Many school programs designed to address bullying are based on reducing such risk ... arise in groups when each group member's best strategy is to act in his/her .... attendance at non-residential schools. Finally, we .... Tampa, FL. Dawes ...
Issue Brief August 2oo6
What Do Bystanders Do When Children Are Being Bullied . . . And Why Do They Do It? By Amelia Kohm, Michael Little and Lauren Rich
1313 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 tel: 773-753-5900 fax: 773-753-5940
Chapin Hall publications are available online at:
www.chapinhall.org To learn about new publications as they appear, register on our site to receive monthly e-mail alerts. To purchase hard copies of Chapin Hall publications, please call: 773-256-5213
In movies, literature, and perhaps our own memories, bullying is a common childhood problem involving a few bad kids abusing a few weak kids. According to conventional wisdom, bullying is a transitory problem, quickly outgrown and forgotten. During the past two decades, a body of research presents a different picture. Although bullying is indeed common—affecting 20 to 40 percent of school-age children—its long-term effects are not always benign (Batsche 1994; Duncan 1999; Pellegrini, Bartini et al. 1999; Wolke, Woods et al. 2000; Haynie, Nansel et al. 2001). The experience of being victimized can lead to low self-concept, school avoidance, poor academic performance, and peer rejection (Card 2003; Schwartz, Gorman et al. 2005). Research on bullying has traditionally focused on risk factors associated with being a bully or a victim of bullies. Many school programs designed to address bullying are based on reducing such risk factors. For example, victims are taught to be more assertive or bullies are taught to be more empathetic (Roberts Jr. and Coursol 1996; Salmivalli 1999; Arsenio and Lemerise 2001; Graham and Juvonen 2001; Menesini, Codecasa et al. 2003; Holt and Keyes 2004; Leff, Power et al. 2004; Smith, Pepler et al. 2004). More recent studies, which show that children who witness bullying rarely intervene on a victim’s behalf, have led to programs that encourage children to befriend or defend victims (O'Connell, Pepler et al. 1999; Sutton and Smith 1999; Hawkins, Pepler et al. 2001; Salmivalli 2001; Boulton, Trueman et al. 2002). Unfortunately, most evaluations of such programs have shown few sizable reductions in bullying and victimization (Eslea and Smith 1998; Smith 2000; Smith and Brain 2000; Sanchez, Robertson et al. 2001; Smith, Pepler et al. 2004; Whitaker, Rosenbluth et al. 2004; Frey, Hirschstein et al. 2005; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen et al. Forthcoming; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen et al. Forthcoming). A possible shortcoming of these interventions is that many are designed based on an understanding of how children behave in bullying situations rather than on why they behave in those ways. This Issue Brief draws on findings of a recent Chapin Hall study that aimed to build understanding of children’s behavior when they witness bullying and the reasons why children
chapin hall center for children: issue brief #108
defend victims, join in the bullying, or avoid involvement. The researchers focused, in particular, on three possible reasons: children’s individual attitudes, group norms, and social dilemmas. Prior to this research, a small number of studies have looked at the relationship between attitudes toward and norms of behavior in bullying situations, but the Chapin Hall research, which is based on a survey of sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students at a residential school, is the first to investigate the role of social dilemmas in bullying.
What Are Social Dilemmas? Social dilemmas, a concept that comes from the group processes perspective of social psychology and game theory, arise in groups when each group member’s best strategy is to act in his/her own self-interest, regardless of what the other group members do. Each self-interested decision, however, creates a negative outcome or cost for other group members. When a large number of people make the self-interested choice, the costs or negative outcomes accumulate, creating a situation in which everybody would have done better had they decided not to act in their own interest. Social dilemmas occur when three conditions are present: 1) group members believe that unilateral action would be dangerous or ineffective; 2) group members believe that group efforts would be more safe or effective; and 3) most group members do not expect cooperation from others in a group effort (Dawes, McTavish et al. 1977; Pruitt and Kimmel 1977; Van Lange, Liebrand et al. 1992). An example might clarify the dynamics of a social dilemma. Each citizen of town X would like to drive his/her own car to work because it is it more convenient than carpooling or taking public transportation. However, if most or all citizens do so, then the congestion and pollution will make everyone worse off. Citizen Y does not like the growing pollution and congestion in town X. However, because he does not believe that others will opt for carpooling or public transport, citizen Y believes a unilateral choice to carpool or take public transport would be futile. Thus he decides to continue driving his car to work, as do other citizens—exasperating the pollution and congestion problems. Even children who view bullying negatively do not necessarily intervene on behalf of victims (O'Connell, Pepler et al. 1999; Sutton and Smith 1999). Perhaps such children feel that the selfless act of defending a victim (for the good of the victim and the good of the group) would be fruitless unless a sufficient number of other group members joined their chapin hall center for children: issue brief #108
efforts. Evidence from studies on social hierarchies among children suggests that a unilateral challenge to a bully can have high costs because it leaves the challenger vulnerable to victimization. Moreover, joining the bullying can benefit children by protecting them from victimization and boosting or maintaining their social position (O'Connell 1999; McKinnon 2001). Additionally, children may have low expectations about others joining in or otherwise supporting defending behavior for a variety of reasons. For example, they may recognize that other children are similarly motivated to act in their own self-interest and thus not likely to join an effort to defend a victim. Social norms may also influence expectations regarding others’ actions. Thus, in many bullying situations, children’s assessment of costs and benefits may lead them to avoid associating with victims and even to join in the bullying.
