University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Influence of High School Bystanders of Bullying: An Exploratory Study
by
Jonathan Zaleski

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Jonathan Zaleski 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jonathan Zaleski certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Anthony Maddox
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
This study applied social cognitive theory to the problem of bullying in high schools by looking
at students who witness bullying of other students, known as bystanders. Bullying was important
to study because of its prevalence in schools and the negative impacts it has on victims,
bystanders, the school climate, and even the community beyond the school. The purpose of this
study was to explore what, if any, high school student bystanding behaviors and attitudes are
shaped by observations of prior bystander interventions by other students. Former and current
high school students who were 18 or 19 years old and recalled witnessing bystanders of bullying
during high school were recruited for this study using non-probability sampling, including
convenience, voluntary response, and snowball sampling. A total of 16 participants were selected
for this study, which applied qualitative research methodology through the collection of one-on-
one interview data. Analysis of the interviews led to several findings of note related to the
influence of observed bystanding behavior on bystanding attitudes and behaviors. The analysis
also identified two unique categories of bystanders, secondary bystanders, and amplifying
bystanders, who play a key role in the bystanding culture of schools. Recommendations for
leveraging these findings as a way to reduce the prevalence and impact of bullying in schools
were offered, along with some potential directions for future research that could follow up this
study.
Keywords: bullying, bullying interventions, bystanders, high school, school climate,
secondary bystanders, amplifying bystanders, bystander culture

v
Dedication
To every student who struggles with the weight of bullying and to all other students who come
forward to help them carry it.

vi
Acknowledgements
I simply would not have made it even close to where I am now if it were not for my wife.
She had my back in ways that transcended heroism while the world unraveled around us. As an
accomplished academic and researcher, she provided the studious type of guidance one would
normally not have so readily available while undertaking their first attempt at research. As the
love of my life, she provided the nurturing warmth and a ready ear that proved essential during
my frequent stalls in motivation. As a world-class parent, she provided the persistent sense of
family that kept me focused on what life would be like again after the program and study were
over. Speaking of family, I would be remiss in not acknowledging the sacrifice made by my
daughter who, despite being home under the same room for the length of the pandemic, saw her
father way too little.
As for Cohort 12 of USC Rossier School of Education’s Organizational Change and
Leadership EdD program, a hearty thank you goes out for being both my academic and social
life during the seemingly endless lockdown that limited almost all of my non-work interactions
to our class time together. That camaraderie was a big mental boost when I needed it most.
A huge thank you goes out to the staff, administrators, and professors that kept USC in
general and USC Rossier up and running as viable entities with no interruption to our education.
Every one of them was undergoing the same endless loop of tragedies and disappointment that
the students were, but never faltered in their dedication to see us through the program. In
particular, I must recognize my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Malloy, for rolling with my
endless stream of missed deadlines and broken promises, to somehow shepherd me across the
finish line before the race was over. This gratitude also extends to the rest of my dissertation
committee for their guidance and flexibility through this process.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 7
Discussion of Key Terms .................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 12
Socio-Historical Trends .................................................................................................... 12
Introduction to Bullying .................................................................................................... 14
About Bystanders .............................................................................................................. 20
Popularity and Bullying .................................................................................................... 25
Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 35
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 35
Research Design................................................................................................................ 35
Data Collection and Analysis............................................................................................ 36
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 38
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 39
viii
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 40
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 40
Results RQ1: Observed Bystanding Behaviors ................................................................ 45
Results RQ2: Role of Observed Bystander Behaviors ..................................................... 52
Results RQ3: Influence of Observed Bystander Characteristics ...................................... 58
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 64
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 64
Implications and Recommendations for Practice ............................................................. 70
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 78
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 81
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 82
References ..................................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 103

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Summary 41

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework 27

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 33

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The problem this study explored was bullying in high schools. In particular, the study
focused on the high school students who witness or become aware of acts of bullying on fellow
students. Bullying is one of the most commonly reported discipline problems in American public
schools with almost 14% of public schools reporting that bullying happens at least once a week
(Diliberti et al., 2019). Bullying comes at social, physical, emotional, and economic costs. One
study estimated that schools in California alone have lost $276 million a year in funding when
students did not show up because they did not feel safe, with 45% of the absenteeism alone
linked to biased-based bullying (Baams et al., 2017).
The unintended first responders to bullying are other students. Traditional bullying on
school property often occurs in locations where there are only other students to witness these acts
(Perkins et al., 2014). On the digital side, private social media networks, mobile messaging apps,
video game environments and other platforms where students congregate to socialize often do
not include adult monitoring in real time (Anderson, 2019). This puts even more students in the
position of being the only ones who can intercede in a timely manner. However, most students
who witness bullying do not intervene in a positive way on behalf of the victim (Datta, et al.,
2016; Frisén, et al., 2012; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2018).
The study examined factors that may influence bystander behaviors and personal
attitudes about intervening, with a close look at the responses and characteristics those
bystanders have witnessed from fellow students. This study was interested in determining if any
certain group or type of high school student has an outsized ability to influence bystanding
behavior in their schools. This interest came from prior research suggesting the bullying behavior
of the most popular adolescents set the social norm for bullying in their classroom (Dijkstra et
2

