics and differ on other dimensions. On the one hand, past studies
showed that both defenders and passive bystanders are low in aggression and
are able to avoid harassment for themselves (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005).
Moreover, as far as social-cognitive abilities are concerned, both defending
(Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2010; Gini, 2006a) and passive bystand-
ing behaviors (Gini, 2006a) are associated with average-to-good theory of
mind skills, in terms of the ability to understand others’ thoughts, intentions,

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 3

and beliefs. Accordingly, in another study (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005),

defenders and outsiders did not differ in social information processing and
emotional regulation. From the point of view of emotional competence, we
know that, compared to bullying behavior, defending behavior is associated
with higher levels of empathic responsiveness (Caravita, Di Blasio, &
Salmivalli, 2009; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoè, 2007; Pöyhönen, Juvonen,
& Salmivalli, 2010; Warden & MacKinnon, 2003). However, in a recent
study directly comparing defending and passive bystanding behavior, empa-
thy was positively associated with both outcome behaviors (Gini, Albiero,
Benelli, & Altoè, 2008), thus suggesting that empathy may be not enough to
explain active intervention in favor of a bullied peer. In short, these results
suggest that having good social-cognitive and emotional skills per se does not
necessarily mean that children will use this ability to intervene in favor of a
bullied peer (Kaukiainen et al., 1999). Finally, similarities in the moral
domain between the two roles have been reported. Even though some authors
do argue that high moral sensibility of prosocial kids can explain their help-
ing behavior (Hoffman, 2000), passive bystanders usually show comparable
levels of moral competence and moral disengagement (Gini, 2006a; Menesini
et al., 2003).
On the other hand, differences between defenders and passive bystanders
have been also documented. For example, defenders report good levels of
self-efficacy beliefs in the domain of interpersonal relationships (Pöyhönen
et al., 2010; Pöyhönen & Salmivalli, 2008) that are low in students who do
not intervene (Gini et al., 2008). Moreover, in a recent study, Pozzoli and
Gini (2010) found that problem-solving coping strategies and personal
responsibility for intervention were positively associated with active help
toward a bullied peer and negatively related to passivity. In contrast, distanc-
ing strategies (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, or emotional activities oriented away
from a stressor to avoid it) were positively associated with passive bystanding.
Finally, Menesini and Camodeca reported that passive bystanders feel less
guilty or ashamed compared to defenders in hypothetical bullying scenarios.
The authors commented on this result by hypothesizing that the former may
not experience what Hoffman (2000) called “the moral conflict of innocent
bystander, according to which the one who witnesses someone in pain, dan-
ger or distress would experience the moral conflict of whether to help or not”
(Menesini & Camodeca, 2008, p. 191). We may argue that this indifference
leads them not to feel responsible for intervening and to remain outside.
Studies from the broader literature on prosocial behavior might be useful to
identify potential correlates of defending behavior in bullying and to hypothe-
size which of these characteristics may be missing or less present in passive

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

4 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

bystanders. However, defending behavior during bullying episodes cannot be

reduced to a simple prosocial behavior because it represents a risky behavior in
which the helper confronts a powerful bully and, sometimes, even his or her sup-
porters (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). For this reason, in the present study, we focused
on a classical model derived from social psychology that investigated bystand-
ers’ behavior during potentially risky situations, namely, Latanè and Darley’s
five-stage model. After the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese, Latanè and
Darley tried to answer the question: “Why do people who are so willing to help
in non-emergency situations not do so in emergency situations?” In several
experiments in which emergencies of different kinds took place (e.g., Darley &
Latané, 1968; Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Rodin, 1969), the researchers
manipulated the variables that are hypothesized to influence bystanders’ deci-
sions. These variables included, among others, the way in which the interpreta-
tion of the situation was influenced by bystanders’ readiness to perceive an
emergency (Latané & Darley, 1970), the effect of the number of bystanders on
individual sense of responsibility (Bickman, 1972; Darley & Latané, 1968), and
the effects of personal characteristics (Latané & Darley, 1970; Schreiber, 1979)
on helping behavior. This series of studies conducted with adult participants led
the authors to the formulation of their model. In short, to intervene and help a
victim, according to this model, people must (a) notice that something has
occurred, (b) interpret the event as an emergency and not as something innocu-
ous, (c) take responsibility for intervention, (d) know what to do, and (e) decide
to implement the help. Helping responses can be inhibited at any stage of the
process, and subsequently no help is provided, so each step influences the follow-
ing ones. Of course, in a real emergency, people are not this rational, and their
behavior can be influenced by other variables (e.g., emotional reactions, other
bystanders’ behavior, normative pressure, and so on).
This model has been successfully applied (totally or partially) in different
areas, including domestic violence (Hoefnagels & Zwikker, 2001), sexual
assault prevention (Burn, 2009), and computer-mediated communication
(Markey, 2000). To date, however, no studies have tested it in relationship to
the phenomenon of children’s bullying. In this respect, it is necessary to
underline that Latané and Darley focused on particular social emergencies
(e.g., a stranger assaulted in the street), which differ from bullying situations
for one main reason: Whereas the former are usually unexpected and involve
strangers, the latter ones are repeated over time and involve classmates, so
they cannot be defined as totally surprising. Nevertheless, social emergencies
have some relevant points in common with bullying: (a) the presence of a
victim, (b) the fact that this individual needs help; and (c) the potential risk
for those who intervene.

