The prevalence of bullying worldwide is high (UNESCO, 2018). Over the past decades, many anti-bullying interventions have been developed to remediate this problem. However, we lack insight into for whom these interventions work and what individual intervention components drive the total intervention effects. We conducted a large-scale individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis using data from 39,793 children and adolescents aged five to 20 years (Mage = 12.58, SD = 2.34) who had participated in quasi-experimental or randomized controlled trials of school-based anti-bullying interventions (i.e., 10 studies testing nine interventions). Multilevel logistic regression analyses showed that anti-bullying interventions significantly reduced self-reported victimization (d =  − 0.14) and bullying perpetration (d =  − 0.07). Anti-bullying interventions more strongly reduced bullying perpetration in younger participants (i.e., under age 12) and victimization for youth who were more heavily victimized before the intervention. We did not find evidence to show that the inclusion of specific intervention components was related to higher overall intervention effects, except for an iatrogenic effect of non-punitive disciplinary methods–which was strongest for girls. Exploratory analyses suggested that school assemblies and playground supervision may have harmful effects for some, increasing bullying perpetration in youth who already bullied frequently at baseline. In conclusion, school-based anti-bullying interventions are generally effective and work especially well for younger children and youth who are most heavily victimized. Further tailoring of interventions may be necessary to more effectively meet the needs and strengths of specific subgroups of children and adolescents.

Popular belief holds that sexual behavior is evaluated more liberally for males than females. However, the assessment of this “sexual double standard” is controversial. Therefore, we investigated measurement equivalence of commonly used items to assess sexual double standards in previous research. Based on established measurement equivalence, we investigated whether adolescents endorsed a sexual double standard. Using data from 455 adolescents ( Mage = 14.51, SD = 0.64), confirmatory factor analyzes showed that the sexual double standard concept was measurement equivalent across sex, and partly across evaluations of the same and opposite sex. Factor analyzes demonstrated that there was not one, but two sexual double standards. Male adolescents evaluated male sexual behavior more liberally than female sexual behavior, but female adolescents evaluated female sexual behavior more liberally than male sexual behavior. This contradicts the traditional notion of the existence of one sexual double standard that favors male and suppresses female sexuality.

No abstract

IntroductionYouTube vloggers may be important socialization figures, yet their influence on adolescents' health‐related behaviors and cognitions is largely untested. In this two‐study mixed‐method project, we first assessed the extent of (non)compliance to COVID‐19 regulations by vloggers on YouTube and how viewers reacted to this. Second, we experimentally assessed the effects of vlogger behavior paired with viewer evaluations on adolescents' COVID‐19‐related attitudes, intentions, and behavior.MethodsFor Study 1, we coded 240 vlogs of eight popular Dutch vloggers on YouTube recorded in the period of February 2020–March 2021. For our 2 × 2 between‐subjects experiment in Study 2, Dutch adolescents (N = 285, Mage = 12.99, SD = 1.02, 41.8% girls) were randomly assigned to conditions in which they saw vlogs showing either compliance or noncompliance to COVID‐19 regulations, and to conditions in which they saw either supportive or dismissive comments under these vlogs.ResultsStudy 1: Vloggers' noncompliance with COVID‐19 regulations was not uncommon and received relatively more viewer support than compliance, suggesting that portrayed noncompliance may be potentially influential. Study 2: Adolescents were more worried about COVID‐19 after they watched a compliant (vs. noncompliant) vlogger. Also, vlogger noncompliance decreased adolescents' perceived importance of COVID‐19 regulations and rule‐setting for adolescents who identified strongly with the vloggers they watched.ConclusionsVloggers' (non)compliance affects adolescents' COVID‐19‐related worrying, and attitudes and behavior of adolescents who identify with vloggers strongly. This seems concerning given the sometimes harmful and risky behaviors vloggers portray online but could potentially also be employed to encourage healthy behaviors.