al., 2008). This led the researcher of the current study to theorize that popular high school
students may set the tone for bystanding behavior in their school.
Context and Background of the Problem
Bullying is often defined as a form of aggressive behavior in which someone
intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort (American Psychological
Association, 2020). This behavior can take the form of physical contact, words, or more subtle
actions. The advent of digital communications has created a platform for a modern iteration of
bullying, called cyberbullying, which takes place through digital and online interactions.
The U.S. school system is large with over 98,000 public K–12 schools and another nearly
35,000 private K–12 schools in the United States in operation leading up to the 2019 COVID
pandemic. These serve approximately 50.7 million public school and 5.7 million private school
students. Each year approximately 4.1 million students start ninth grade and become one of
approximately 15.4 million students enrolled in high school (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2019). This represents a sizable student population at risk for bullying.
Reports of bullying are highest for middle schools, followed by high schools, then
combined schools, with primary schools reporting the lowest rates (Diliberti et al., 2019). The
reported rates of bullying for 12–18-year-old students (secondary school age) nationwide
between 2005 and 2015 ranged from a high of 32% to a low of 22% (Musu-Gillette et al., 2015).
The most recent data available at the time of the current study shows that 20% percent of
secondary school students reported being bullied at school during the 2016-17 school year (Musu
et al., 2019). Nearly 15% of secondary school students indicate they were bullied online by other
students during the same period (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018).
The government has taken notice and a certain degree of action. As of 2015, every state
has some sort of legislation against bullying (StopBullying.gov, 2018b). That was not the case
3

until almost the start of the 21st century. The first state to enact anti-bullying legislation was the
state of Georgia in 1999 (StopBullying.gov, 2018b), one month after a high-profile school
shooting in Columbine, Colorado, where two students retaliated for, among other things,
bullying they had allegedly endured at their high school (Pankratz, 2000). They ended up taking
the lives of 13 on campus, wounding more than 20, and then taking their own lives.
States have since stepped in on several fronts against bullying. In 2008, the state of
California enacted the nation's first law against cyber-bullying. New Jersey took a stance in 2011
with the first legislation to threaten legal action against witnesses of bullying who don't report
the act. This also included a requirement that schools implement policies to address bullying.
The last state to come on board was Montana, which passed the state’s first anti-bullying law in
2015.
The problem is also being confronted by schools. School administrators across the globe
have undertaken many varied attempts to decrease the prevalence of bullying on a local level.
These efforts have included, among other approaches, training programs for teachers and staff,
parent-facilitated interventions, encouraging victims to self-report, increased monitoring in
locations where bullying may occur, and discouraging bullies through punitive actions and
policies (Rigby & Johnson, 2016). According to a comprehensive meta-evaluation of the
effectiveness of anti-bullying programs in schools worldwide, an approximate 20% reduction in
bullying has been reported when schools have implemented well-designed and carefully
evaluated strategies (Ttofi & Farrington, 2010).
Efforts to curtail bullying that center on the behaviors and responses of bullies, victims,
parents, teachers, and administrators overlook the role of student witnesses to bullying, known as
bystanders, as potential mitigating factors. In one study conducted in 75 elementary, 20 middle,
4

and 14 high schools, more than 70% of students reported being a witness to acts of bullying
(Bradshaw, 2007).
Students who defend or stand up for victims of bullying, known as upstanding
bystanders, are not prevalent in school populations. Most students who witness bullying do not
intervene in a positive way on behalf of their victimized peers. Instead, research shows that most
ignore the bullying while a significant amount encourage the perpetrator of the bullying incident
by actively participating in the bullying actions to some degree. Research indicates this holds
true in secondary school, where between one-third and a little more than half of witnesses to
bullying do not undertake positive interventions to help their fellow students (Datta et al., 2016;
Frisén et al., 2012; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2018).
Bystanders can be a useful resource in the battle against bullying. Research suggests the
presence of upstanding bystanders in middle school environments decreases the prevalence of
bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011) and can discourage bullying behavior among adolescents
(Salmivalli, 2010). Upstanding bystanders can also minimize the negative effects of bullying on
the victims and on the overall school climate (Brookmeyer et al., 2006; Flaspohler et al., 2009;
Gini et al, 2008).
Research shows bullying prevention programs can be effective at increasing positive
bystander interventions in bullying situations, with larger success at the high school level
compared to kindergarten through eighth-grade programs (Polanin, 2012). Some programs, like
the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (Olweus,1993), have centered on a whole school
approach that co-opts the entire school community into the push against bullying. Other
approaches aim to increase reporting by bystanders that leads to more adult interventions (e.g.,
Sandy Hook Promise, 2020). Sometimes restorative practices are used that focus on repairing the
5