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 5

The Present Study

We tested whether the Latanè and Darley’s (1970) model could help explain
defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying situations during late
childhood and early adolescence. In particular, we focused on the second,
third, and fourth steps of the model. The first step was not considered in this
study because it specifically concerns the ability to shift attention when
something unpredicted takes place. With regard to the fifth step—deciding to
implement help—in our opinion, it would be difficult to reliably measure this
dimension as differing from actual behavior. The three steps of interest were
operationalized as follows:
(a) Interpreting the event as an emergency: Attitudes toward bullying.
A crucial step in any defending behavior involves considering whether
what is happening requires any intervention. Sometimes the need is clear
(e.g., a child falling to the ground while playing soccer, bleeding a lot, and
urgently needing medical attention). However, in many social situations, the
event is not that clear (see Clark & Word, 1972). As suggested by Taylor,
Peplau, and Sears (2006, p. 381), “Our interpretation or definition of a situa-
tion is a vital factor in whether we offer aid.” For example, Fazio (1990)
suggested that behavior can be influenced by one’s attitude toward the object
in question “to the extent that individuals engage in any construal or interpre-
tation of the attitude object and the situation in which the attitude object is
encountered. There exists the possibility of attitudes guiding behavior toward
the object” (p. 78). In other words, social behavior can be considered a func-
tion of the individual's perception of the situation, which is strictly linked to
attitudes toward that situation and toward the people involved.
Moving from these assumptions, we considered attitudes toward bullying
as a proxy measure of children’s perception and interpretation of the bullying
behavior in everyday life. Specifically, students who perceive bullying as
something funny and not serious at all, and who consider victims weak people
who deserve to be bullied, are expected to be more indifferent when bullying
happens and less likely to think that it requires their intervention. In contrast,
students holding a negative view of bullying as something that should not
happen are expected to be more prone to consider bullying as a serious
problem that merits bystanders’ intervention;
(b) Taking responsibility for providing help: Perceived personal responsibility
for intervention. Another important factor in the development of a tendency to
act prosocially may be learning to assume responsibility for the welfare of
others. The ability to reason effectively about the negative consequences of
aggression on others contributes to the creation of a sense of responsibility

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

6 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

for others (Laible, Eye, & Carlo, 2008). Several experiments in social psy-
chology (e.g., Maruyama, Fraser, & Miller, 1982; Moriarty, 1975) demon-
strated that when individuals feel personal responsibility, they are significantly
more likely to help.
This is a crucial part of the model because, after bystanders have understood
the emergency nature of a situation, they must decide whether to take personal
responsibility and intervene (Darley & Latané, 1968). Latané and Darley iden-
tified in this step the main critical point that partially explains the lack of action
taken by witnesses to Kitty Genovese’s murder (Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, &
Piliavin, 1995). In short, bystanders clearly noticed the event and interpreted it
as an emergency; however, each believed that someone else would help her and
consequently did not feel personal responsibility for intervention.
Consistent with these premises and given the particular conditions in
which it occurs, helping the victim of bullying should be regarded as a complex
behavior that includes not only the positive attitude toward the victim but also
a “moral” assumption of personal responsibility to intervene. To our knowl-
edge, only one study to date has directly investigated the role of personal
responsibility as a possible characteristic that distinguishes defenders from
passive bystanders (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). On the basis of the findings of
that study, we hypothesized that active help was positively associated with
personal responsibility for intervention, whereas low levels of such responsi-
bility were associated with passivity.
(c) Deciding how to help: Coping responses to witnessing bullying. This
step anticipates the actual behavior and concerns the decision about “what to
do.” Bystanders have to determine the most appropriate strategies for reacting
to bullying. If people do not know what to do or prefer distancing themselves
from such situations (e.g., because it is too stressful), they will not intervene,
despite their attitudes or their sense of personal responsibility. It is clear that in
this step people’s social skills and self-efficacy beliefs become crucial (Gini
et al., 2008; Pöyhönen et al., 2010). To investigate this step, we analyzed par-
ticipants’ coping strategies when they witness bullying, hypothesizing a posi-
tive relationship between approach strategies (i.e., problem solving, seeking
social support) and defending behavior. Conversely, we expected that distanc-
ing coping strategies predicted passive bystanding behavior.
Past research on bullying has analyzed coping strategies adopted by bullied
children (Kristensen & Smith, 2003; Salmivalli, Karhunen, & Lagerspetz,
1996; Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001) or coping responses of children pretending
to be onlookers in hypothetical bullying episodes (Camodeca & Goossens,
2005). However, how bystanders actually cope with bullying suffered by
other classmates remains unanswered. As far as we know, only Pozzoli and

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 7

Figure 1. The hypothesized model derived from Latané and Darley’s model (1970)

Gini (2010) have analyzed coping responses of children who witness others’
negative life events (i.e., other peers being bullied) instead of personal events
or hypothetical scenarios.
Summarizing these three steps, and in light of the model of Latané and
Darley, a series of direct and indirect effects were hypothesized (see Figure 1).
First, we hypothesized that positive attitudes toward victims (i.e., negative atti-
tudes toward bullying) were positively related to personal responsibility for
intervention and to approach coping strategies, both directly and indirectly via
personal responsibility; in contrast, a negative association between attitudes
and distancing coping strategies was expected. Both direct and indirect associa-
tions via personal responsibility were hypothesized in this case. Moreover, we
expected that defending behavior was positively predicted by approach cop-
ing strategies and negatively predicted by distancing strategies. In contrast,
we predicted a positive relationship between passive bystanding behavior
and distancing and a negative association with approach coping strategies.
In other words, we hypothesized that students who consider bullying as
something wrong and unacceptable are more likely to think that they have the
responsibility to do something. Both negative attitudes toward bullying and
the assumption of responsibility should lead people to adopt coping strategies
aimed at resolving the situation. This sort of coping response is hypothesized
as positively related to defending behavior and negatively related to passive

