Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of School Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jschpsyc

Experiences of adolescent witnesses to peer victimization: The

T
bystander effect
⁎
Sheri Baumana, , Jina Yoona, Charlotte Iurinoa, Liam Hackettb
a
University of Arizona, United States of America
b
Ditch the Label, Brighton, UK

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Action editor: Lyndsay Jenkins Many anti-bullying programs now emphasize the role of bystanders – youth who witness peer
Keywords: victimization. Using a large sample of adolescents (aged 12–18) from the United Kingdom who
Bystanders completed an online survey, the present study examined the types of bystander interventions,
Peer victimization their outcomes, and reasons for intervening and not intervening. No significant group differences
Empathy by any demographic group were found in intervening or not. Results showed that those who had
Intervention a negative affective reaction when they witnessed bullying were more likely to intervene. Two
And adolescents intervening behaviors (telling the bully to stop and telling an adult) were the strongest predictors
of positive results. The most frequently selected reason for not intervening was not knowing what
to do, and for intervening, having prosocial and altruistic motives was most common. These and
other results are discussed for theoretical and practical implications.

It is widely agreed that an incident of school bullying involves several roles in addition to those enacted by the perpetrator and the
target (Salmivalli, 1999; Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse, & Neale, 2010). Studies have found that there are witnesses, or bystanders, to
the majority of bullying events (85% according to Craig & Pepler, 1997), so that most students have witnessed school bullying at one
time or another (Bonanno & Hymel, 2006; Trach et al., 2010). Like the perpetrators and targets, witnesses to bullying are also at risk
for negative mental health outcomes (Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009). Recent research and prevention efforts have em-
phasized the role that bystanders play in the bullying dynamic, since harnessing the power of these peers could be a viable avenue to
reducing bullying in school (Frey, Hirschstein, Edstrőm, & Snell, 2009; Pepler, Craig, & O'Connell, 2010; Salmivalli, Voeten, &
Poskiparta, 2011). Furthermore, it appears that the actions of witnesses moderate the effects of social anxiety and peer rejection on
victimization (Kärna, Voeten, Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2010), underscoring the importance of bystander behavior in reducing this
public health problem.
However, only a small minority (< 20%) (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001; Pronk, Goossens, Olthof, De Mey, & Willemen, 2013)
of witnesses to school bullying intervene to stop the bullying or defend the victim (Pöyhönen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012), pre-
senting significant challenges in creating a peer ecology that discourages bullying. The literature is clear that bystander behaviors are
influenced by multiple factors, including individual characteristics such as gender, age, and degree of empathy (Menesini, Codecasa,
Benelli, & Cowie, 2003; Paciello, Fida, Cerniglia, Tramontano, & Cole, 2013; Rigby & Johnson, 2006; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz,
Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996; Salmivalli, Lappalainen, & Lagerspetz, 1998; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Thompson &
Gullone, 2008); situation specific characteristics such as seriousness of the incident, potential for negative social repercussions
(Salmivalli, Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997); and broader ecological contexts such as class or school norms of taking action against

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sherib@u.arizona.edu (S. Bauman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.03.002
Received 22 December 2018; Received in revised form 18 February 2020; Accepted 30 March 2020
0022-4405/ © 2020 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

bullying (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Nickerson, Aloe, & Werth, 2015; Pozzoli, Ang, & Gini, 2012). That is, adolescents' decision
to intervene or not intervene in a given situation is a product of multiple influences, instead of one or two variables. The purpose of
the current study was to better understand adolescents' choice to intervene or not intervene based on their personal experiences of
witnessing a bullying incident. Specifically, the study examined adolescents' reasons for intervening or not intervening when they
witnessed an incident in the past year. By having youth refer to their personal witnessing experience, we attempted to understand
their reasoning process for intervening or not intervening in a bullying situation. Furthermore, we examined other aspects of by-
stander decisions, such as how they feel when witnessing an incident, what they do when they intervene, what kind of incidents
prompt their intervention, and the results of their interventions. Thus, the study aimed to identify important areas of intervention
using youth perspectives and to inform school-based intervention programs and practices about ways to increase different defending
behaviors.

1. Significance of bystander roles

Olweus (1993) identified eight possible roles in an incident of bullying: perpetrators (bullies), followers (or assistants to the
bully), passive supporters (witnesses who do not leave the scene but who do nothing to oppose the bully), supporters (those who
cheer on the bully or laugh), onlookers (outsiders), possible defenders (those who would like to defend but are unsure of what to do),
actual defenders, and victims. Defending behaviors include actions such as telling the bully to stop, comforting the victim, getting
adult assistance, helping the victim leave the situation, etc. Meter (2015) identified a 5-factor model of defending behaviors in a
sample of children in Grades 4 to 12: assertive, overtly aggressive, relationally aggressive, telling an adult, and comforting the victim.
These studies highlight the wide range of possible bystander responses in a bullying situation, but more importantly indicate that
these responses are likely to have different effects on future bullying behaviors and victims' adjustment (Meter & Card, 2015a, 2015b;
Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, & Salmivalli, 2008). Salmivalli et al. (2011) investigated peers' defense of the victim in a large sample of
third through fifth grade classes in Finland. They found that bullying occurred more often in classes in which bullying behavior was
often reinforced by peer approval or condoning the behavior. Conversely, in classrooms with high levels of defending the victim,
bullying was less prevalent. These findings are consistent with the principle of operant conditioning, which posits that positively
reinforced behaviors will be repeated. For those who bully, their behavior is thought to be motivated by the need for power and status
in the peer group (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Salmivalli, 2010). When their bullying behavior elicits attention and approval from the
witnesses (by positive encouragement, laughing, joining in, or condoned by inaction), the perpetrator achieves the status goal and the
behavior is likely to be repeated (Salmivalli et al., 2011). While we know from these studies that bystander responses involve various
behaviors and are likely to affect future incidents, fewer studies have examined the outcomes of these bystander responses. The
current study investigated youth perceptions of these outcomes and what happened when they intervened, given that their perception
of these outcomes is likely to influence their future bystander behaviors.

1.1. Bystander behaviors

1.1.1. Theoretical framework

The seminal work on bystander behavior was done by Darley and Latané (1968), who focused on the observation that individuals
who witness aggression are less likely to intervene in the presence of other passive observers. These researchers proposed that there
are a series of steps that lead to intervention: the observer must notice the incident, realize that assistance is needed, feel responsible
to intervene, believe they can help, and make the decision to act (Latané & Darley, 1970). However, there are three processes that
inhibit the willingness to intervene. When multiple observers are present, the individual may feel less personally responsible to act on
behalf of the victim (diffusion of responsibility). The presence of others at the scene also means that there is the possibility of being
judged for one's actions (evaluation apprehension), or that the bystander may conclude that since others are not intervening, the
intervention is not necessary (pluralistic ignorance). We argue that this process applies to bullying in youth as well (Salmivalli, 2010).
Many studies have used this particular theoretical framework (Nickerson, Aloe, Livingston, & Feeley, 2014; Obermann, 2011; Pozzoli
& Gini, 2012) and highlighted the complex process of decision making when one responds or does not respond to a witnessed
victimization event.

