The development of bystander intentions and social–moral reasoning about intergroup verbal aggression

Abstract

A developmental intergroup approach was taken to examine the development of prosocial bystander intentions among children and adolescents. Participants as bystanders (N =260) aged 8-10 and 13-15 years were presented with scenarios of direct aggression between individuals from different social groups (i.e., intergroup verbal aggression). These situations involved either an ingroup aggressor and an outgroup victim or an outgroup aggressor and an ingroup victim. The present study focussed on the role of intergroup factors (group membership, ingroup identification, group norms and social-moral reasoning) in the development of prosocial bystander intentions. Findings showed that prosocial bystander intentions declined with age. This effect was partially mediated by the ingroup norm to intervene and perceived severity of the verbal aggression. However, a moderated mediation analysis showed that, only when the victim was an ingroup member and the aggressor an outgroup member, did participants become more likely with age to report prosocial bystander intentions due to increased ingroup identification. Results also showed that younger children focussed on moral concerns and adolescents focussed more on psychological concerns when reasoning about their bystander intention. These novel findings help explain the developmental decline in prosocial bystander intentions from middle childhood into adolescence when observing direct intergroup aggression.

Bystander Responses to Bias‐Based Bullying in Schools: A Developmental Intergroup Approach

“…Bystanders can support the bully or ignore the act (thus reinforcing the acceptability of bullying), challenge the bully, report the incident to a teacher, garner support from friends, or comfort and support the victim in other ways (3,4). When bystanders challenge bullying, they can reduce it and reinforce an antibullying ethos in schools (1,(5)(6)(7)(8); however, defending the child or adolescent who is bullied becomes less likely with age (9).…”

Missing Structure: A Critical Content Analysis of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program

“…Every school bullying scenario shows bullying as an identity‐devoid behavioural phenomenon occurring in environments that seem harmonious in matters of race and gender. They each reflect interpersonal peer rejection but ignore intergroup peer rejection (Palmer and others, ; Rutland and Killen, ), with the exception of one scenario in which the victimised student is bullied because she is new to the school; this latter instance still ignores social stratification (Brenick and Halgunseth, ; Rutland and Killen, ). Students form groups and bully based on group memberships (e.g.…”

“…Students enforce in‐group norms and ostracise out‐groups to enhance their self‐concept through positive in‐group identification (Brenick and Halgunseth, ; Jones and others, ; Palmer and others, ; Rutland and Killen, ). Group status can be based on individual traits and peer groups (i.e.…”

“…In/out group identities, group identification, group norms, morality, sense of equality, perceived threat and status risk moderate whether children exert out‐group prejudice and how they interpret and respond to bullying situations (Brenick and Halgunseth, ; Palmer and others, , ; Rutland and Killen, ). School climate and culture moderates peer aggression and negative youth outcomes, especially the extent to which hierarchy, inclusion and peer aggression are normalised (Espelage, ; Hawley and Williford, ; Rutland and Killen, ).…”

Triadic intergroup relations: Studying situations with an observer, an actor, and a recipient of behavior

“…With reference to Figure , Palmer et al’s () study investigated processes in Scenarios 2 (shared group membership between observer and actor, and lack of shared group membership between observer and recipient) and in Scenario 3 (shared group membership between observer and recipient, and lack of shared group membership between observer and actor). Again, there are two dyadic relations which are clearly confounded in this design.…”