How Do Children Behave in Bullying Situations? As expected, the Chapin Hall study found that most students in most student homes did little to stop bullying in their midst. Using an established method to categorize students based on their own and their housemates’ reports of their behavior, the researchers found that, in the typical student home: •
37 percent of students were considered to be in pro-bullying roles (acting as a bully, an assistant to a bully, or someone who reinforces or encourages bullying)
•
26 percent of students were considered defenders of victims
•
20 percent of students were considered outsiders, those who refrained from involving themselves in the bullying situation
•
17 percent of students could not be categorized
Past research also suggests that bullying among children is fostered by a high percentage of bystanders who either join in the bullying or do not intervene on behalf of victims and a low percentage who do intervene (Menesini, Eslea et al. 1997; O'Connell 1999; Hawkins, Pepler et al. 2001; Salmivalli 2001; Holt and Keyes 2004).
Why Do Children Behave as They Do in Bullying Situations? The evidence showed that attitudes and group norms each made a unique contribution to predicting student behavior in bullying situations. As expected, as students’ anti-bullying attitudes increased, their pro-bullying behavior decreased, and their defending behavior increased. Also as expected, as anti-bullying norms increased within student homes, pro-bullying behavior decreased and defending behavior increased. However, neither attitudes nor group norms predicted withdrawing behavior. The research team looked at two relationships between social dilemmas and behavior. First they examined how individual students’ perceptions of social dilemma conditions related to their own behavior in bullying situations. Second, they investigated how the degree to which housemates within a student home perceived social dilemma conditions related to individual students’ behavior. The researchers hypothesized that both individual and group reports of social dilemma conditions would be related to more behavior that promotes bullying and less behavior that reduces it. In other words, researchers expected that students who perceived social dilemma conditions would decide that it was futile to defend victims and perhaps beneficial do to join in the bullying. Additionally, they expected that students surrounded by housemates perceiving social dilemma conditions would also be more likely to promote or withdraw from bullying. Contrary to expectations, the research team found that students’ individual perceptions of social dilemma conditions generally did not predict their behavior in bullying situations. However, interestingly, student homes’ mean social dilemma scores did tend to predict individuals’ behavior. In other words, regardless of whether an individual student perceived social dilemma conditions, if he/she lived in a home with others who perceived such conditions, then he/she was more likely to promote bullying or withdraw from bullying situations and less likely to defend victims. One possible interpretation of these findings is that the more students who report social dilemma conditions, the more likely it is that those conditions actually exist. To date, the most common method used in social dilemma research has been laboratory experiments in which researchers develop “games” that include social dilemma conditions and then observe how subjects behave in those situations (Johnson and Johnson 2001; Piliavin 2001; Pellegrini 2002). Additionally, the small number of field studies that have been conducted usually start with a situation in which social dichapin hall center for children: issue brief #108
lemma conditions naturally exist and then asks respondents how they behaved and why (Tyler and Degoey 1995; Fujii, Garling et al. 2001; Ohnuma, Hirose et al. 2005). The present study relied on students’ perceptions to establish whether social dilemma conditions existed within various student homes. Thus it is possible that, even though an individual within a home does not perceive the conditions, he is in a home that has the conditions, and he is acting accordingly, if not consciously. Another interpretation is that students are sensing norms (specifically, aspect(s) of group norms not measured by the norms instrument used in the current study) as a result of living with peers who are perceiving the situation in the student home in a certain way. These perceived norms, in turn, affect their own behavior.