1.1.2. Demographic variables

In general, only a small minority of witnesses to school bullying intervene (< 20%) to stop the bullying or defend the victim
(Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Hawkins et al., 2001; Nickerson et al., 2015; Pöyhönen et al., 2012). The literature on bystander intervention
has implicated both gender and age as variables of interest (Meter & Card, 2015a, 2015b). Defending behaviors tend to be less likely
as students age (Hutchinson, 2012; Jeffrey, Miller, & Linn, 2001); eighth graders were less likely to be active defenders than fifth
graders (Jeffrey et al., 2001). Salmivalli (2001) observed that girls were more likely to be defenders than boys, and the proportion of
defenders decreased with age. She suggested that girls are socialized to be more nurturing and empathic, while boys are expected to
be rough and aggressive, and these attributes affect defending behavior. She also noted that the age differences in defending behavior
were not consistent across studies, and so merited further investigation. Rigby (2008) found that girls who witness bullying are more
likely to tell a teacher than boys, while Felix and Green (2010) reported that while girl bystanders were more likely to intervene in
general, both sexes were more likely to intervene when the bully and victim were the same gender as the bystander. The main
predictors of active defending behavior were social self-efficacy and empathy, both of which were associated with being female (Gini,
Albiero, Benelli, & Altoè, 2008). Rock and Baird (2012) found that in addition to age differences, the type of bullying incident

2
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

(physical or relational) generated different strategies for intervention in a sample of children aged 6–11. Interestingly, when the
researchers primed participants with a story of successful intervention by a peer, girls generated more strategies for intervention, but
that did not hold for boys.
Although race/ethnicity and sexual orientation have been associated with other aspects of victimization, they have not been
examined with respect to behavior when witnessing peer victimization. One study found that more inter-group contact (Whites with
Blacks and ethnic minorities) led to higher levels of empathy and cultural openness and less in-group bias, which predicted assertive
bystander intentions (Abbott & Cameron, 2014). However, the measure of assertive bystander intervention was based on a vignette in
which an immigrant student is called a rude name, and not actual behavior. Moreover, specific race and ethnic group behaviors were
not analyzed. Another study found that race/ethnicity was a significant predictor of bystander behavior; students who were from a
racial/ethnic background other than White were much more likely to reinforce the bully (Datta, Cornell, & Huang, 2016) as were
girls. The researchers caution that the race/ethnic effects did not take into account the race/ethnicity of the bully and victim and
recommended further study of race/ethnicity in bystander behavior. The effects of race/ethnicity on bullying behaviors in general is
not conclusive, but the increased rates of victimization of sexual minority youth (including transgender, non-binary, and other gender
categories in addition to non-heterosexual orientation) is firmly established (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Finally, students with dis-
abilities are victimized more often than their non-disabled peers, but the effect of these individual characteristics on the choice to
intervene when bullying is witnessed has not been investigated. Thus, the current study included these variables as exploratory
inquiry. We were interested in whether minority status is associated with lower likelihood of intervention because those students may
lack social power and fear negative repercussions (Carter & Spencer, 2006).

1.1.3. Multiple influences on bystander decisions

In addition to demographic variables, Pozzoli and Gini (2012) investigated individual differences between those who defended
the victim and passive bystanders. They examined pro-victim attitudes, a sense of personal responsibility to intervene, and coping
strategies, along with participants' perceptions of expectations of peers and parents. They found that peer and parental expectations
(e.g., “normative pressure”) for how students should behave when witnessing bullying including direct intervention, asking for help
from an adult, disregarding the incident, or withdrawing for self-protection, were significant influences on bystander response. Gini
et al. (2008) found that both empathy and social self-efficacy were significantly higher in girls, and that higher scores on empathy
were associated with both active and passive bystander behavior. However, those high in social self-efficacy were more likely to
actively defend a victim, while those with lower levels of social self-efficacy were more likely to be passive bystanders. These findings
together suggest that youth's age, gender, self-efficacy, expectations from others, and type of victimization influence bystander
behaviors. The findings further indicate that one is likely to engage in a process of simultaneous appraisal of these variables in order
to decide whether to respond or not respond to witnessed bullying incidents.
Several qualitative studies corroborated the above findings. For example, Thornberg and his colleagues (Thornberg, 2010;
Thornberg et al., 2012) found that empathy for the victim, anger toward the perpetrator, and self-efficacy were associated with
bystander intervention. They also found that bystander's social standing (e.g., high social status) and relationship to the victim (e.g.,
friends with the victim) as well as adults' expectations were associated with bystander intervention. In a qualitative study of Swedish
students in grades four through seven, Forsberg, Thornberg, and Samuelsson (2014) reported similar findings. They concluded that
the bystanders' definition of an incident is an important ingredient in the decisional process, with bystanders assessing whether the
incident constitutes bullying and gauging how serious it is. Participants also were more likely to intervene if they knew the persons
involved and if they had a context from which to understand and interpret the behavior. The degree of distress felt by the observer
influenced their choices, so that the stronger the distress the more likely observers were to intervene. The role of friendships and the
social hierarchy of the involved peers was a particularly salient factor. When the observer is of lower social status than the perpe-
trator, he/she is less likely to intervene. With respect to not intervening, a number of variables have been identified: a fear of
retaliation (Rigby & Johnson, 2005; Thornberg, 2007, 2010), being friends with the perpetrator, enjoying the event as entertainment
(Thornberg et al., 2012), admiring the bully (Rigby & Johnson, 2005), believing it was someone else's responsibility to intervene, and
being unsure of the appropriate action (Bellmore, Ma, You, & Hughes, 2012).

1.1.4. Emotional reactions

One important aspect of decision making is an emotional reaction, possibly influenced by various factors (e.g., severity of in-
cident, relationships, etc.). As implied in empathic reactions, a robust predictor of bystander behaviors, one's emotional reactions to
what one witnesses are likely to play a role in bystander behaviors. An interesting study by Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde (2013)
provides supporting evidence. They took physiological measures of a random subsample of 79 children while they watched videos of
bullying incidents. After viewing, the participants reported on their emotions. Those participants who had high heart rate accel-
eration and high negative emotions were more likely to intervene (based on peer ratings) than those participants who had heart rate
deceleration and low level of negative emotions.

1.1.5. The current study

Based on the gaps in the existing literature, the current study attempted to understand adolescents' decisions to intervene or not to
intervene and to expand our knowledge of bystander behaviors. Given the increased peer victimization and low defending behaviors
during adolescence (Carlyle & Steinman, 2007; Craig & Harel, 2001; Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Hong & Espelage, 2012), we focused
on youth ages 12 to 18. We also noted the preponderance of qualitative studies (e.g., Forsberg et al., 2014; Fosberg, Wood, Smith,
Varjas, Meyers, & Jungert, 2018; Thornberg, 2010; Thornberg et al., 2012) in the extant literature on this topic, along with many