damage done by bullying after the incident (e.g., Wong et al., 2011). Other interventions focus
on teaching students about positive bystander behavior and include strategies such as peer
support to improve interpersonal problem-solving skills among students (Cowie & Hutson,
2005).
There has been some research on the impact of bystander characteristics on their own
decision-making (Brewster & Tucker, 2015) or how the characteristics of the bully may impact a
bystander’s decision to intervene (Choi & Park, 2021). Researchers have also taken a look at the
notion of popularity in relation to bullying. The common stereotype of bullies as lacking in the
social skills needed for popularity has been challenged at the primary school level by some of
these researchers (Sutton et al., 1999). Others have found that upstanding bystanders in primary
school and middle schools tend to have a higher social status and are more likely to be perceived
as popular by their peers (Caravita et al., 2009; Pöyhönen et al., 2010; Salmivalli et al., 2011). As
previously noted, research has suggested that popular adolescents set the social norm for bullying
in their classroom (Dijkstra et al., 2008).
However, no specific research appears to have been conducted on the relationship
between observed bystander responses of high school students in their school environment and
the potential impact on the bystanding culture of the school. No existing research indicates which
students, if any, set the tone for bystanding behavior in their high school. This created an
opportunity for the current study to explore a knowledge gap in the effort to reduce bullying and
its impacts in American high schools.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study examined the influence of observed bystanding behaviors on high school
bystander behaviors and attitudes about intervening. As mentioned in the introduction to this
chapter, research suggests certain students can set the tone for other potential bullies at school
6

(Dijkstra et al., 2008). This proposed study asked the following research questions (RQ) as a way
to explore if this concept holds true for bystanders:
1. What bystanding behaviors do high school students observe other students
undertaking in bullying situations?
2. What role, if any, do these observed behaviors play in high school students’ personal
attitudes towards bystanding behavior related to bullying?
3. In what way do the characteristics of observed bystanders in bullying situations factor
into high school students’ personal attitudes towards bystanding behavior?
Addressing these questions were selected to help demystify bystanding culture and build
a clearer and more relevant understanding of the role certain student groups play in shaping
bystander responses in other students.
Importance of the Study
It is important to take a deeper look at what factors influence bystanders’ attitudes and
behaviors about intervening in bullying situations. Information about who and what shapes
student attitudes and responses to witnessing bullying can lead the way to developing more
comprehensive, synergistic, and effective recommendations and programs that encourage
upstanding bystander behavior and therefore minimize the negative impacts of bullying. A
physical or social power imbalance that impedes victims’ abilities to defend themselves is
typically present in bullying situations (American Psychological Association, 2019). Recruiting
more students to stand up on behalf of victims could tip that imbalance away from the bullies.
This highlights the key role bystanding culture can play in taming a school’s bullying culture.
The benefits of reduced bullying in schools are clear since the impacts of bullying are
extensive and severe. Students who are bullied are more likely to drop out of secondary school
(Cornell et al., 2013), typically experience lasting and recurring manifestations of various forms
7

of fear (Adams & Lawrence, 2018), and are at increased risk of developing suicidal tendencies
(Reed et al., 2015). Victims of secondary school cyberbullying report similar impacts (Selkie et
al., 2016). Any instance of crime or violence at school, such as bullying, not only affects the
individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the
school, and the surrounding community (Goldstein et al, 2008).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework this study will use to explore and address this problem will be
social cognitive theory, also commonly referred to as social learning theory. This theory
postulates that behaviors can be acquired through the observation and imitation of the behaviors
of others (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Walters, 1963). Social cognitive theory also addresses the
role that observed rewards and punishments play in the acquisition of behaviors (Bandura et al.,
1963). This framework looks at the interrelations of an individual, their behaviors, and the
observations in the environment. This trio of factors aligns with this current study’s goal of
triangulating student bystander behavior with their observed behavior of fellow students in the
school environment and a range of personal factors.
Each of the research questions can be linked directly to social cognitive theory. RQ1
focuses on behaviors being observed by students in their environment. RQ2 and RQ3 looked to
measure factors of the individual’s cognitive processing of those observed behaviors to explore if
they potentially regulate the relationship between those bystander behaviors they observe and
their own bystander attitudes and behaviors.
This study was conducted using qualitative research methods, which is a research method
that involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to
understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. This approach is best suited to gather in-depth
8

insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In
particular, a one-on-one interview structure was implemented for this study.
Discussion of Key Terms
The following are definitions for key terms used throughout this paper which are relevant
to the understanding of this study:
Bullying
There is no universally accepted definition of bullying, but the American Psychological
Association (2020) defines bullying as a form of aggressive behavior in which someone
intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort that can take the form of
physical contact, words, or more subtle actions. There are several sub classifications of bullying,
some of which overlap. Direct bullying refers to physical forms of aggression. These also include
threats of violence. Indirect bullying encapsulates social-based aggressions such as perpetrating
rumors, humiliations, or insults. This type of bullying can occur in front of other students or
without witnesses (Feshbach, 1969; Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Cyberbullying is another subset of
bullying. This type includes acts of bullying perpetrated using electronic forms of contact
(Moreno, 2014) such as text messages, social media, online forums, video game environments,
and other online social spaces and applications. Cyberbullying can span other types of bullying.
For example, harassment in online environments that includes a threat of violence could be
classified as “direct cyberbullying” whereas the malicious spreading of rumors online would be
labeled as “indirect cyberbullying.”
Bystanders
Dictionaries typically define bystanders as individuals present at an event or incident who
do not take part. When used in reference to bullying, someone who witnesses bullying, either in
person or online, is considered a bystander (StopBullying.gov, 2018a). The difference is the act
9