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

8 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

bystanding behavior. This last behavior would derive from the selection of
distancing coping strategies that can be linked with negative attitudes toward
bullying and with a deficiency of personal responsibility for intervention.
Individual bystander behavior probably cannot be considered merely a
result of these steps. In particular, the perception of social norms and others’
expectations might play a role in influencing individual behavioral choices as
well as attitudes, sense of responsibility, and coping response selection. We
know that bullying behavior is sometimes approved by social norms that do
not necessarily reflect the private attitudes of most group members but that
nevertheless promote compliance within the group (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel,
2003; Gini, 2006b, 2007; Juvonen & Galvàn, 2008). Consistent with the idea
that perceived expectations of significant others might be associated with
students’ individual behavior, Rigby and Johnson recently found that believ-
ing that parents and friends expected them to support the victims were sig-
nificant predictors of students’ expressed intention to intervene. Despite the
fact that the study measured participants’ willingness to intervene in the face
of a hypothetical bullying scenario, rather than their actual intervention in real
bullying episodes, the results indicated that children’s reactions to bullying
episodes might be affected by perceived normative pressure. Therefore, we
investigated whether perceived normative pressure for intervention contrib-
uted to explaining actual defending and passive bystanding behavior and
whether it also had an effect on the participants’ characteristics (i.e., attitudes,
responsibility, coping responses). Consistent with previous research (e.g.,
Griesler & Kandel, 1998; Pozzoli, Ang, & Gini, 2012; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010;
Pozzoli, Gini, & Vieno, in press; Rigby & Johnson, 2006), we conceptualized
this variable as the perception of expectations from significant others regard-
ing appropriate behavior during a bullying episode (e.g., “When a child is
being bullied, according to my classmates/mother/father, I should intervene
and help the victim”). Unfortunately, no previous data are available to rea-
sonably hypothesize the presence or absence of a specific path between dif-
ferent kinds of perceived pressure, on the one hand, and individual
characteristics and behavior on the other. For this reason, this part of the
model should be considered explorative.
A further aim of this study was to test whether the hypothesized model
would be valid in two age groups (primary and middle school students).
Specifically, concerning the part of the model represented in Figure 1, there
were no reasons to hypothesize age differences. Even if the literature showed
age differences in single variables (e.g., a decrease of provictim attitudes with
age; Rigby & Slee, 1991), specific differences in the strength of model paths
could not be hypothesized. Therefore, we expected that the configural pattern

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 9

of this part of the model would be invariant in primary and middle school
participants. In contrast, as far as normative pressure is concerned, differ-
ences between younger and older students were expected. Past research had
underscored that the role of adults (parents in particular) in influencing chil-
dren’s behavior, beliefs, opinions, and skills decreases as children enter early
adolescence. At the same time, adolescents place more importance on the
attitudes of their peer group in terms of description and prescription of behav-
ioral norms (see Harris, 1995). Therefore, we hypothesized that links between
parent pressure on the one hand, and behavior, attitudes, responsibility, and
coping strategies on the other, would be stronger in younger than older
participants. In contrast, a greater influence of peer pressure was expected in
middle than in primary school students.
Finally, we were not specifically interested in analyzing gender differences
in the hypothesized relationships, and no specific hypotheses concerning gen-
der guided the formulation of our model. However, previous studies have
reported that gender affects some of the variables considered in our study,
and, in particular, attitudes (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Rigby & Slee, 1993;
Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), approach coping strategies (Causey & Dubow,
1992; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010), and defending and passive bystanding behavior
(Caravita et al., 2009; Gini et al., 2007; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Salmivalli,
Lappalainen, & Lagerspetz, 1998). Therefore, gender was included in the
model as a control variable.

Method
Participants and Procedure

This study is part of a larger research project about the individual and con-
textual correlates of bystanders’ behavior in bullying (e.g., Pozzoli, Gini
et al., in press). Participants were recruited from 18 primary and 12 middle
schools. All fourth-, fifth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students (N = 2,012)
attending those schools were eligible to take part in this study. Subsequently,
179 students were excluded because of lack of parental consent, 8 students
were excluded from the data analysis because of certified reading compre-
hension difficulties or attention problems, and 71 students were excluded due
to missing data (more than 20% of missing data in the whole questionnaire
or in each single scale). Thus, a total of 759 children (48.3% girls; mean age:
10 years, 1 month; SD = 9.2 months) attending 48 primary school classes (23
fourth-grade classes and 24 fifth-grade classes) and 995 early adolescents
(47.2% girls; mean age: 13 years, 3 months; SD= 11 months) attending

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

10 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

54 middle school classes (26 seventh-grade classes and 28 eighth-grade

classes) participated in this study.
Parental consent letters were distributed to all the families to obtain their
permission for their children’s participation (parents’ agreement reached
93%). Also, all the participants were asked for their personal assent, and none
refused to participate.
Socioeconomic status was not directly measured. However, as in all public
schools in Italy, our sample included students from a wide range of social
classes (low and working class through upper middle class). In terms of racial
and ethnic background, 90.8% of the participants were Italian, 3.5% came
from Eastern Europe, 1.8% from Southern Europe, 1.6% from Northern
Africa, 0.7% from South America, and the remaining 1.6% came from other
geographical regions.
Participants completed a series of self-report questionnaires in their class-
room during one full class period. The order of the questionnaires was coun-
terbalanced across classes. A research assistant was present, explaining the
study procedure, assuring confidentiality, and assisting students who needed
help. At the end of the session, children were thanked for their participation,
debriefed about the purpose of the study, and any questions were answered.