3
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

quantitative studies that use vignettes of scenarios to elicit responses (e.g., Mazzone, Camodeca, & Salmivalli, 2016). Although
vignettes are a useful research tool, there is evidence that one's intention to act in a certain way may not be a valid predictor of that
action. Thus, the current study asked the participants' actual behavior in response to incidents of bullying they recall having wit-
nessed, which allowed us to examine specific factors that were associated with each decision. A large initial sample allowed us to
identify a sample of youth who had witnessed bullying and to examine youth's actual defending behaviors and experiences when
witnessing peer victimization by bullying. The study examined the following predictor variables: demographic characteristics, type of
victimization they witnessed, and affective reaction to witnessing. Using a subsample of those who intervened, the study also ex-
amined how they intervened and what outcomes they experienced. For those who did not intervene, we inquired about the reasons
for that decision.
We investigated the following research questions in a large sample of adolescents ages 12 to 18 from the U.K.: (1) what demo-
graphic characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability) predict youth's decision to intervene when bullying
is witnessed?; (2) does a bystander's choice to intervene or not vary by the type of bullying witnessed and affective reaction?; (3) how
did participants intervene, and to what extent are the results of their interventions positive?; and (4) what are the reasons for
intervening or not intervening when bullying is witnessed? Based on our review of the literature, we tested the following hypotheses:
Younger students and girls are more likely to intervene (Trach et al., 2010); Minority groups (racial/ethnic groups, gender, sexual
orientation) are less likely to intervene when bullying is observed (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2018); and bystanders are more likely to
intervene in verbal incidents than other forms of victimization (Oh & Hazler, 2009). We considered the reasons for intervening to be
an exploratory inquiry, and thus did not have a hypothesis. We hypothesized that reasons for not intervening would include lack of
knowledge of what to do.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The current study used archival data collected in 2018 by Ditch the Label, an anti-bullying organization with a significant
presence in the United Kingdom. Ditch the Label aims to decrease the incidence and negative impact of bullying by conducting
research and providing support to youth. Consistent with this mission, Ditch the Label conducts an annual survey to inform the
organization's anti-bullying efforts. Overall 14,756 students ranging in age from 12 to 25 years old accessed the online survey. We
selected a subsample of bystanders using the following inclusion criteria: (a) participants were younger than 19 years old, (b) in-
dicated they had witnessed an incident of bullying at least once, (c) responded to the section on bystander behaviors, and (d)
responded to the question “How honest were you on this survey?” with “mostly honest” or “completely honest,” (other options were
“completely dishonest,” “mostly dishonest” and “in the middle”). Cornell, Klein, Konold, and Huang (2012) found that such items
improve the quality of survey responses in adolescents.
The resulting subsample of bystanders contained 1855 participants. Table 1 provides demographic information for the full sample
and for the subset of bystanders. The mean age of the participants was 13.69 (SD = 1.79). Regarding gender, the sample of witnesses
(hereafter called the sample) were 58% female and 40% male. Participants identifying as non-binary, transgender, and a non-listed
gender comprised the remaining 2%. Regarding their ethnicity, 80% reported that they were White (British, Irish and other), 6%
reported that they were Black African or Black Caribbean, and 5% reported mixed race. Participants' sexual orientation included 84%
straight/heterosexual and 4% bisexual. Six percent reported being curious/unsure, lesbian, gay, asexual, or “other,” whereas 6%
indicated that they preferred not to report their sexual orientation. Lastly, 90% reported that they did not have a disability. In total,
the participants came from 318 schools; 23 schools had > 100 participants (ranging from 100 to 741); 225 schools had one or two
participants.

2.2. Analytic approaches to self-report survey questions

We conducted exploratory analyses on the survey questions, considering that they were not from established measures. Ditch the
Label created the survey items, based on topics that appeared on their website, on site visitors' inquiries and posts, and in response to
news articles about bullying and inquiries they received from media.
Researchers generally assume that measures used in research are reflective in nature (Coltman, Devinney, Midgley, & Veniak,
2008) and that the latent construct causes the indicators (items). In the current study, we used a formative measurement approach,
based on the premise that the items of the survey were not expected to reflect a single construct. Cornell (2017) noted that some
“scales” are actually indexes; Coltman et al. (2008) and Jarvis, Mackenzie, and Podsakoff (2003) provide a theoretical and empirical
framework for determining whether a measure is a scale or index. In formative measures, any pattern of inter-correlations is ac-
ceptable, and there is no applicable measure of reliability. For data reduction, we followed the recommendation of Edwards (2011)
who noted that formative measures should use principal components analysis rather than common factors.
To create indexes, principal components analyses (PCA) were conducted using the FACTOR software program, release 10.9.02
(Loenzo-Seva & Fernando, 2019). This allowed us to make appropriate adjustments due to high kurtosis values, to use polychoric
correlation matrices for the analysis, and to use Minimum Average Partial (MAP) or Parallel Analysis (PA) (O'Connor, 2000) to
determine the best number of components to retain. We reported the results of the principal components analyses for the measures
below where this strategy was used. More detailed results of the PCA are reported in Appendix.

4
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

Table 1
Demographics of participants.
Demographic category Full sample Witnesses
(n = 9150) (n = 1855)
Mage = 13.69 SD = 1.79 Mage = 13.65 SD = 1.58

n % n %

Gendera
Male 3770 41 744 40
Female 5199 57 1077 58
Transgender 52 1 12 <1
Non-binary 73 1 14 <1
Other 56 1 8 <1

Ethnicity
White 7330 80 1357 73
Black 477 5 103 6
Southeast Asian 348 4 64 3
Asian 299 3 67 4
Other (Arab or Irish Traveler) 91 1 22 1
Mixed race 366 4 83 5
Prefer not to Say 145 2 24 1
Missing 94 1 20 1

Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 7572 83 1537 83
Non-heterosexual 549 6 125 7
Curious/unsure 222 2 64 4
Prefer not to say 612 7 96 5
Other 89 1 19 1
Missing 106 1 14 1

Region
East Midlands 440 4.8 98 5.3
Wales 24 0.3 4 0.2
West Midlands 212 2.3 30 1.6
Yorkshire and the Humber 28 0.3 6 0.3
East of England 799 8.7 160 8.6
London 1494 16.3 283 15.3
North East 499 5.5 139 7.5
North West 1756 19.2 336 18.1
Northern Ireland 12 0.1 1 0.1
Scotland 131 1.4 33 1.8
South East 1712 18.7 347 18.7
South West 2043 22.3 418 22.5

Disability
No 8228 90 1227 90
Yes 922 10 130 10

a
Note. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Definition of bullying

Rather than provide a standard definition of bullying, the survey included an open-ended item that asked, “How would you define
bullying?” Analysis of those responses are reported elsewhere (Corcoran, LaForge, Yoon, Bauman, & Hackett, 2020). Overall, the
responses to the question indicated that the participants' definition of bullying heavily focused on negative feelings associated with
aggressive acts.

2.3.2. Experiences as a witness to bullying

Experiences of witnessing bullying were assessed in terms of (1) types of witnessed bullying, and (2) how witnessing affected the
participants (affective reaction). Type of bullying witnessed was assessed with a series of binary (yes/no) items (i.e., “What did you
witness?”), and participants selected as many answers as applicable among the following: “verbal (such as name calling/insults),”
“physical (such as being attacked or punched),” “intimidation (when someone purposely makes somebody feel uncomfortable),”
“cyberbullying (bullying online),” “social exclusion (e.g., someone being left out of a group),” “within an online game,” and “indirect
(e.g., silent treatment and rumours).” The phrases in parentheses are the definitions provided on the survey. Also, bullying in online
games is often not mentioned on surveys that measure cyberbullying, and because bullying in that context is usually bullying of the
character in the game rather than the person playing that character, Ditch the Label chose to separate those items.