of witnessing bullying makes them a bystander, whether they ultimately participate or not.
Friends, peers, teachers, school staff, parents, coaches, and other adults can be bystanders. This
study focuses on student bystanders, defined for the purpose of this research as students who
witness acts of bullying on fellow students. Generally, the term “bystander” and “student
bystander” are used interchangeably in this paper in keeping with the context of the study.
There are subclassifications of bystanders of bullying based on how they respond to
becoming aware of the perpetration. Those who intervene on behalf of the victim are known as
upstanding bystanders and are sometimes also referred to as defending bystanders, though this
study will use the former. Bystanders who ignore the bullying are typically classified as outsider
or passive bystanders, with this study using the former. People who contribute to the actions of
the bully directly or support the act through indirect ways such as laughing along are labeled as
encouraging bystanders. Sometimes encouraging bystanders are further classified by referring to
those who actively help and join the bully as assistant bystanders and those who indirectly
support the bully can be labeled as reinforcer bystanders (Ansary et al., 2015; StopBullying.gov,
2018a).
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated
levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1994).
This concept is relevant to bystander behavior considering that some degree of self-efficacy is
needed for a successful bystander intervention (Latané and Darley, 1970). An extension of this
concept is collective efficacy, which is defined as a group’s shared belief in its conjoint
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of
attainments (Bandura, 1997). Though this study focused on individual bystander responses, some
10

interview questions gathered perspective to frame these responses in relation to the presence of
other bystanders, making collective efficacy somewhat relevant to the research. This also touches
upon the idea of social norms, which are the informal rules that govern behavior in groups and
societies (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005), such as student peer groups.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory is based in the belief that human behavior is determined by a
relationship between a triad of influences; cognitive, environmental, and behavioral. Cognitive
factors, sometimes referred to as personal or individual factors, are comprised of an individual’s
knowledge, expectations, and attitudes. Environmental factors are external influences on actions
and attitudes. These include social norms or observed behavior of significant individuals, such as
parents, family members, peers, teachers, mass media or, in the case of this study, popular
students at school. Behavioral factors in relation to social cognitive theory refer to the
individual’s self-efficacy and skills related to the action being considered (Bandura, 1977).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One, this chapter, provided an
introduction into the challenges of addressing bullying in schools. It offered context and
background on bullying in general and bystanders in particular. It also introduced the purpose
and goals of the study. The conceptual framework of social cognitive theory was also briefly
introduced. Chapter Two provides a literature review of topics surrounding bullying, bystander
behavior, and popularity. The conceptual framework and its relation to this study is also laid out
in more detail. Chapter Three describes the presumptions and details the methodology that were
part of this study. Chapter Four presents the data, and the results of the study. Chapter Five
11

contains an analysis and discussion of the findings, implications from those findings, and
recommendations for future research to further develop the understanding of this topic.
12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The problem this study explored was bullying in high schools in general, with a focus on
high school students who witness or become aware of acts of bullying. The study examined
factors that may influence bystander behavior, with a close look at the relationship between
bystander intervention attitudes and the responses those bystanders have witnessed from fellow
students. This research can inform the creation of programs and strategies to encourage positive
bystander behaviors in secondary schools as a method to address bullying among students.
This chapter serves as an overview of the literature on bullying by first providing a
review of related socio-historical trends. This is followed by a review of some of the prior and
recent research that shapes the current understanding of bullying and those who witness it. After
this comes a focus on research related to popularity and bullying. The chapter concludes with a
look at the application of social cognitive theory in the context of this study.
Socio-Historical Trends
The term “bully” has origins as far back as the 1530s initially as a term of endearment for
either gender, then just for males, before deteriorating to negative connotation by 1680 (Oxford
Learner’s Dictionary, 2020). The word “bullying” was first published in public media by The
Times daily newspaper in 1862 in reference to the death of a soldier who underwent “systematic
bullying” in the army (Koo, 2007). A few decades later, Burk (1897) authored the first scholarly
journal article to significantly address bullying among young people. Research into the various
factors and components of bullying in school has continued and evolved significantly since then,
but bullying has been a component of society for centuries, if not longer (Koo, 2007).
Popular literature, ranging from the serious 1954 novel Lord of the Flies to the more
modern and light-hearted Diary of a Wimpy Kid book series have featured bullies. Movies have
been especially influential in defining bullying archetypes, where school bullies are frequently
13

portrayed as strong, popular, and often not relatively intelligent ‘jocks’ who exhibit a
combination of aggressive physical, social, and emotional behaviors towards weaker and less
popular students. This stereotypical bully-victim dichotomy was especially reinforced throughout
the 1980s when a multitude of popular mainstream movies were released with bullies as a central
theme or a main character, including Back to the Future, The Breakfast Club, The Karate Kid,
Stand By Me, Weird Science, Just One of the Guys, Pretty in Pink, Less Than Zero, and Revenge
of the Nerds.
While the underdog often eventually overcame or triumphed over the bully in these
movies, the films also typically featured scenes of bullying on school campuses with numerous
students standing by and laughing along while the victimization took place. Bullies were also
often shown being rewarded after incidents of bullying with high-fives and other encouraging
behavior from their peers. Long-term impacts of bullying on the victims were rarely portrayed,
instead limiting the downside of bullying for the victim to public humiliation and short-term
physical harm. Almost all these films were marketed and presented as comedies.
Bullying came into the spotlight in a more serious way as mass shootings and school
shootings became more prevalent. Of the 26 deadliest mass shootings in the United States during
the 70 years between 1949 and the end of 2019, 16 of them took place in 2009 or later (CNN,
2020). March 2020 was the first month without a school shooting in the United States since 2002
(CBS, 2020), and that pause may have only occurred because most school campuses across the
country were shut that month as a pandemic began sweeping the country. A study by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (2019) looked in depth at 41 deadly school attacks committed
by former or current students from 2008 through 2017 and found most school shooters were
14