Measures
Defending and passive bystanding behavior during bullying episodes. Defending
the victim (e.g., “I defend classmates who are hit or attacked hard”) and pas-
sive bystanding (e.g., “When a classmate is hit or pushed, I stand by and
I mind my own business”) behaviors were measured using three items each
(Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). Participants were asked to rate how often (during the
current school year) they had enacted the behavior described in each item on
a 4-point scale from 1 (never) to 4 (almost always). For each participant,
defending (α = .68) and passive bystanding (α = .66) scores were computed
as the mean of the score of the three items of each subscale.
Attitudes toward bullying. Attitudes toward bullying were measured through
an adapted version of Salmivalli and Voeten’s (2004) scale (Pozzoli & Gini,
2010). Participants were provided with the definition of bullying (see Gini,
2006a) and were asked to evaluate the extent to which they agreed with 10
statements about bullying (e.g., “one should try to help the bullied victims”;
“bullying may be fun sometimes,” reverse coded). The level of agreement
was expressed on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree).
One item (“Making friends with the bullied victim is the right thing to do”)
was removed due to its low item-total correlation. A provictim attitude score

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 11

was computed by averaging the students’ answers on the nine items (α = .76).
The higher a student scored on the scale, the more his or her attitudes opposed
bullying and favored the victim.
Personal responsibility. Participants’ sense of responsibility to intervene in
favor of the victim was measured through four items (e.g., “Helping class-
mates who are repeatedly teased, hit, or left out is my responsibility”; Pozzoli
& Gini, 2010). Participants rated their agreement with each item on a 6-point
scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). Answers to the four items
were averaged to form a single personal responsibility score in which higher
scores indicated a higher sense of responsibility for intervention (α = .65).
Coping responses to observations of bullying. A modified version of the
Self-Report Coping Measure (SRCM; Causey & Dubow, 1992; Pozzoli &
Gini, 2010) was used to assess four kinds of coping responses to observa-
tions of bullying: Seeking Social Support (SSS; seven items; for example,
“Tell a friend or family member what happened”), Self-Reliance/Problem
Solving (SR/PS; seven items; for example, “Do something to make up for
it”), Distancing (DIS; six items; for example, “Tell myself it doesn’t matter”),
and Internalizing (INT; seven items; for example, “Worry too much about
it”). The following hypothetical situation was presented before the items:
“When in my classroom someone repeatedly bullies another classmate
(insulting, hitting, threatening, damaging objects, spreading rumors, or
excluding from the group) I usually. . . .” Only in few cases were minor
changes to the original items needed (for a detailed description, see Pozzoli
& Gini, 2010). Participants then responded to the items using a scale ranging
from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Coping measure was subjected to a second-order confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) performed with LISREL 8.7 program (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993) and using the weighted least squares (WLS) method. First, we
tested the theoretical distinction between approach and avoidance coping
strategies proposed by Roth and Cohen (1986). In their theorization, SSS
and SR/PS were two distinct factors but referred to a more general cate-
gory called “approach strategies,” whereas DIS and INT were two aspects
of the broader category of “avoidance strategies.” This first model did not
fit the data well, χ2(271) = 2231.51, p < .001; comparative fit index (CFI) =
0.95; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.85; adjusted goodness-of-fit index
(AGFI) = 0.81; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =
0.06; and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.14. The
major problem was that standardized factor loadings of DIS and INT fac-
tors had opposite signs. This is not totally surprising because the INT
scale emerged in the original study (Causey & Dubow, 1992) as positively

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

12 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

related to both approach and avoidance strategies. Moreover, in the study

by Pozzoli and Gini (2010), internalizing coping strategies were found to
be more similar to approach than to avoidance strategies. For these rea-
sons, and following the directions provided by modification indices, we
tested a second model in which SSS, SR/PS, and INT scales loaded on the
second-order “approach strategies” factor, while the “avoidance strate-
gies” category corresponded to the DIS scale. Fit indices of this second
model were acceptable, χ2(268) = 1426.50, p < .001 (CFI = 0.97, GFI =
0.90, AGFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.07). For each subscale, the
mean score was calculated for each participant (αSSS = .76, αSR/PS = .83,
αINT = .71, αDIS = .69)
Perceived peer and parent normative pressure. Perceived expectations
regarding how the participant should behave when he or she witnesses bully-
ing episodes were assessed. Students rated to what extent significant others
(i.e., mother, father, and peers) expected them to behave in each of the fol-
lowing ways: (a) direct intervention (intervene to help the victim), (b) ask for
adults’ intervention (advise an adult of what is happening so that he or she
intervenes), (c) disregard (do nothing because it’s not my business; reverse
scored), and (d) withdrawal for self-protection (“Do nothing because I could
get into trouble;” reverse scored). Each rating was given on a 4-point scale,
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely).
Perceived peer pressure had already been used in a previous study
(Pozzoli & Gini, 2010), and its internal reliability was confirmed in this
sample (α = .65). For each participant, the mean score on the four items
was calculated, so a higher score represented a higher perceived peer pres-
sure for intervention.
As far as perceived parent pressure for intervention was concerned, a
CFA was performed to test the monofactorial structure of the scale. Fit
indices were not acceptable, χ2(20) = 1134.45, p < .001 (CFI = 0.87, GFI =
0.73, AGFI = 0.51, RMSEA = 0.18, SRMR = 0.15). Moreover, standard-
ized loadings of the item (b) (i.e., ask for adults’ intervention) both in
mother and father scale were very low (<.26). After eliminating these
items, CFA results showed an acceptable fit of the model, χ2(5) = 201.24,
p < .001 (CFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR =
0.03). Standardized loadings ranged from .37 to .88 (mean loading = .65)
and were significant at the p < .001 level. A single score reflecting per-
ceived parent pressure was computed as the mean of the six items (α =
.80), with higher score indicating higher perceived parent pressure for
intervention in favor of the victim.