5
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

A PCA was conducted on the seven Types of Victimization items using the analytic method described above. The Bartlett's statistic
was significant and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (0.69, mediocre) also indicated that the data were acceptable for this analysis. We
used the Promin rotation to maximize factor simplicity. PA and MAP both recommended a two-component solution. The proportion
of variance explained by the two components was 58%. The Factor Determinancy indices were 0.91 and 0.93 for the two components
respectively, which indicates that the factors are stable (Barbarabelli, Lee, Vellone, & Riegel, 2014). The Loading Simplicity Index
(Lorenzo-Seva, 2013) was.65 (97th percentile), suggesting the components are quite simple (items load on only one factor). Com-
ponent One consists of physical bullying, cyberbullying, and bullying in an online game environment. Component Two includes
verbal, intimidation, social exclusion, and indirect forms of victimization.
Following the question “What did you witness?” participants were asked how witnessing affected them. Response options were “It
didn't affect me,” “I felt upset,” “I felt guilty,” “I felt stressed,” “It negatively impacted my mental health,” “I thought it was funny,” “It
made me feel powerful,” “I enjoyed it,” “I was scared it could happen to me,” and “I felt bad for the person being bullied.” A PCA was
conducted using the method described above. The Bartlett's statistic was significant and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (0.63, mediocre)
also indicated that the data were acceptable for this analysis. Because the correlation matrix was not positive-definitive, the FACTOR
program applied a smoothing algorithm to the matrix (Loenzo-Seva & Fernando, 2019). We used the Direct Oblimin rotation to
maximize factor simplicity. PA and MAP both recommended a two-component solution. The proportion of variance explained by the
two components was 51%. The Factor Determinancy indices were 0.93 for each of the two components, which indicates that the
factors are stable (Barbarabelli et al., 2014). The Loading Simplicity Index (Lorenzo-Seva, 2013) was 0.46 (89th percentile), sug-
gesting the components are quite simple (items load on only one factor). We decided not to include Item 1 (It didn't affect me) on
either component because it cross-loaded on both, and it differed conceptually from items describing affective reactions. Twenty-one
percent of witnesses (n = 383) said “yes” to that item.

2.3.3. Intervening in witnessed bullying

Frequency of intervening was assessed (i.e., “Have you ever done anything to try and stop the bullying, when you have witnessed it
happening to someone else?”) with the following forced-choice options: “Always,” “Sometimes,” “Rarely,” and “Never.” This item
was used to create a dichotomous variable (Intervene Yes/No) for use in analyses, with “rarely” and “never” considered “no” and
“sometimes” and “always” recoded as yes. On the original variable, 17.5% (n = 324) of respondents selected “always,” 51.7%
(n = 959) indicated “sometimes,” 21.3% (n = 395) endorsed “rarely,” and 9.5% marked “never.”
For types of intervention (i.e., “How did you intervene?”) the participants were provided with four options and asked to choose all
options that applied, including “I told the person bullying to stop,” “I told an adult,” and “I physically attacked the person doing the
bullying.” The results of PCA did not support any components so the four items were treated as single scores (yes/no).

2.3.4. Results of intervention

Following the question (how did you intervene?), the participants were asked to indicate what happened when they intervened.
Eight options were presented and two indexes were constructed: Negative Result Index (4 items; e.g., “The bullying carried on
anyway”) and Positive Result Index (3 items; e.g., “The person bullying felt better”). A PCA was conducted using the method
described above. The Bartlett's statistic was significant and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (0.61, mediocre) also indicated that the data
were acceptable for this analysis. The determinant of the matrix was 0.62, which is well above the recommended minimum of
0.00001 (Field, 2013). We used the Promin rotation to maximize factor simplicity. PA and MAP both recommended a two-component
solution. The proportion of variance explained by the two components was 55%. The Factor Determinancy indices were 0.94 and
0.90 for the two components respectively, which indicates that the factors are stable (Barbarabelli et al., 2014). The Index of Factor
Simplicity (Lorenzo-Seva, 2013) was 0.30 (73rd percentile), suggesting the components are not simple: two of the variables had
substantial cross-loadings (The bullying stopped, and I was physically attacked). We retained “The bullying stopped” on Component 1
because it loaded strongly on that component and was > 0.2 higher on that component (Atkins, 2014). The negative sign is con-
ceptually consistent with the component showing negative results; it was reverse coded when the component score was computed.
The item “I was physically attacked” loaded on both components, but because values for the weights of robust rotation (h = 9.75,
w = 0.00) suggest that this variable is unstable, we chose to remove it.

2.3.5. Reasons for intervening/not intervening

Reasons for intervening versus not intervening upon witnessing bullying were also assessed with the following questions: “Why
did you intervene,” and “Why didn't you intervene?” Regarding reasons for intervening, participants were given the seven options,
including “It was a right thing to do,” “I felt worry for the person being bullied,” “I was angry at the person doing the bullying.” Those
participants who answered that they did not intervene were given 12 possible reasons for not intervening, and could choose as many
as applied, including “I didn't know what to do,” “It wasn't any of my business,” “I was afraid I would get bullied,” and “I didn't want
to be the snitch.” A PCA was performed on the “Why did you intervene?” question. The PCA on the “Why didn't you intervene” did
not find an interpretable factor structure, so we treated each reason as an individual item.

2.4. Procedure

Ditchthelabel.org retrieved a public-use list of all schools in the UK with contact information. Because the survey was conducted to
gather information to guide the charity's work, they did not seek approval from an Institutional Review Board. Nonetheless, the
schools and participants were informed of the voluntary nature of their participation, and that they could choose not to participate at

6
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

any time without penalty and were advised of support personnel available to assist should the survey cause distress. The authors of
the paper submitted a determination request to their university Institutional Review Board; the determination was that an IRB review
was not required.
Emails requesting that the school participate were sent to all secondary schools on the list. Those administrators who responded
and expressed willingness to administer the survey to students received instructions and a link to the survey. Parental consent was
requested for participants below the age of 16, at which age parental consent is no longer required in the UK. Surveys were anon-
ymous, excluding participants who agreed to supply their email address for the sole purpose of receiving entry to a prize draw
incentive or to express interest in sharing their story for the purpose of the media. Student participants provided assent by reading the
disclaimer and proceeding to the survey. Students completed the survey at school, supervised by teachers. The archival data were
provided to the researchers for analysis.

2.5. Data analysis

SPSS version 26 was used for all analyses other than PCA. There were no missing data on the bystander variables of interest. On
the demographic variables (gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and disability status), 0.7% of data were missing on sexual
orientation and 1.1% were missing on race/ethnicity, and Little's MCAR test (χ2 = 4.84, df = 8, p = .77) indicated that missing data
on the items used in these analyses were minimal and missing completely at random. Thus, we concluded that there was no need to
impute missing values. The sample size was sufficiently large, and thus we deleted missing data listwise. For Research Questions 1
and 2, we conducted logistic regression analyses to examine the effects of demographic groups, types of victimization, and affective
reactions to witnessing on the decision to intervene or not. For Research Question 3, we conducted linear regression analyses to
examine the relations between the intervening behaviors and the results of intervening behaviors. Research Question 4 (reasons for
intervening or not intervening) was addressed by descriptive analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Predictors of intervening or not

To examine intervening behavior by demographic groups, we conducted a logistic regression with Intervene (Yes or No) as the
dependent variable and age, gender, disability status, ethnicity/race, and sexual orientation as predictors. Out of 1855 participants,
69.2% (n = 1283) reported intervening when they witnessed an incident (Sometimes or Always). The model included five in-
dependent variables (age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability). The full model was not statistically significant,
χ2 = 3.30, df = 5, Cox & Snell R2 = 0.002. Inconsistent with our hypotheses, minority status in terms of gender, ethnicity, and sexual
orientation did not explain significant variance in intervening. Table 2 summarizes the results of the logistic regression analyses.
We then conducted a logistic regression analysis to test whether the types of bullying that participants witnessed and their
affective reactions to that experience predicted whether or not they intervened. Given that the affective reaction may vary by the type
of bullying, we entered the types of bullying in the first block and types of bullying and affective reaction in the second block. The
results are summarized in Table 3. The first model was statistically significant (χ2 = 71.41, df = 2, p < .001) with both types of

Table 2
Logistic regression predicting intervening.
β S.E. Wald df p Exp 95% C.I. for EXP(B)
(B)
Lower Upper