badly bullied. More than three-quarters initiated their attack after an incident with someone at
school. Most of the attackers were seventh graders to seniors.
The role of bystanders rose to public attention in 1964 when it was reported that 38
people witnessed a woman being stalked, sexually assaulted, and stabbed to death during three
attacks on the streets of New York City over half an hour without intervening or calling the
police (Gansberg, 1964). The event sparked national outrage over the apathy of the bystanders
(Columbia Journalism Review, 2013). The tragedy also caught the attention of social
psychologists in the late 1960s who then started performing a series of experiments to explore
bystander responses, which led to the discovery that the presence of other bystanders inhibits
helping, sometimes by a very large margin (Hudson & Bruckman, 2004; Latane & Darley,
1968). The problem still persists. In 2019, more than half a century later, a 16-year-old boy was
stabbed to death outside a strip mall. The brutal attack was witnessed by dozens of peers who did
not intervene. Instead, some took video as the assault was happening (Yancey-Bragg, 2019).
Bullying has evolved along with the evolution of technology. Students now interact with
each other on social media, in digital classrooms, through video game chat rooms, and more.
This has created new platforms for bullying behavior along with new vantage points for
bystanders. One result is a larger challenge for parents, administrators, and teachers looking to
address bullying among students.
Introduction to Bullying
The following is an introduction and overview to the research around bullying and
bullies. This includes a review of how bullying is defined, its prevalence in schools, the impacts
it has, and where it happens.
Classifying Bullying
15

The definition of bullying has changed over time and there is not a singularly accepted
definition by all groups. Bullying was initially seen as a more clearly specified and simple set of
behaviors, but the American Psychological Association’s definition encapsulates much of the
current framing of bullying. The organization identifies bullying as “a form of aggressive
behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or
discomfort, and can take the form of physical contact, words, or more subtle actions” (American
Psychological Association, 2020). An important element that distinguishes bullying from conflict
is that bullying includes the perception, by the bully or by others, of a physical or social power
imbalance in favor of the bully (Juvonen & Graham, 2014). A smaller subgroup of students
existed who both bully and are bullied, known as bully-victims (Nansel et al. 2001).
There are many different classifications of bullying. Direct bullying refers to physical
forms of aggression, even those that involve only threats of violence, whereas indirect bullying
encapsulates social-based aggressions such as perpetrating rumors, humiliations, or insults in
front of other students or without witnesses (Feshbach, 1969; Lagerspetz et al., 1988).
Another way to classify bullying is if the aggression is taking place in a physical or
digital environment. Traditional bullying, based on in-person interactions, is now joined by
cyberbullying, its digital counterpart. The earliest acknowledged acts of cyberbullying typically
took place by text message through mobile phones or by email communications (Rivers & Noret,
2010). Since then, the types of digital platforms that student access has greatly expanded to
include chat rooms, social media, video games, and more.
While it is typical to define cyberbullying by simply adding a reference to the using of
electronic forms of contact to the standard definition of bullying (Smith et al., 2008), it has been
argued that the criteria of a power imbalance and repetition are less valid in online forms of
16

bullying (Smith et al., 2013). The permanent nature of some digital forms means a single act of
cyberbullying can repeatedly revictimize someone without the bully taking any additional action
or being in a position of power over the victim. The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on K–12
education may also hasten the migration of primary inter-student communications and
socializations into the digital realm. Looking ahead, students will adopt or adapt new
technologies as they become available for socializing and communication which could lead to
new classifications of bullying or further evolution of current definitions.
Prevalence of Bullying
Looking at the prevalence of bullying in schools is important when considering what
resources to put towards addressing the issue. Bullying is prevalent among school-age children,
both domestically and internationally. Bullying in its forms is present across different social and
demographic groups to varying degrees.
The federal government collects data for an annual Indicators of School Crime and Safety
report that is drawn from a variety of data sources including national surveys of students,
teachers, and principals. The report indicated the prevalence of bullying for students ages 12-18
was around 28% in 2005, peaked at 32% in 2007, and was down to 22% by 2014 (Musu-Gillette
et al., 2015). The rate remained steadily in the low 20s with little to no improvement through
2018 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019), representing the most recent report
available at the time of this study.
The slow but definite trend downwards in the rates of bullying victimization through
2015 is likely a result of increasing concerted efforts by schools to reduce bullying. Researchers
conducted a cross-national meta-analysis of 44 studies carried out between 1983 and mid‐2009
that were either randomized controlled trials, quasi‐randomized trials, age‐cohort studies, or
17