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 13

Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations of all the variables are presented in Table 1.
To test gender and age differences, a series of t tests were conducted. Effect
sizes are expressed as Cohen’s d. Results showed that girls scored higher
than boys in defending behavior, attitudes against bullying, and in the three
forms of approach coping strategies. In contrast, boys tended to behave as
passive bystanders more frequently than girls. As far as school level is con-
cerned, primary school students scored higher than middle school students in
all the considered variables, with the exception of passive bystanding behav-
ior (that was higher in older students) and in perceived parent pressure (in
which no difference emerged in the two age groups).

Testing the Model

We tested the hypothesized model on the correlation matrix through an SEM
analysis.1 Given the results of the t tests and the findings of previous studies
described above, we used the partial correlation matrix controlling for the
effect of gender on all the variables in the study. In the specified model, on
the basis of CFA (see Methods), approach coping strategies were considered
a latent variable identified by the SSS, the SR/PS, and the INT scales,
whereas all the other variables were entered as observed variables. Perceived
peer and parent pressure were exogenous variables, whereas attitudes toward
bullying, personal responsibility, coping strategies, and the two outcome
behaviors were endogenous variables. For the sake of simplicity and visual
clarity, the hypothesized model without exogenous variables is presented in
Figure 1.
As a first step, we tested the model on the whole sample. The model did not
fit the data well, χ2(19) = 450.89, p < .001 (CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.95, AGFI =
0.86, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.08), and three paths were not statistically
significant: distancing—defending behavior, perceived peer pressure—
defending behavior, and perceived peer pressure—distancing. We removed
these paths one by one, starting from the path with the smaller standardized
loading. The fit of the obtained model was acceptable, χ2(22) = 452.39, p <
.001 (CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.08),
but modification indices suggested adding the correlation between perceived
peer and parent pressure. The modified model including this path fitted the
data well, χ2(21) = 201.10, p < .001 (CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.94,

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

 14
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Comparisons by School Level and Gender

Full sample Boys Girls Primary school Middle school

(n = 1,754) (n = 912) (n = 842) (n = 759) (n = 995)
t test t test (school
  Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) (gender) d Mean (SD) Mean (SD) level) d

Defending 2.70 (0.75) 2.63 (0.76) 2.77 (0.74) −3.87*** .19 2.85 (0.75) 2.58 (0.74) 7.38*** .36
Passive bystanding 1.79 (0.64) 1.87 (0.67) 1.69 (0.60) 5.86*** .28 1.72 (0.62) 1.84 (0.66) −3.84*** .19
Attitudes toward bullying 3.54 (0.44) 3.45 (0.47) 3.63 (0.38) −8.67*** .42 3.63 (0.38) 3.46 (0.47) 7.90*** .40
Personal responsibility 3.93 (0.02) 3.89 (1.05) 3.98 (0.99) −1.83 .09 4.04 (1.01) 3.85 (1.02) 3.93*** .19
Seeking social support 2.79 (0.79) 2.70 (0.79) 2.90 (0.77) −5.50*** .26 2.96 (0.74) 2.67 (0.80) 7.91*** .38
Self-reliance/problem 3.41 (0.77) 3.34 (0.79) 3.49 (0.74) −4.10*** .20 3.50 (0.75) 3.33 (0.78) 4.52*** .22
solving
Distancing 2.30 (0.76) 2.33 (0.79) 2.27 (0.73) 1.55 .08 2.39 (0.77) 2.24 (0.75) 4.05*** .20
Internalizing 2.37 (0.77) 2.21 (0.74) 2.53 (0.77) −8.87*** .42 2.48 (0.78) 2.28 (0.75) 5.45*** .26
Perceived peer pressure 2.80 (0.69) 2.81 (0.70) 2.79 (0.68) 0.64 .03 2.94 (0.66) 2.69 (0.70) 7.44*** .37
Perceived parent 3.13 (~0.65) 3.15 (0.65) 3.12 (0.65) 0.95 .05 3.13 (0.67) 3.13 (0.63) −.04 0
pressure

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

***p < .001.
Pozzoli and Gini 15

COPING .60
.61 DEFENDING
APPROACH

.23
.45

ATTITUDES .26 RESPONSIBILITY -.33

-.29 -.43

-.22

-.14

COPING PASSIVE
.18
DISTANCING BYSTANDING .72

Figure 2. Final structural equation model

Note: For visual clarity, only the part of the model derived from Latané and Darley’s model is
represented. Significant paths from perceived peer and parent pressure are reported in Table 2.
All ps < .001.

RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.04). The final model explained 40% of variance
of defending behavior and 28% of passive bystanding behavior. Except for
the negative link between distancing coping strategies and defending behav-
ior, the adaptation of Latané and Darley model was totally confirmed (see
Figure 2). Moreover, the significant effect of both parent and perceived peer pres-
sure on behavior and other individual variables was confirmed (see Table 2).
Subsequently, a multigroup SEM was performed to compare the late
childhood and early adolescence groups. The good-fit indices of the uncon-
strained multigroup model demonstrated the configural invariance of the
model across the two age groups, χ2(42) = 229.60, p < .001 (CFI = 0.98,
RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.03). Next, to test metric invariance, we con-
strained all loadings to equality across groups, which led to reliable reduction
in model fit, Δχ2(34) = 409.96, p < .001 (ΔCFI = 0.02). This means that the
total metric invariance of the model across age groups was not confirmed.
On the basis of this result, we tried to identify which paths of the model
could be considered metrically invariant and which had different magnitudes
in the two groups. To this end, we fixed, one by one, the paths that had the
smallest differences in standardized loading between the two groups until the