Step 1a Age (continuous) −0.03 0.03 0.82 1 0.37 0.97 0.91 1.04
Gender (Ref: male) 6.62 4 0.16
Gender female 0.39 0.76 0.27 1 0.60 1.48 0.34 6.53
Gender transgender 0.57 0.76 0.57 1 0.45 1.76 0.40 7.76
Gender non-binary −0.58 0.95 0.38 1 0.54 0.56 0.09 3.59
Gender Other −0.18 0.94 0.00 1 0.99 0.98 0.16 6.17
Race/ethnicity (Ref; White) 3.64 6 0.73
Race/ethnicity Black 0.00 0.46 0.00 1 0.99 1.00 0.41 2.44
Race/ethnicity South Asian 0.07 0.51 0.02 1 0.89 1.07 0.40 2.89
Race/ethnicity Asian 0.42 0.55 0.59 1 0.44 1.53 0.52 4.51
Race/ethnicity Other −0.33 0.52 0.41 1 0.52 0.72 0.26 2.00
Race/ethnicity Mixed 0.13 0.67 0.04 1 0.84 1.14 0.31 4.28
Race/ethnicity prefer not to say −0.07 0.52 0.02 1 0.89 0.93 0.34 2.55
Sexual orientation (Ref: Hetero) 4.73 2 0.09
Sexual orientation LGBA −0.19 0.23 0.65 1 0.42 0.83 0.53 1.30
Sexual orientation prefer not to say/other 0.23 0.28 0.63 1 0.43 1.25 0.72 2.18
Disability (Ref: none) 1.28 2 0.53
Disability yes 0.29 0.27 1.13 1 0.29 1.34 0.78 2.27
Disability prefer not to say 0.24 0.22 1.12 1 0.29 1.27 0.82 1.96
Constant 0.67 0.97 0.47 1 0.50 1.94

7
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

Table 3
Predicting intervening when witnessing bullying.
Intervening behavior Wald Odds 95% C.I for

β SE (df = 1) Ratio Odds Ratio

Lower Upper

Model 1
Type: physical/cyber/online game 0.55 0.08 51.94⁎⁎⁎ 1.73 1.49 2.00
Type: verbal/intimidation/social/indirect −0.41 0.08 24.08⁎⁎⁎ 0.67 0.57 0.78
Model 2
Type: physical/cyber/online game 0.36 0.15 6.14⁎ 1.44 1.08 1.91
Type: verbal/intimidation/social/indirect −0.29 0.09 11.57⁎⁎ 0.75 0.63 0.88
Affect: distress 0.18 0.08 4.64⁎ 1.19 1.02 1.40
Affect: enjoyment −0.78 0.22 12.37⁎⁎⁎ 0.46 0.30 0.71

⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

bullying being significant predictors. Those who witnessed physical, cyber, and online gaming more frequently were 1.73 times more
likely to intervene; β =0.55, SE = 0.08, Wald = 51.94, df = 1, p < .01. Those who witnessed Verbal, Social, and Indirect more often
were 0.67 times less likely to intervene; β = −0.41, SE = 0.08, Wald = 24.08, df = 1, p < .001. The second model significantly
predicted intervening (χ2 = 97.06, df = 4, p < .001). Those who experienced greater distress were 1.19 times more likely to in-
tervene; β =0.18, SE = 0.08, Wald = 4.64, df = 1, p < .05. Those who experienced positive affect (e.g., enjoyment) in response to
witnessing were 0.41 times less likely to intervene; β = −0.78, SE = 0.22, Wald = 12.37, df = 1, p < .001. Interestingly, with these
affective reaction variables in the model, Physical, Cyber, and Online Gaming remained significant; β = 0.36, SE = 0.15,
Wald = 6.14, df = 1, p < .05. Verbal, Social, and Indirect also remained significant; β = −0.29, SE = 0.09, Wald = 11.57, df = 1,
p < .01.

3.2. Intervening behaviors and results of intervention

Using a subsample of those participants who reported intervening (n = 1687), we examined how they intervened and how
effective they believed their intervening was. Table 3 lists bystander behaviors with the number of participants endorsing each
behavior. The most frequently endorsed intervention options were telling the bully to stop (81%) and telling an adult (42%). Only 5%
to 8% indicated that they bullied or physically attacked the bully. Two regression analyses were conducted to examine if the way they
intervened predicted positive and negative outcomes (Table 4). A positive outcome was predicted by all intervening behaviors,
R2 = 0.14, F = 66.57, p < .001; telling the bully to stop (β = 0.14, p < .001), bullying the person (β = 0.08, p < .001), telling an
adult (β = 0.35, p < .001), and physically attacking the bully (β = 0.06, p < .01). However, a negative outcome was predicted by
only two intervening behaviors, R2 = 0.02, F = 9.69, p < .001: telling the bully to stop (β = 0.13, p < .001) and telling an adult
(β = 0.07, p < .01). Given that the same intervening behaviors predicted both positive and negative outcomes, we conducted a
follow-up analysis and examined he proportion of participants who reported that bullying stopped, and that the victim felt better
after intervening (Table 5). Fifty three percent of those who told the bully to stop reported that it stopped bullying, and 33% reported
that the victim felt better. For those who told an adult, 51% reported that bullying stopped whereas 39% reported that the victim felt
better. For bullying or physically attacking the bully, > 50% reported it stopped bullying: 63% for bullying the bully and 51% for

Table 4
Intervening behaviors predicting positive and negative outcomes.
Intervening behavior β

Predicting positive outcome

R2 = 0.14, F = 66.57, df = 4/1673, p < .001
I told the person bullying to stop. 0.14⁎⁎⁎
I bullied the person who was doing the bullying 0.08⁎⁎⁎
I told an adult. 0.35⁎⁎⁎
I physically attacked the person doing the bullying. 0.06⁎⁎
Predicting negative outcome
R2 = 0.02, F = 9.69, df = 4/1673, p < .001
I told the person bullying to stop. 0.13⁎⁎⁎
I bullied the person who was doing the bullying 0.01
I told an adult. 0.07⁎⁎
I physically attacked the person doing the bullying. −0.04

⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

8
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

Table 5
Types of intervening and effectiveness (n = 1678).
Intervening behavior n (%) Stopped bullying Victim feeling better

n (%) n (%)

I told the person bullying to stop. 1038 (81%) 396 (53%) 339 (33%)
I bullied the person who was doing. The bullying 67 (5%) 34 (63%) 23 (34%)
I told an adult. 541 (42%) 205 (51%) 212 (39%)
I physically attacked the person doing the bullying. 105 (8%) 58 (54%) 38 (36%)

physically attacking the bully. Approximately 35% of those who bullied or physically attacked the bully reported that the victim felt
better.

3.3. Reasons for intervening and not intervening

With two sub-samples, those who intervened (n = 1678) and those who did not intervene, (n = 177), we examined the reasons for
intervening and not intervening. Table 6 presents the percentage of participants who endorsed each reason. The most frequently
endorsed reason for intervening was a belief that it is the right thing to do (72%), followed by feeling sorry for the victim (63%) and
wanting to help (49%). Other reasons included “I want to take a stand against bullying” (34%), “I was angry at the person doing the
bullying” (33%), “The person being bullied is my friend” (28%), and “I dislike the person doing the bullying” (16%).
With respect to reasons for not intervening, 51% of the participants reported not knowing what to do, and 38% endorsed “It
wasn't any of my business.” “I was too shy” was endorsed by 36%. Personal concerns (“I didn't want to be the snitch” or “I was afraid
I'd get bullied”) were each endorsed by 28%. Eleven to 16% endorsed other reasons such as “The person doing the bullying is
popular,” “It wasn't that serious,” “I don't care,” “I don't like the person being bullied,” and “I thought the person being bullied could
take care of themselves.”