other controlled studies. The research indicated that on average, school-based anti-bullying
programs decreased bullying behavior by 20%-23%. Furthermore, victimization by bullies
decreased 17%-20% (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009).
Students most often cite physical appearance, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, religion,
and sexual orientation as reasons they were bullied. A gender difference exists in reported rates
of victimization, with twenty-four percent of female students reporting being bullied at school
compared to 17% for males (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). The prevalence of
bullying towards students with disabilities is high, with students with behavioral and emotional
disorders, autism, intellectual disabilities, and health impairments facing high rates of bullying
victimization ranging from 19% to over 35% depending on the type of disability (Rose &
Espelage, 2012). More than one in three adolescents reporting bullying report bias-based school
bullying (Russell, Sinclair, Poteat, & Koenig, 2012). High school students in the United States
who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual report having been bullied on school property or
cyberbullied at significantly higher rates than their heterosexual peers. Caucasians and African-
American students experience bullying victimization more often than the national average,
whereas Hispanic and Asian-American students report bullying at below that rate (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2018).
Bullying is also relatively prevalent on an international scale. A 2005/2006 survey
conducted of representative samples of adolescents in 40 countries showed the prevalence of
bullying as a perpetrator, victim, or both spanned from 8.6% to 45.2%. On average, 10.7% of the
respondents reported bullying others, 12.6% reported being bullied by others, and 3.6% indicated
they had both bullied and been bullied (Craig et al., 2009).
18

While there have been small and gradual reductions in the rate of bullying in the United
States, bullying still remains a common experience among high school students. This puts
millions of student victims at risk from potential negative impacts that can be incurred from acts
of bullying. It is also important to look how bullying could affect students who are not directly
victims or targets of bullying.
Impacts of Bullying
Gaining an understanding of the type and scope of damage bullying causes on multiple
levels of the school community can help focus that community on making meaningful efforts to
address them. Research shows bullying is associated with a multitude of emotional, behavioral,
and physical problems. Victims of bullying tend to indicate feelings of low self-esteem, isolation,
depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and recurring fear manifestations, along
with exhibiting diminished school performance and higher secondary school dropout rates as
well as harm to their sense of belonging and connection to the school (e.g., Bond et al., 2001;
Cornell et al., 2013; Eisenberg et al., 2003; Gladstone et al., 2006; Hawker & Boulton, 2000;
Klomeck et al., 2007; Nansel et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2015; Sourander et al., 2000). Victims of
secondary school cyberbullying report similar impacts as victims of traditional on-campus
bullying (Selkie et al., 2016).
Certain types of bullying produce negative outcomes to a greater degree than others. In
one study, substance use levels and mental health status were worse among youths experiencing
bias-based harassment compared to those suffering non-bias-based harassment. The study also
showed bias-based harassment was slightly associated with grades and more significantly with
truancy. Young bias-based harassment victims also had much higher odds of being threatened
with a weapon and having property damaged at school (Russell et al., 2012). Studies show
19

associations between experiencing acts of discrimination, such as biased-based bullying, and
poorer mental health in adolescent populations. These include greater depressive symptoms,
increased conduct problems, and decreased self-esteem (Brody et al., 2006; Greene et al., 2006;
Rosenthal et al., 2015; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007). This can intrinsically put certain
populations at greater risk.
The presence of bullies at school not only affects the individuals involved in instances of
bullying but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school, and the
surrounding community (Goldstein et al, 2008). Research shows aggression in school
environments has implications on academic success as well as youth development. Students who
are exposed to high levels of aggressive behavior are at risk for a host of negative outcomes
outside the school including increased delinquency, substance use, aggression, anxiety, and
stress (Farrell & Sullivan, 2004; Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Holden et al., 1998; Horn &
Trickett, 1998). Exposure to aggression and violence also are related to a variety of school-
related problems, including poor academic achievement, problem behavior, and concerns with
attendance and attachment to school (e.g., Bowen & Bowen, 1999; Henrich et al., 2004; Juvonen
et al., 2000).
Adolescent bullies tend to exhibit other delinquent behaviors, perform poorly in school,
are more likely to drop-out of school, and are also more likely to bring weapons to school (e.g.,
Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Nansel et al., 2003; Nansel et al., 2004; Sourander et al., 2000).
Behavioral and emotional problems experienced by victims and those who bully them may
continue into adulthood and produce long-term negative outcomes, including low self-worth and
self-esteem, antisocial behavior, depression, recurring manifestations of fear, vandalism, drug
use and abuse, gang involvement, criminal activity, and suicidal ideation (e.g., Adams &
20