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

16 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

Table 2. Significant Standardized Path Coefficients With Perceived Peer and Parent
Pressure as Predictors

Predictors

  Perceived peer pressure Perceived parent pressure

Full Primary Middle Full Primary Middle

Variable sample school school sample school school
Defending — — — .08** .10** .07*
Passive bystanding −.14 −.10* −.16 −.10 −.11** −.10**
Attitudes toward .24 .09* .27 .21 .31 .19
bullying
Personal .17 .11* .20 .22 .23 .25
responsibility
Approach coping .13 .09* .11** .06* — —
strategies
Distancing coping — — — −.12 −.12** −.11**
strategies
Correlation .37 .47 .31 — — —
between
perceived peer
and parent
pressure
Note: Standardized loadings that differed across the two age groups are reported in italics.
*p < .05. **p < .01 (all the other ps < .001).

Δχ2 between this model and the unconstrained model was significant. In
Figure 3, the central part of the resulting multigroup model (i.e., the adapta-
tion of Latanè and Darley’s model) is depicted, while the links between peer
and parent pressure and the other variables are reported in Table 2. In line
with our hypothesis, the path linking perceived peer pressure with individual
attitudes was stronger in older students than in younger children. None of the
other expected differences concerning perceived peer and parent pressure
were confirmed.

Discussion
In this study, we used SEM to test a model partially based on Latanè and
Darley’s (1970) theoretical formulation on bystanders’ behavior during

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 17

.64/.60
COPING
.66/.56 DEFENDING
APPROACH

.12*/.27

.32/.57

ATTITUDES .15/.32 RESPONSIBILITY -.30/-.32

ns/-.15 -.13/-.15

-.15/-.28

-.13*/-.17

COPING PASSIVE
.18/.17
DISTANCING BYSTANDING .75/71

Figure 3. Final model tested through multigroup analysis in the two age groups
(primary school and middle school)
Note: ns = not significant. For visual clarity, only the part of the model derived from Latané
and Darley’s model is represented. Significant paths from perceived peer and parent pres-
sure are reported in Table 2. Standardized loadings that differed across groups have a colored
background.
*p < .01 (all the other ps < .001).

emergency situations. In particular, we focused on how the situation is per-

ceived (i.e., attitudes toward bullying), on personal responsibility, and on
participants’ coping responses as witnesses of bullying. Moreover, the role of
perceived parent and peer normative pressure was analyzed. Overall, our
findings confirmed that the model is useful for distinguishing several per-
sonal correlates of defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying in
both late childhood and early adolescence. Moreover, the significant role of
perceived parent and peer pressure demonstrated the importance of consider-
ing both strictly individual characteristics and contextual variables, in terms
of perceived expectations from significant others in the child’s microsys-
tems, to have a more complete picture of bystanders’ behavior. Specifically,
results indicated that holding positive attitudes toward victims led students
to feel higher personal responsibility for intervention, and both attitudes
and responsibility were positively associated with students’ choice to adopt

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

18 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

approach coping strategies and negatively with the adoption of distancing

strategies. Using approach strategies in front of others being bullied makes
defending behavior more likely to occur, whereas it decreases the chance that
children will behave as passive bystanders. In contrast, distancing coping
strategies were associated with passive bystanding.
This model may represent a significant step ahead in understanding
bystanders’ behavior in bullying situations because, for the first time, we were
able to analytically describe part of the complexity of the decisional process
that leads to defending behavior. Moreover, the model was further improved
by the inclusion of the role of perceived pressure from significant others. In
this respect, it is worth noting that the expectations of peers and parents sig-
nificantly predicted both behavior and individual attitudes, responsibility,
and coping skills. Even though some paths were stronger in one age group
than in the other, the validity of this model was confirmed for both primary
and middle school students. As far as we know, the influence of perceived
pressure on individual characteristics has been never investigated in the bul-
lying literature. However, our results are consistent with some research in
other fields that showed the links between perceived expectations from sig-
nificant others and personal correlates. For example, Keefe (1994) found that
perceived normative pressure of parents and peers toward alcohol use and
personal attitudes toward drinking were significantly correlated. In short,
these results substantially expand previous findings (e.g., Rigby & Johnson,
2006), suggesting that the influence of perceived peer and parent pressure is
not limited to students’ intention to intervene but that it may have an impact
on students’ actual behavior in bullying situations and on some personal char-
acteristics associated with these outcomes, such as attitudes toward bullying,
perceived personal responsibility for intervention, and coping responses in
the face of bullying episodes.
Furthermore, the expected age differences in the role of peer influence on
individual characteristics were partially confirmed in that the effect of per-
ceived peer expectations on attitudes toward bullying was stronger in older
students than in younger children. This result is consistent with past research
that has underlined the growing importance of peers in influencing beliefs,
attitudes, and norms during the middle school years (Bukowski, Newcomb,
& Hartup, 1996; Harris, 1995; Juvoven & Galvàn, 2008; Pozzoli, Gini et al.,
in press). In contrast, our findings did not support the hypothesis of a weaker
parental influence among older participants. Future research should investi-
gate whether the role of perceived parent pressure on individual defending
and passive bystanding is also stable during middle adolescence.

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 19

Notwithstanding these results, the current study has some limitations.