4. Discussion

There is an emphasis on bystander interventions in many prevention programs (Salmivalli, 2014), yet the literature on what
influences bystander responses and how effective the responses are is incomplete; this study expands the knowledge base around this
crucial topic. In this study, we investigated adolescent bystanders' decisions to intervene or not when they witness an incident of
bullying. Specifically, we examined aspects of the bystander experience that add to the literature, including minority status in terms
of gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, and disability, types of bullying, and affective reaction to the witnessed bullying. This study also
examined youth perceptions of bystander responses and their results. The findings of the study offer several insights into youth
experiences as bystanders and their assessment of the outcome of their interventions.
In contrast to previous literature, the vast majority of witnesses indicated they intervened in some way. Although it is possible that
social desirability influenced some of the responders, the fact that the survey was anonymous and that respondents were excluded if

Table 6
Reasons for intervening (n = 1678) and not intervening (n = 177).
n (%)

Reasons for intervening

It's the right thing to do. 1208 (72%)
I felt sorry for the person being bullied. 1055 (63%)
I wanted to help. 816 (49%)
I want to take a stand against bullying. 570 (34%)
I was angry at the person doing the bullying. 549 (33%)
The person being bullied is my friend. 478 (28%)
I dislike the person doing the bullying. 277 (16%)
Reasons for Not Intervening
I didn't know what to do. 90 (51%)
It wasn't any of my business. 68 (38%)
I am too shy. 63 (36%)
I didn't want to be the “snitch.” 49 (28%)
I was afraid I'd get bullied. 49 (28%)
The person doing the bullying is popular. 28 (16%)
It wasn't that serious. 29 (16%)
I don't care. 21 (12%)
I don't like the person being bullied. 20 (11%)
Other people witnessed it and didn't do anything so why should I? 20 (11%)
I thought the person being bullied could take care of themselves. 20 (11%)
The person bullying them is my friend. 15 (8%)

9
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

they answered anything other than “mostly” or “completely honest” about their responses on the survey suggest that many ado-
lescents perceive themselves to be interveners rather than passive bystanders. As suggested by the Bystander Effect (Darley & Latané,
1968), the students clearly noticed the incident and considered it serious to require a response. They must have determined that they
had a responsibility to intervene and thought they could be helpful. We also found that the participants' actions were often perceived
to have positive results (the bullying stopped, or the victim felt better), but that outcome was reported in far < 100% of cases.
Adolescence is a time when young people are forming an identity, and perhaps seeing oneself as willing to help others is a desirable
component of that identity for many of our participants. This is consistent with findings that anti-bullying attitudes prevail among
adolescents (Williford et al., 2012), even when their actions do not match their beliefs. This is supported by the finding that altruistic
and moral motives were selected as reasons for intervening by a significant number of respondents.
We hypothesized that intervening would differ by demographic variables and that the minority status in terms of gender, race/
ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability would be associated with less intervening. Considering the previous studies (e.g., Carter &
Spencer, 2006; Datta et al., 2016; Hong & Espelage, 2012) that report higher rates of peer victimization for these groups, we
investigated whether minority youth are less likely to intervene when witnessing bullying. However, there were no significant
differences in rates of intervention by any of the demographic variables. Although we had a large sample that included members of a
wide range of demographic groups, in some cases the numbers of minority group members were quite small, which could have
affected this result.
We did find that both the types of bullying witnessed and the affective reaction to that experience predicted whether the by-
stander would intervene, suggesting that both of these factors influence the choices bystanders make. If an incident causes psy-
chological discomfort in the observer, the witness may intervene in order to reduce that distress. It may be that the choice to
intervene is not only on behalf of the targeted student, but might reflect a desire to restore the witness's emotional equilibrium. It is
not surprising that those participants who found enjoyment or excitement in the bullying incident were less likely to intervene, but it
is a bit puzzling that the verbal, intimidation, social exclusion, and indirect component also was negatively related to intervening.
Verbal and indirect bullying are the most frequent types adolescents report (e.g., Wang, Ianotti, & Nansel, 2009). It may be that they
are nevertheless considered to be less severe (Chen, Cheng, & Ho, 2015), and thus not requiring intervention. It is also possible that
these types of victimization have become so common and normalized that observers do not feel the need for action. Although these
findings are interesting, it is important to note that the model explains only between 5% and 7% of the variability of this set of
variables.
The findings on the results of specific actions taken by interveners are quite illuminating. When the bystander told the bully to
stop, the bullying stopped in 53% of cases and the victim felt better 33% of the time. Although it is good news that more than half the
time the intervention was perceived to be effective, there were many instances where this was not the case. Telling an adult, the
strategy schools recommend, stopped the bulling 51% of the time, slightly less than telling the bully directly to stop. It seems that
following the advice to seek adult support only leads to the cessation of the bullying about half the time, and results in the victim
feeling better 39% of the time. While comforting the victim only stopped the bullying 20% of the time, it did help the victim feel
better in 51% of cases. Polanin et al. (2012) found that there were significant positive effects of bystander intervention as a result of
some prevention programs, demonstrating bystander responses are malleable.
We found that two responses – telling an adult and telling the bully to stop, predicted both perceived positive and negative
outcomes. This suggests that the usefulness of these actions is dependent on the context and nature of the incidents. That is, telling an
adult might be effective if the adult is well-trained and effectively intervenes. When an adult is told and their response has negative
repercussions (e.g., the situation is ignored, the targeted student is labeled as a “snitch”, the perpetrator becomes more secretive,
etc.), the reporting has not had the anticipated positive effect (Bauman, Meter, Nixon, & Davis, 2016; Smith & Shu, 2000). The same is
the case for telling the bully to stop. If the bully believes his peers are not approving of the behavior, and peer status is important, the
bully may indeed cease the behavior. On the other hand, if the bully perceives this as an opportunity to exert his power and influence
by ignoring the bystander's demand, the intervention may fail. In fact, the bully may then direct the aggression toward the bystander,
which is a negative outcome for the bystander and also a warning to others not to intervene. In sum, we think this finding is very
informative: no general strategy (e.g., telling an adult) is universally effective. Many factors affect the result of an intervention, and
relying on simplistic directives can undermine youth's confidence in anti-bullying advice.
What is especially notable and worrisome is that the action that respondents perceived most frequently stopped the bullying was
bullying the person doing the bullying (63%), followed by physically attacking the bully (54%). Although adults and prevention
programs tell youth that responding with violence does not work, in the view of survey participants, it was the most likely to result in
stopping the bullying, and fared well in terms of the victim's feelings, with 34% and 36% respectively feeling better. If prevention
programs dismiss violence as an ineffective or inappropriate strategy, and this is contrary to students' personal experiences, students
may conclude that adults do not understand their world and ignore other messages as well. The way we address this discrepancy
warrants further discussions in our prevention and intervention efforts. Future studies should examine how students make decisions
regarding aggressive, retaliatory responses to bullying. Simply telling youth that these approaches are not useful may have limited
efficacy in the decision-making process. Rather than just explaining such a perspective, helping students generate potential negative
long-term consequences, and providing scenarios they can work with to observe such consequences, would likely be more effective.
In addition, we concur with Salmivalli's (2014) recommendations for promoting bystander interventions. She proposes that
students be educated about the positive effects their interventions can have for the victim, inviting open discussions of their own
participant roles and honest reflection about their own behavior as witnesses. She promotes active exercises using video prompts and
role-playing to build empathy and commitment to promote prosocial behavior in their class or group. Safe intervention strategies can
be generated via brainstorming activities and teacher suggestion; preferred interventions should be rehearsed so they become