Lawrence, 2018; Gladstone et al., 2006; Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999; Nansel et al., 2001;
Olweus, 1994).
With such a wide range of negative outcomes from bullying, it is important to work
towards preventing bullying as a way towards improving the well-being of the entire school
community.
Where It Happens
Where bullying tends to take place determines who will be witnesses and in positions to
intervene. Traditional bullying occurs throughout a school property, often in locations where
there are only other students to witness these acts (Perkins et al., 2014). Bullied students reported
that bullying occurs most frequently in school stairwells and hallways (43%), inside a classroom
(42%), or in the cafeteria (27%). Victims also report incidents taking place outside on school
grounds (22%), in a school bathroom or locker room (12%), and on the school bus (8%) as well
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019).
Cyberbullying comprises a notable portion of reported student bullying in the United
States. About fifteen percent of secondary students who reported being bullied indicated all or a
portion of the bullying took place online or by text during the 2016 school year. This was a 3.5%
increase from the prior year (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). Cyberbullying is
relatively common among secondary-school-aged children, with 59% of U.S. teens having been
bullied or harassed online (Anderson, 2018).
With much of traditional and cyberbullying taking place away from adult supervision,
student bystanders are in a unique position to intervene on behalf of their fellow students.
About Bystanders
Students who witness acts of bullying are perhaps the most influential group within the
microcosm of bullying. School-aged youth are often influenced by the attitudes and opinions of
21

their peers and fellow students. This has led to a growing interest in bystanders and bystander
behavior as a tool to address bullying from within the school community. What follows is an
introduction and overview to the previous and current research around bystanders and bystander
behavior.
Classifying Bystanders
A bystander to bullying is anyone who witnesses bullying either in person or in digital
forms. Those digital forms include social media, websites, text messages, gaming, and apps.
Anyone can be a bystander, including friends, students, peers, teachers, school staff, parents,
coaches, and even strangers (StopBullying.gov, 2018). Bystanders can play different roles in
bullying situations. Upstanding bystanders, also known as defending bystanders and defenders in
the literature, help by intervening when bullying occurs or address the bullying by extending
support to the victim. This support can take place privately or in the moment of bullying
(StopBullying.gov, 2018).
Bystanders who do not intervene on behalf of the victim generally fall into three groups.
Outsiders witness the bullying but do not get involved in any way. Reinforcers, also known as
encouraging bystanders, support the bully or bullies indirectly by behavior such as laughing at
the victim, encouraging the bully, or cheering during or after the bullying incident. Assistants
help the bully directly through actions such as physically restraining the victim or blocking the
victim’s path to safety (StopBullying.gov, 2018).
Bystanders can intervene during a bullying incident through a range of actions beyond
just getting an adult, especially when one is not readily available in a timely manner. These
include changing the subject, questioning the bullying behavior, using humor to change the tone
of the moment, openly objecting to the bullying, and validating the victim, or defending the
22

victim. After an incident, upstanding bystanders can reach out directly to the victim to express
support, report the bullying to an appropriate adult, or communicate with the bully
(StopBullying.gov, 2018).
Impact of Bystanders
Bystanders have a range of impacts on bullying in schools. Research shows bullying
prevention programs can be effective at increasing bystander intervention in bullying situations,
with larger success at the high school level compared to kindergarten through eighth-grade
programs (Polanin, 2012). While there has been little research to date on the high school level,
research suggests the presence of upstanding bystanders in middle school environments
decreases the prevalence of bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011). Studies show a reduction in the
rate of encouraging bystander behavior in adolescents along with an increase in upstanding
behavior within the peer group that denies the bully social rewards and discourages bullying
behavior (Salmivalli, 2010).
Positive outcomes of upstanding behavior extend beyond the moment of the bullying
incident. Defending bystanding behavior in students also minimizes the negative effects of
bullying on the victims and the school climate (Flaspohler et al., 2009; Gini et al, 2008). The
positive school climate created by these helpful bystanders has also been shown to have an
impact on aggressive behavior by bullies (Brookmeyer et al., 2006). Focusing on and supporting
upstanders has potential as an effective method of preventing bullying. Peers play a critical role
in initiating and sustaining bullying behaviors which places them in primary positions to
influence bullying behavior (Salmivalli, 2010). The impact of bystanders in some ways puts
them in the role of a first responder when acts of bullying are perpetrated.
Prevalence of Bystanders
23

Bystanders are common when school bullying occurs. Studies indicate that over a recent
10-year period 42.7% to 66.4% of students in Grades 4 through 12 reported witnessing bullying
(Waasdorp et al., 2017). At times as many as 72% of high schoolers reported having been a
bystander to bullying (Bradshaw et al, 2007). Most students who witness bullying do not
intervene in a positive way on behalf of the victim. Instead, research shows that most students
ignore the bullying while a significant amount encourages the perpetrator of the bullying incident
by actively participating in the bullying actions to some degree (Datta et al., 2016; Frisén et al,
2012; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2018).
High school students are less likely to seek help from adults compared to their middle
school counterparts in response to witnessing an act of bullying. Younger students reported
taking a positive action on behalf of the victim more often than older students. Girls more often
reported undertaking upstanding behavior by notifying an adult, intervening directly, or helping
the victim, when compared to boys (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Trach et al., 2010; Waasdorp &
Bradshaw, 2011).
Overall, the research shows that between one-third and a little more than half of
witnesses to bullying in secondary schools do not intervene on behalf of the victim in a positive
way. This leaves a significant amount of the school population unutilized in efforts to curtail
bullying. This represents a potentially vast resource that is available to be deployed towards
eliminating the problem, once an appropriate understanding is gained on how to do so.
Fostering Positive Interventions
Researchers have worked to gain an understanding of what influences bystanders’
decisions to intervene or not. Latané and Darley's (1970) bystander intervention model lays out
the five steps needed for a successful positive intervention; notice the event, interpret it as an
24