First, the cross-sectional nature of the research design did not allow us to
describe causal pathways in the relationships between our study variables and
participants’ behaviors in bullying, even though the hypothesized directions are
logically consistent with the theoretical model by Latanè and Darley. To over-
come this limitation, longitudinal or experimental studies are required. Second,
the study relied only on self-report data. This may be a problem, especially for
the potential presence of social desirability. Future research should consider
other informants (e.g., teachers, peers, parents) to gather data about children’s
behavior and characteristics. Moreover, given the medium-level reliability of
some of the measures adopted in this study, future research replicating these
findings with different instruments could strengthen our results. Another limi-
tation concerns the measure of perceived pressure for intervention. In fact, after
the CFA, one item was excluded from parent measure but not from peer mea-
sure, rendering the measures not perfectly equivalent. Moreover, it would be
interesting to investigate other potential sources of influence on behavior and
individual characteristics, for example, the role of perceived normative pres-
sure from teachers. Furthermore, future studies may thoroughly explore how
different kinds of peer pressure affect behavior, for example, friend versus non-
friend pressure or high-status versus low-status peer pressure. Finally, we are
aware that there is a complex pattern of relationships among personal charac-
teristics, contextual variables, and individual behavior and that other personal
characteristics must be considered to explain defending or, conversely, passive
bystanding behavior. For example, in our study, the emotional area was not
explored. It would be interesting to investigate how emotions influence the
decision to help a peer or to look the other way.
Despite these limitations, the findings presented in this work add some
important knowledge to the thus-far limited literature comparing active
intervention in favor of bullied children to passive bystanding. Indeed, they
demonstrate that both individual variables and the perception of social
cues in the immediate contexts can make a significant contribution to
explaining bystanders’ behavior during the primary and middle school
years. Thus, this study represents a step ahead toward a better understand-
ing of the various psychosocial mechanisms underlying different witnesses’
behavior during bullying episodes, and it has potential implications for both
research and antibullying intervention. First of all, results of this study
showed the importance of recognizing, beyond individual characteristics,
the significant role of the context in bullying and indicated that, consistent
with a more ecologically valid approach to the phenomenon, antibullying
intervention should address the individuals involved, their peer group, and

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

20 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

the whole school community, including parents. Moreover, previous stud-

ies have shown that passive bystanders trained in the role of peer helpers
can act as a resource for victimized peers (e.g., Cowie, 2000). A better
understanding of which factors enhance defending behavior can inform the
development of more effective peer support training programs. Ultimately,
this may help passive bystanders to “become” active defenders. As sug-
gested by Gini, Albiero, and colleagues (2008), for example, assertiveness
training (e.g., through role-playing exercises) that is usually used with vic-
tims could be useful, especially for passive bystanders. Indeed, assertive
strategies can help students resist group pressure and intervene even when
this is not what other pupils in the class expect. Moreover, the association
between less adaptive coping styles (i.e., distancing strategies) and passive
bystanding may suggest that teaching problem-solving strategies to onlook-
ers and increasing their self-efficacy for defending could further improve
the likelihood of effective intervention. Finally, the moral component of
active help, for example, in terms of personal responsibility for interven-
tion, should be more explicitly addressed with specific activities within
broader interventions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: The writing of this article was partially
supported by a Research Associate Grant (CPDR090824) and by Grant CPDA085704
from the University of Padova.

Note
1. To evaluate the fit of a model, the following criteria are commonly considered. If
the model fits the data well, the chi-square test statistic (χ2) should be nonsignifi-
cant. However, when the sample is large, χ2 may be significant even if the differ-
ence between the observed and the predicted covariance structure is negligible. To
address this limitation, other indices are used: comparative fit index (CFI; accept-
able fit: 0.90-0.97, good fit: > 0.97), goodness-of-fit index (GFI; acceptable fit:
0.90-0.95, good fit > 0.95), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; acceptable fit:
0.85-0.90, good fit > 0.90), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
acceptable fit: 0.05-0.08, good fit < 0.05), standardized root mean square residual

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 21

(SRMR; acceptable fit: 0.05-0.10, good fit < 0.05; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu
& Bentler, 1995; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).

References
Bickman, L. (1972). Social influence and diffusion of responsibility in an emergency.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 438-445.
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., & Flemington, I. (2002). Associations between second-
ary school pupils’ definitions of bullying, attitudes towards bullying, and ten-
dencies to engage in bullying: Age and sex differences. Educational Studies, 28,
353-370. doi:10.1080/0305569022000042390
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In
K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hartup, W. W. (1996). Friendship and its signifi-
cance in childhood and adolescence: Introduction and comment. In W. M. Bukowski, A.
F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in child-
hood and adolescence (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander
intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779-792. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sad-
ness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 186-
197. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x
Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive
effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Develop-
ment, 18(1), 140-163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x
Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). Early adolescents’ participa-
tion in bullying: Is ToM involved? Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 138-170.
doi:10.1177/0272431609342983
Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure
for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47-59.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2101_8
Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1972). Why don’t bystander help? Because of ambigu-
ity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 392-400. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/
Cowie, H. (2000). Bystanding or standing by: Gender issues in coping with bully-
ing in English schools. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 85-97. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2337(2000)26:1<85::AID-AB7>3.0.CO;2-5
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffu-
sion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