10
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

familiar to students. Such activities may increase the self-efficacy for intervention and thereby increase the likelihood that witnesses
will safely act on behalf of the victim (Nickerson, 2019).
When asked about reasons or motivation for intervening, a large majority (72%) referred to their moral code, “It's the right thing
to do,” with 28% wanting to help and 34% wanting to take a stand against bullying. This confirms that many adolescents are altruistic
and care about their peers and their world (see Cappadocia, Pepler, Cummings, & Craig, 2012). Sixty-three percent said they felt sorry
for the victim, suggesting that empathy also featured in the decision of some. On the other hand, the most commonly endorsed reason
(51%) for not intervening in an observed incident was “I didn't know what to do.” This may reflect the complicated nature of
bystander responses with which many adolescents must contend when witnessing a bullying incident. Studies have highlighted
multiple personal and contextual factors that may influence bystander behaviors (see Meter & Card, 2015a, 2015b for a review). A
decision to intervene also may have many possible costs for youth. This finding further indicates that it is critical to address youth's
comfort and confidence in bystander responses in anti-bullying programs beyond instilling broader anti-bullying messages. Other
reasons for not intervening further highlighted challenges in increasing bystander responses. For example, 38% agreed that “It wasn't
any of my business” and 12% agreed that “I don't care,” whereas 11% endorsed the statement, “Other people witnessed and didn't do
anything, so why should I?” Although small proportions, these responses reflect a more individualistic reaction to others' plights or
diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance, as suggested by Latané and Darley (1970). The findings provide further empirical
support for factors proposed to explain bystander behaviors among adolescents who witness bullying. More importantly, these
reasons for not intervening offer a great deal of insight about barriers to intervention.

4.1. Limitations and future directions

The data used in this study came from a national sample of youth in the United Kingdom, so conclusions may not generalize to
other locations. In addition, while 23 schools had at least 100 students who participated, 225 schools had only one or two parti-
cipants. This suggests that not all schools promoted the survey or facilitated student participation although they did obtain the link.
We do not have data to indicate differences between these groups of schools who agreed to administer the survey.
In addition, the data are cross-sectional, limiting our ability to infer causality. Further, the survey was developed to inform a
charity about the needs of UK youth around bullying, which was the primary purpose for its administration. Thus, it is difficult to
compare the findings with those of research using established measures. Nevertheless, the data are novel, and the sample is quite
large, which makes the findings useful and important in an area that is of high interest to researchers and the public, but which is
lagging in empirical work.
In the current study, many of the questions related to the internal processes of witnesses; the individual is the only one who can
report on such variables. Therefore, the current study used a self-report measure, a method which is often criticized as lacking
validity. However, Volk, Veenstra, and Espelage (2017) point out that the use of parent- or teacher-report to offset mono-method bias
is a questionable strategy, as “they sometimes already fail to observe overt acts of bullying or they may have to rely on second-hand
information from adolescents who are possibly biased or withholding information” (p. 37). These authors noted that self-reports have
been promoted by Olweus (2013) because the individual is the only one who knows certain aspects of the behavior; peers may not
observe or may misinterpret a given incident. Self-report is also best for examining the individuals' perceptions about an incident and
has shown acceptable validity for the theoretical constructs.
Chan (2010) argues that the widespread disdain for self-report data is unwarranted, and that the determination about the ap-
propriateness of this methodology depends on the specific measure. Although social desirability is a possibility in self-report, efforts
to reduce that effect (e.g., anonymous surveys, the purpose of the survey as understood by the participants) can minimize that impact.
In addition, we have no data to determine whether the schools who chose to administer the survey and those that did not differ in any
systematic way. Future studies should include a way to determine whether schools who responded to the invitation to participate
differ systematically from those who chose not to participate, and also to determine potential differences among students in those
schools who agree and declined to take the survey. Although students were nested in schools, the data were analyzed only at the
individual level and the available data did not allow for analyses that took that structure into account. Future research would benefit
from multilevel modeling.
Although not the main focus of our study, we recommend that future studies respect the increased awareness that there are more
than two gender identities (note that intersex is almost never one of the options, including in the current measure) and that when
sexual orientation is included in a survey, it should be inclusive of all possible groups. There is a need for further study of the
influence of bully status on bystander behaviors. If one has been a victim, are they more willing to stand up for others, or are they
fearful of being victimized again? How are other roles expressed when individuals are bystanders? Research that includes school-level
variables, such as school climate, would enhance our understanding. When rates of bullying are low, are bystanders more willing to
intervene?

5. Conclusion

Scholars and those who create programming to reduce bullying and peer victimization should consider these findings as they
work with adolescents. Our study contributed to the literature about bystander behaviors using a large and diverse sample of
adolescents. We found that lack of knowledge of how to intervene affects whether bystanders respond, and efforts to teach those skills
need to be tested and evaluated. Program developers need to keep in mind the barriers to intervening and include strategies to
counter their influence. It is also essential to recognize that for many adolescents, the actions that most educators discourage

11
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

(aggressive responses) are perceived as useful (have positive results) by youth and overlooking this finding may cause youth to reject
as irrelevant other advice that is provided. Furthermore, educators must recognize that blanket directives (“tell an adult”) are risky,
as no action is guaranteed to work and when the recommendation produces a negative outcome, youth may decide that the experts
are not in tune with their realities. We also were pleased to see that many youth have altruistic values about standing against
bullying, and that empathy is acknowledged by many observers. These should be reinforced, as the more youth feel positively about
their efforts, the more likely they are to continue.

Appendix A

Rotated component loadings for study measures.

Component 1 Component 2

Type of bullying witnessed

Physical 0.85
Cyber 0.63
Online Gaming 0.87
Verbal 0.64
Intimidation 0.73
Social Exclusion 0.81
Indirect 0.87
Affective Reaction
Thought it was funny 0.77
Made me feel powerful 0.83
I enjoyed it 0.94
Upset 0.63
Guilty 0.33a
Stressed 0.71
Negative mental health 0.62
Felt bad for the person being bullied 0.57
Scared it would happen to me . 40
Results of Intervening
The bullying stopped −0.72
I got told to mind my own business 0.59
The bullying carried on anyway 0.91
I got bullied 0.78
I was physically attacked 0.57 0.34
The person bullying got in trouble 0.70
The person bullied felt better 0.78
Other people stood up to the person doing the bullying too 0.73
a
Note. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (1996, p. 677) loadings of 0.32 and above can be interpreted.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12053.
Atkins, R. (2014). Instruments measuring perceived racism/racial discrimination: Review and critique of factor analytic techniques. International Journal of Health
Services, 44(4), 711–734. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.44.4.c.
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220679809597580.
Barbarabelli, C., Lee, C. S., Vellone, E., & Riegel, B. (2014). Dimensionality and reliability of the self-care of heart failure index scales; further evidence from
confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Nursing Health, 37(6), 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21623.
Barhight, L., Hubbard, J., & Hyde, C. (2013). Children's physiological and emotional reactions to witnessing bullying predict bystander intervention. Child Development,
84, 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01839.x.
Bauman, S., Meter, D. J., Nixon, C., & Davis, S. (2016). Targets of peer mistreatment: Do they tell adults? What happens when they do? Teaching and Teacher Education,
57, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.013.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.012.
Bonanno, R., & Hymel, S. (2006, July). Exposure to school violence: The impact of bullying on witnesses. biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of
Behavior Development, Melbourne, Australia.
Cappadocia, M. C., Pepler, D., Cummings, J. G., & Craig, W. (2012). Individual motivations and characteristics associated with bystander intervention during bullying
episodes among children and youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573512450567.
Caravita, S. C. S., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early
adolescence. Social Development, 21, 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x.
Carlyle, K. E., & Steinman, K. J. (2007). Demographic differences in the prevalence, co-occurrence, and correlates of adolescent bullying at school. Journal of School
Health, 77(9), 623–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00242.x.
Carter, B. B., & Spencer, V. G. (2006). The fear factor: Bullying and students with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 11–23.
Chan, D. (2010). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.). Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends
(pp. 309–336). Phila, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Chen, L. M., Cheng, W., & Ho, H. C. (2015). Perceived severity of school bullying in elementary schools based on participants' roles. Educational Psychology, 35(4),