Future Directions for Research and Practice The Chapin Hall study provides support for anti-bullying interventions that focus not only on reforming individual students but also group dynamics. More specifically, the findings suggest the importance of looking at the role of bystanders in bullying situations—students who support bullies, withdraw from bullying, or defend victims. More research is needed on the role of social dilemmas in bullying. The findings from the Chapin Hall study suggest that social dilemmas might be affecting children’s behavior, but exactly how and why remains unclear. Studies that employ different means of assessing social dilemmas might help to elucidate the relationship between social dilemmas and behavior in bullying situations. For example, a future study might employ group or individual interviews, which provide more nuanced data than surveys do, to establish the existence of social dilemmas. Another approach might involve presenting children with hypothetical social dilemma scenarios and asking them if similar dynamics exist within their student home or classroom. Future research would also benefit from larger samples that are more representative of the general population in terms of socioeconomic status and attendance at non-residential schools. Finally, we believe that testing an intervention program designed to address social dilemmas would further understanding of the role of social dilemmas in bullying. Past research shows that social dilemmas can be overcome when group members are given opportunities to safely discuss the dilemma they each face and to make promises to each other
about how they will act in the future (Orbell, van de Kragt et al. 1988; O'Connor and Tindall 1990; Komorita and Parks 1995; Kollock 1998; Pruitt 1998; Van Lange 2001). As trust among group members grows, individuals feel more confident that their own pro-social behaviors will not be wasted or counterproductive. In the case of bullying problems among children, an intervention might provide children in a classroom with a safe place to talk about their feelings regarding bullying and why they behave as they do in bullying situations. Further, a facilitator could help them to identify and discuss the dilemmas many of them face when bullying occurs in their midst and how group actions to defend victims might be more effective than unilateral ones. Finally, a facilitator could help students to make promises to one another about how they will behave in future bullying situations. In other words, rather than trying to convince children to act altruistically as many anti-bullying programs do (and ignoring what children know--that unilateral efforts to help victims might be ineffective and/or dangerous), such an intervention would help create a trusting environment in which altruistic actions actually pay off. If an evaluation of such an intervention showed significant reductions in bullying among students involved in the program, then more attention to research and practice focused on bullying and social dilemmas would be justified. References Arsenio, W. F. and E. A. Lemerise (2001). "Varieties of Childhood Bullying: Values, Emotion Processes, and Social Competence." Social Development 10(1): 59-73. Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1994). "Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools." School psychology review 23(2): 165-174. Boulton, M. J., M. Trueman, et al. (2002). "Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: implications for befriending interventions." Journal of Adolescence 22(4): 461-466. Card, N. A. (2003). Victims of peer aggression: A meta-analytic review. Poster symposium presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Tampa, FL. Dawes, R. M., J. McTavish, et al. (1977). "Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35(1): 1-11. Duncan, R. D. (1999). "Peer and Sibling Aggression: An Investigation of Intra- and Extra-Familial Bullying." Journal Of Interpersonal Violence 14(8): 871-886. Eslea, M. and P. K. Smith (1998). "The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primary schools." Educational Research 40(2): 203-218.
chapin hall center for children: issue brief #108
Frey, K. S., M. K. Hirschstein, et al. (2005). "Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the steps to respect program." Developmental Psychology 41(3): 479-490. Fujii, S., T. Garling, et al. (2001). "Changes in drivers' perceptions and use of public transport during a freeway closure: effects of temporary structural change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma." Environment and Behavior 33(6): 796-808. Graham, S. and J. Juvonen (2001). An attributional approach to peer victimization. Peer harassment in school : the plight of the vulnerable and victimized. J. Juvonen and S. Graham. New York, Guilford Press: 49-72. Hawkins, D. L., D. J. Pepler, et al. (2001). "Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying." Social Development 10(4): 512-527. Haynie, D. L., T. Nansel, et al. (2001). "Bullies, victims, and bully/ victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth." Journal of Early Adolescence 21(1): 29-49. Holt, M. K. and M. A. Keyes (2004). Teachers' attitudes toward bullying. Bullying in American schools : a social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. D. L. Espelage and S. M. Swearer. Mahwah, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 121-140. Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (2001). Cooperation and Competition, Psychology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes. Oxford, Elsevier Science Ltd. Kollock, P. (1998). "Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation." Annual Review of Sociology 24: 183-214. Komorita, S. S. and C. D. Parks (1995). "Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction." Annual Review of Psychology 46(1): 183 -208. Leff, S. S., T. J. Power, et al. (2004). Outcome measures to assess effectiveness of bullying-prevention programs in schools. Bullying in American schools : a social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. D. L. Espelage and S. M. Swearer. Mahwah, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: xxi, 385. McKinnon, J.-A. E. (2001). An examination of bullying from a group-dynamic perspective: The third party role of peers in bullying incidents, U Waterloo, Canada,1.: 222. Menesini, E., E. Codecasa, et al. (2003). "Enhancing children's responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian middle schools." Aggressive Behavior 29: 1-14. Menesini, E., M. Eslea, et al. (1997). "Cross-national comparison of children's attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school." Aggressive Behavior 23(4): 245-257. O'Connell, P., D. Pepler, et al. (1999). "Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention." Journal of Adolescence 22(4): 437. O'Connell, P. D. (1999). Peer processes and bullying: Naturalistic observation on the playground, York U., Canada.: 190. O'Connor, B. P. and D. B. Tindall (1990). "Attributions and behvavior in a commons dilemma." Journal of Psychology 124(5): 485-495. Ohnuma, S., Y. Hirose, et al. (2005). "Why do residents accept a demanding rule? Fairness and social benefit as determinants of approval of a recycling system." Japanese Psychological Research