22 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

Espelage, D., Holt, M., & Henkel, R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual
effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The
MODE model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 23, 75-110. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60318-4
Gini, G. (2006a). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong?
Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 528-539. doi:10.1002/ab.20153
Gini, G. (2006b). Bullying as a social process: The role of group membership in stu-
dents' perception of inter-group aggression at school. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 44, 51-65. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.002
Gini, G. (2007). Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying.
School Psychology International, 28, 77-89. doi:10.1177/0143034307075682
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict ado-
lescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33(5), 467-476.
doi:10.1002/ab.20204
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents’
active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 31(1), 93-105. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic prob-
lems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3), 1059-1065. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1215
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008). The role of bystanders in stu-
dents’ perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology,
46, 617-638. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.02.001
Griesler, P. C., & Kandel, D. B. (1998). The impact of maternal drinking during and
after pregnancy on the drinking of adolescent offspring. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 59, 292-304. Retrieved from http://www.jsad.com/
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization the-
ory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.102.3.458
Hoefnagels, C., & Zwikker, M. (2001). The bystander dilemma and child abuse:
Extending the Latane and Darley model to domestic violence. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 31, 1158-1183. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02668.x
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Struc-
tural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). London:
SAGE.
Jöreskog, K. A., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with
the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 23

Juvonen, J., & Galván, A. (2008). Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Les-
sons from research on bullying. In M. Prinstein & K. Dodge (Eds.), Peer influence
processes among youth (pp. 225-244). New York, NY: Guilford.
Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K., Salmivalli, C.,
Rothberg, S., & Ahlbom, A. (1999). The relationships between social intelli-
gence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25(2), 81-89.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:2<81::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-M
Keefe, K. (1994). Perceptions of normative social pressure and attitudes toward alco-
hol use: Changes during adolescence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 46-54.
Retrieved from http://www.jsad.com/
Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies by Danish
children classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not involved, in response
to different (hypothetical) types of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
44, 479-488. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9450.2003.00369.x
Laible, D., Eye, J., & Carlo, G. (2008). Dimensions of conscience in mid-adolescence:
Links with social behavior, parenting, and temperament. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 37, 875-887. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9277-8
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?
New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Latané, B., & Rodin, J. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects on friends and
strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5,
189-202. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221031
Markey, P. M. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated commu-
nication. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 183-188. doi:10.1016/S0747-
5632(99)00056-4
Maruyama, G., Fraser, S. C., & Miller, N. (1982). Personal responsibility and altru-
ism in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 659-664.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.658
Menesini, E., & Camodeca, M. (2008). Shame and guilt as behaviour regulators:
Relationships with bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour. British Jour-
nal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 183-196. doi:10.1348/026151007X205281
Menesini, E., Sanchez, V., Fonzi, A., Ortega, R., Costabile, A., & Lo Feudo, G.
(2003). Moral emotions and bullying: A cross-national comparison of differences
between bullies, victims and outsiders. Aggressive Behavior, 29(6), 515-530.
doi:10.1002/ab.10060
Moriarty, T. (1975). Crime, commitment and the responsive bystander: Two field
experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 370-376.
doi:10.1037/h0076288
Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic observa-
tions of aggressive children with remote audiovisual recording. Developmental

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

24 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

Psychology, 31, 548-553. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/dev/

index.aspx
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to defend the
victimized peer? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 56, 143-163. doi:10.1353/mpq.0.0046
Pöyhönen, V., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). New directions in research and practice
addressing bullying: Focus on defending behavior. In W. Craig (Ed.), An interna-
tional perspective on understanding and addressing bullying (Vol. 1, pp. 6-43).
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Prevnet.
Pozzoli, T., Ang, R. P., & Gini, G. (2012). Bystanders’ reactions to bullying: A
cross-cultural analysis of personal correlates among Italian and Singaporean stu-
dents. Social Development. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00651.x
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in
bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(6), 815-827. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9
Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Vieno, A. (2012). The role of individual correlates and class
norms in defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: A multilevel
analysis. Child Development.
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, 425-440. doi:0.1080/01443410500342047
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported
behavior and attitudes toward victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615-
627. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00224545.asp
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Aus-
tralian children and implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social
Psychology, 133(1), 33-42. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/
titles/00224545.asp
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 41, 813-819. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/
amp/
Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1996). How do the victims
respond to bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 22(2), 99-109. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2337(1996)22:2<99::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-P
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social
status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1-15. Retrieved from http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2337
Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change of
behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

Pozzoli and Gini 25

Behavior, 24(3), 205-218. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:3<205::AID-

AB5>3.0.CO;2-J
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms,
and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Devel-
opment, 28(3), 246-258. doi:10.1080/01650250344000488
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of
structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. Retrieved
from http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~kscherm/schermelleh/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf
Schreiber, E. (1979). Bystander’s intervention in situations of violence. Psychological
Reports, 45, 243-246. Retrieved from http://www.ammonsscientific.com/AmSci/
about.htm
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychol-
ogy of helping and altruism. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bully-
ing: Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham
(Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 332-351). New York, NY: Guilford.
Stassen Berger, K. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Develop-
mental Review, 27, 90-126. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.08.002
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A social-ecological frame-
work of bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bul-
lying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and
intervention (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Social psychology (12th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Warden, D., & MacKinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An inves-
tigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 367-385. doi:10.1348/026151
003322277757
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying
in junior middle and secondary-schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3-25.
doi:10.1080/0013188930350101

Bios
Tiziana Pozzoli is PhD in developmental psychology. She is currently a research
associate in the Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of
Padua, Italy. Her research interests concern individual and contextual variables asso-
ciated with different behavior during bullying episodes, focusing especially on
bystanders’ behavior (e.g., defending and passive bystanding).

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012

26 The Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

Gianluca Gini is assistant professor in developmental psychology in the Department

of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padova, Italy. His research
interests include the social-cognitive and moral correlates of bullying, the social
processes (e.g., normative pressure, moral climate) associated with different forms
of participation in bullying, and the negative consequences of frequent peer
victimization.

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN on August 2, 2012