12
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

484–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.860220.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Veniak, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement.
Journal of Business Research, 61, 1250–1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013.
Corcoran, C., LaForge, C., Yoon, J., Bauman, S., & Hackett, L. (2020, February). Investigating adolescents' definitions of bullying. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association of School Psychologists. MD: Baltimore.
Cornell, D. (2017). Research summary for the authoritative school climate survey. (Research Summary).
Cornell, D., Klein, J., Konold, T., & Huang, F. (2012). Effects of validity screening items on adolescent survey data. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 21–35. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0024824.
Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 2, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.
1177/082957359801300205.
Craig, W. M., & Harel, Y. (2001). Bullying, physical fighting and victimization. Young people's health in context: International report from the HBSC. 2, 133–144.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt. 1), 377.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589.
Datta, P., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Aggressive attitudes and prevalence of bullying bystander behavior in middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(8),
804–816. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21944.
Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110378369.
Esbensen, F. A., & Carson, D. C. (2009). Consequences of being bullied: Results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multisite sample of
American students. Youth & Society, 41(2), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09351067.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer–group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74(1),
205–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00531.
Felix, E. D., & Green, J. G. (2010). Popular girls and brawny boys: The role of gender in bullying and victimization experiences. In S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, & D.
Espelage (Eds.). Handbook of bullying in school: An international perspective (pp. 173–185). NY: Routledge.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th). London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.
Forsberg, C., Thornberg, R., & Samuelsson, M. (2014). Bystanders to bullying: Fourth-to seventh-grade students' perspectives on their reactions. Research Papers in
Education, 29, 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.878375.
Forsberg, C., Wood, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., & Thornberg, R. (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.
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrőm, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior:
A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013839.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents' active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence,
31, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002.
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-9507.00178.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
17(4), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003.
Hutchinson, M. (2012). Exploring the impact of bullying on young bystanders. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.
2012.727785.
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/376806.
Jeffrey, L. R., Miller, D., & Linn, M. (2001). Middle school bullying as a context for the development of passive observers to the victimization of others. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_09.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Centry-Croft.
Loenzo-Seva, U., & Fernando, P. J. (2019). Factor, release 10.9.02. Software.
Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). A factor simplicity index. Psychometrika, 68(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296652.
Mazzone, A., Camodeca, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2016). Interactive effects of guilt and moral disengagement on bullying, defending and outsider behavior. Journal of
Moral Education, 45(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1216399.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children's responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention
in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.80012.
Meter, D. J. (2015). Aggressive, assertive and non-confrontational forms of defending: Differentiation of forms and consequences of defending. Unpublished doctoral
dissertationTucson, Arizona: University of Arizona.
Meter, D. J., & Card, N. A. (2015a). Defenders of victims of peer aggression: Interdependence theory and an exploration of individual, interpersonal, and contextual
effects on the defender participant role. Developmental Review, 38, 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.08.001.
Meter, D. J., & Card, N. A. (2015b). Effects of defending: The longitudinal relations among peer-perceived defending of victimized peer, victimization, and liking.
Social Development, 24(4), 734–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12129.
Nickerson, A. B. (2019). Preventing and intervening with bullying in schools: A framework for evidence-based practice. School Mental Health, 11, 15–28. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12310-017-9221-8.
Nickerson, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Livingston, J. A., & Feeley, T. H. (2014). Measurement of the bystander intervention model for bullying and sexual harassment. Journal of
Adolescence, 37(4), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.003.
Nickerson, A. B., Aloe, A. M., & Werth, J. M. (2015). The relation of empathy and defending in bullying: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Review, 44(4),
372–390. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-15-0035.1.
Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement among bystanders to school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.
2011.578276.
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807.
Oh, I., & Hazler, R. J. (2009). Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders' reactions to school bullying. School Psychology International, 30(3),
291–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034309106499.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
clinpsy-050212-185516.
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Cerniglia, L., Tramontano, C., & Cole, E. (2013). High cost helping scenario: The role of empathy, prosocial reasoning and moral disengagement
on helping behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.004.
Pepler, D., Craig, W., & O'Connell, P. (2010). Peer processes in bullying: Informing prevention and intervention strategies. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L.
Espelage (Eds.). Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 469–479). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
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(11), 47–65.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social
Development, 21, 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x.
Pozzoli, T., Ang, R. P., & Gini, G. (2012). Bystanders' reactions to bullying: A cross-cultural analysis of personal correlates among Italian and Singaporean students.
Social Development, 21(4), 686–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00651.x.

13
S. Bauman, et al. Journal of School Psychology 80 (2020) 1–14

Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2012). The role of individual correlates and class norms in defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: A multilevel analysis. Child
Development, 83, 1917–1931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01831.x.
Pronk, J., Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., De Mey, L., & Willemen, A. M. (2013). Children's intervention strategies in situations of victimization by bullying: Social
cognitions of outsiders versus defenders. Journal of School Psychology, 51(6), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.09.002.
Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying: How parents and educators can reduce bullying at school. Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2005). Student bystanders in Australian schools. Pastoral Care in Education, 23(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0264-3944.2005.
00326.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342047.
Rivers, I., Poteat, V., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24,
211–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018164.
Rock, P. F., & Baird, J. A. (2012). Tell the teacher or tell the bully off: Children's strategy production for bystanders to bullying. Social Development, 21(2), 414–424.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00627.x.
Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2008, July). Victims and their defenders: A dyadic approach. R. Veenstra (Chair) Symposium conducted at the
meeting of the International Society for the Study of behavioral development, Wurzburg, Germany. .
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.
1999.0239.
Salmivalli, C. (2001). Group view on victimization: Empirical findings and their implications. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.). Peer harassment in school: The plight of
the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 398–419). .
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.
Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00405841.2014.947222.
Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (1997). Peer networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9450.00040.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status
within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:11::AID-AB1 3.0.CO;2-T.
Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive
Behavior, 24, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:3205::AID-AB53.0.CO;2-J.
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
28, 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00040.
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in
classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090.
Smith, P., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7(2),
193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568200007002005.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). NY: HarperCollins.
Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2008). Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescents: An investigation into associations with attachment and empathy. Anthrozoös,
21(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303708X305774.
Thornberg, R. (2007). A classmate in distress: Schoolchildren as bystanders and their reasons for how they act. Social Psychology of Education, 10(1), 5–28. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-006-9009-4.
Thornberg, R. (2010). A student in distress: Moral frames and bystander behavior in school. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1086/
651197.
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. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2012.3.11792.
Trach, J., Hymel, S., Waterhouse, T., & Neale, K. (2010). Bystander responses to school bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509357553.
Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. (2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying
research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003.
Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2018). Examining variation in adolescent bystanders' responses to bullying. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 18–33. https://doi.
org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0081.V47-1.
Wang, J., Ianotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among US adolescents: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4),
368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.
Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T. D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on adolescents' depression, anxiety, and
perception of peers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(2), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9551-1.

14