Empathetic responsiveness, group norms, and prosocial affiliations in bullying roles.

Abstract

In this study, the relationships among gender, empathetic responsiveness, perceived group norms, prosocial affiliations, and bullying roles were examined for 262 fifth- through eighth-grade students (n = 141 males; n = 121 females). According to the Bullying Participant Roles Survey (BPRS), participants were identified as defenders (n = 135; 51.5%), victims (n = 48; 18.3%), bullies (n = 39; 14.9%), and outsiders (n = 26; 9.9%). Results of multinominal logistic regression revealed that empathetic responsiveness was a significant predictor of defending behavior and an inverse predictor of outsider behavior. Gender also predicted defending behavior, with boys being more likely to defend than girls. In addition, participants who indicated that their friends supported bullying were more likely to be involved in bullying perpetration and victimization. An unexpected interaction effect between prosocial affiliations and group norms indicated that girls who reported more probullying group norms but whose friends reported having more prosocial tendencies were more likely to assume roles of bullies and victims than outsiders. Implications for practice are outlined, including recommendations for antibullying initiatives.

Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention

“…In addition, girls were more likely to interpret events as emergencies than boys. In addition, Nickerson and Mele-Taylor (2014) found that girls who had friends with more prosocial affiliations and friends with more pro-bullying attitudes were more likely to be bullies, victims, and outsiders than defenders. There was a significant interaction between victimization and gender, which indicated girls who reported less victimization were more likely to interpret events as an emergency than girls who reported high levels of past victimization; however, for boys, higher victimization was associated with greater likelihood of interpreting bullying as an emergency.…”

“…It is not uncommon for bullies and victims to belong to the same social network, especially for girls (Crick & Werner, 1998). In addition, Nickerson and Mele-Taylor (2014) found that girls who had friends with more prosocial affiliations and friends with more pro-bullying attitudes were more likely to be bullies, victims, and outsiders than defenders. If a girl is bullied and witnesses bullying within her social network, she may be less likely to interpret this as an emergency.…”

“…Boys are more likely than girls to be victims and perpetrators of bullying, particularly physical bullying (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010). Girls are more likely than boys to assume the role of defender (Ma, 2002;Monks et al, 2002;Nickerson et al, 2008;Olweus, 1993;Rigby & Johnson, 2006;Salmivalli et al, 1996), although this has not been found in all studies (see e.g., Nickerson & Mele-Taylor, 2014). As bystanders, girls have been found to demonstrate higher moral sensitivity (i.e., recognizing harm of bullying, sympathizing with victims) and lower moral disengagement during bullying incidents than boys (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013).…”

Bullying Involvement and Empathy: Child and Target Characteristics

“…They found that bullying and empathy were negatively associated for boys but not for (younger) girls when the target was a boy, whereas bullying and empathy were negatively associated for girls but not for boys when the target was a girl. Despite these findings, later studies on bullying involvement using empathy measures that distinguished between boy and girl targets, such as the IECA (Bryant, 1982) and the ERQ (Olweus & Endresen, 1998), combined the empathy scores toward both genders into an overall affective empathy score ignoring the empathy target's gender (Barchia & Bussey, 2011;Cappadocia, Pepler, Cummings, & Craig, 2012;Correia & Dalbert, 2008;Nickerson & Mele-Taylor, 2014;Nickerson, Mele, & Princiotta, 2008;Park, 2013;Raskauskas et al, 2010;Warden & Mackinnon, 2003;Woods, Wolke, Nowicki, & Hall, 2009).…”

Clinical trial of Second Step© middle-school program: Impact on aggression & victimization

“…Feshbach (1978) describes empathy as encompassing three components: 1) cognitive ability to discriminate affective cues in others, 2) mature cognitive skills involved in assuming the perspective of another person, and 3) emotional responsiveness to the experience of emotions. Research has found that empathy and perspective-taking skills in youth are associated with less bullying perpetration (Espelage, Green, & Polanin, 2012) and greater defender behaviors (Barchia & Bussey, 2011;Nickerson & Mele-Taylor, 2014;Pöyhönen, Juvonen & Salmivalli, 2010;Pozzoli & Gini, 2010;Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Thus, it was hypothesized that students who receive the Second Step condition would report less bullying perpetration and physical aggression.…”