47(1): 1-11. Orbell, J. M., A. J. C. van de Kragt, et al. (1988). "Explaining Discussion-Induced Cooperation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(5): 811–819. Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). "Bullying, Victimization, and Sexual Harassment During the Transition to Middle School." Educational Psychologist 37(3): 151-163. Pellegrini, A. D., M. Bartini, et al. (1999). "School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence." Journal of Educational Psychology 91(2): 216-224. Piliavin, J. A. (2001). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior, Sociology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes. Oxford, Elsevier Science Ltd. Pruitt, D. G. (1998). Social conflict. The handbook of social psychology. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey. Boston, McGrawHill. 2: 470-503. Pruitt, D. G. and M. J. Kimmel (1977). "Twenty years of experimental gaming: critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future." Annual Review of Psychology 28: 363-92. Roberts Jr, W. B. and D. H. Coursol (1996). "Strategies for intervention with childhood and adolescent victims of bullying, teasing, and intimidation in school settings." Elementary School Guidance & Counseling 30(3): 204-213. Salmivalli, C. (1999). "Participant role approach to school bullying: implications for interventions." Journal of adolescence 22: 453459. Salmivalli, C. (2001). Group view on victimization : empirical findings and their implications. Peer harassment in school : the plight of the vulnerable and victimized. J. Juvonen and S. Graham. New York, Guilford Press: 398-419. Salmivalli, C., A. Kaukiainen, et al. (Forthcoming). "Anti-bullying Intervention: Implementation and Outcome." Salmivalli, C., A. Kaukiainen, et al. (Forthcoming). Targeting the Group as a Whole: The Finnish Anti-Bullying Intervention. Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? P. K. Smith, D. Pepler and K. Rigby. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sanchez, E., T. R. Robertson, et al. (2001). Preventing bullying and sexual harassment in elementary schools: The expect respect model. Bullying behavior: Current issues, research, and interventions. R. A. Geffner, M. Loring and C. Young. New York, The Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press: 157-180. Schwartz, D., A. H. Gorman, et al. (2005). "Victimization in the peer group and children's academic functionning." Journal of Educational Psychology 97(3): 425-435. Smith, P. K. (2000). "Bullying and harassment in schools and the rights of children." Children and Society 14(4): 294-303. Smith, P. K. and P. F. Brain (2000). "Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research." Aggressive Behavior 26(1): 1-9. Smith, P. K., D. J. Pepler, et al. (2004). Bullying in schools : how successful can interventions be? Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, Cambridge University Press. Sutton, J. and P. K. Smith (1999). "Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach." Aggressive Behavior 25: 97-111.
chapin hall center for children: issue brief #108
Tyler, T. R. and P. Degoey (1995). "Collective restraint in social dilemmas: procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3): 482-497. Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Social Dilemmas, Psychology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes. Oxford, Elsevier Science Ltd. Van Lange, P. A. M., W. B. G. Liebrand, et al. (1992). Introduction and literature review. Social dilemmas : theoretical issues and research findings. W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick and H. A. M. Wilke. Oxford ; New York, Pergamon Press: vii, 334. Whitaker, D. J., B. Rosenbluth, et al. (2004). Expect Respect: a school-based intervention to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harrassment. Bullying in American schools : a social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. D. L. Espelage and S. M. Swearer. Mahwah, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: xxi, 385. Wolke, D., S. Woods, et al. (2000). "The association between direct and relational bullying and behaviour problems among primary school children." Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines 41(8): 989-1002.
About This Study For this study, Chapin Hall surveyed 292 sixth-, seventhand eighth-grade students living in student homes at a residential school for low-income children in the U.S. Researchers used multi-level modeling to assess not only the contributions of individual characteristics (such as attitudes and grade) but also group characteristics (such as student home norms and social dilemmas) to behavior in bullying situations.
Chapin Hall Center for Children Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago is a policy research center dedicated to bringing sound information, rigorous analysis, innovative ideas, and an independent multidisciplinary perspective to bear on policies and programs affecting children. Chapin Hall’s focus takes in all children, but devotes special attention to children facing significant problems, including abuse or neglect, poverty, and mental or physical illness. It takes a broad view of children’s needs, including their potential as well as their problems, and addresses the services and supports—public and private—aimed at fostering child and youth development.
Download Chapin Hall publications at: www.chapinhall.org