emergency, accept responsibility, know what to do, and act. Research has identified several
barriers that inhibit upstanding bystander behavior, though much of that research has focused on
middle school students. Themes that have emerged related to bystander motives include
emotional reactions, interpretation of potential harm, intervention self-efficacy, and social and
moral evaluating (Thornberg et al., 2012).
The classic bystander effect, where witnesses presume that if other witnesses are not
taking action, then no action is necessary, and diffusion of responsibility, where the larger the
crowd, the more its members presume someone else will take action (Darley & Latane, 1968),
are also often cited as mitigating factors, considering bullying incidents tend to have multiple
witnesses. Along similar lines, research indicates children's attitudes towards bullying victims
might be shaped by their observations of each other’s reactions. (Gini et al., 2008). This can
create a trend towards behaving aggressively toward the target of bullying as a way of signaling
belonging to the peer group (Garandeau & Cillessen, 2006). Children may also adapt to the
power dynamic of a bully in the environment by distancing themselves from low-status victims
in particular (Juvonen & Galvan, 2008).
There is no universal set of characteristics attributed to those who defend fellow students
from bullies and bullying but research does help identify some recurring traits. Children who
exhibit upstanding behavior typically are empathic (Barchia & Bussey, 2011; Caravita et al.,
2009; Gini et al., 2007; Nickerson et al., 2008; Pöyhönen et al., 2010; Warden & MacKinnon,
2003), have a strong attitude against bullying (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), and report a high
self-efficacy for defending victims (Pöyhönen et al., 2010). Peer and self-reports indicate
upstanding bystanders are typically above average in moral and social development (Gini et al.,
2011). Gaining a better understanding of traits and characteristics typical of high school
25

upstanding bystanders may facilitate future efforts to craft school bullying intervention programs
that support or create these individuals in school environments.
Popularity and Bullying
School bullies are often portrayed in television and movies as popular students
surrounded by friends and peers while they prey on unpopular nerds as victims. Portrayals of
bystanders in these stories can range from popular overpowered superheroes to the most
unassuming of characters with little to no friends. What little research has actually been done so
far on the relationships between popularity, bullying, and bystander behavior has mostly focused
on middle school environments in Europe. This makes these findings only tangentially
applicable to this current study of American high school students, but valuable for framing what
is still unknown about this social dynamic.
The reputation of being a defender of victimized classmates is associated with a greater
social status within the peer group (Pöyhönen et al., 2010), being well-liked (Salmivalli et al.,
2011), and, especially in middle-childhood, perceived as popular by their peers (Caravita et al.,
2009; Pöyhönen et al., 2010). Besides its main effect on defending, social status, and popularity
work to moderate the effects of self-efficacy and empathy on defending behavior, strengthening
these associations. Research suggests that popularity is practically essential in order to defend
bullying victims in primary and middle school, since low-status defenders might be
disproportionately likely to become the next target of the bully (Pöyhönen et al., 2010). A study
of sixth to eighth grade students found a negative relationship between perceived popularity and
noticing bullying events in the school environment (Menolascino & Jenkins, 2018).
A study examining 13-to 14-year-olds found bullying was positively associated with
popularity and bullying victimization was negatively associated with popularity (De Bruyn et al.,
2009). One explanation offered why some adolescent bullies gain popularity is that antisocial
26

behaviors represent pushback against adult norms and values, which are welcomed by peers at
this developmental period (Moffitt, 1993). Studies suggest that bullies as young as five to eight
years old can be popular among peers (Alsaker & Nägele, 2008, p. 238). As bullies are often
perceived as popular and powerful, some bystanders will distance themselves from unpopular
bullying victims, as a perceived pathway to social acceptance with popular peers (Juvonen &
Galvan, 2008).
Popularity has been shown to play a role on victim-blaming related to incidents of
bullying. Researchers in Scandinavia found when bystanders had a positive perception of the
physical bullying victim, less secondary victimization (blaming of the victim) occurred after the
bullying incident. Meanwhile victims who were cast in a negative light or considered part of the
bystander’s outgroup were more likely to experience secondary victimization (Correia et al.,
2010). Bullying was found to be more socially accepted especially in classrooms where popular
students engaged in bullying at high levels, suggesting the most popular children set the social
norm in a classroom, allowing popular bullies to normalize bullying (Dijkstra et al., 2008). This
finding about norm-setting for bullying led the author of the current paper to consider who, if
anyone, sets the social norm for bystanders. Furthermore, this finding and the other prior
literature on bullying and popularity led the researcher of the current study to hypothesize that
popular students would be found to have a strong influence on bystander behavior in high school.
Social Cognitive Theory
The theoretical framework this study used to explore bystander responses to bullying was
Alfred Bandura’s (1963, 1977, 1992) social cognitive theory, which was originally called social
learning theory. Social cognitive theory integrates behavioral and cognitive theories of learning
to offer an explanation about how individuals learn through observation or direct instructions
when in social contexts. Social cognitive theory explains human behavior in terms of a three-
27

way, reciprocal, and dynamic model in which behavioral, personal, and environmental factors
continually interact. Learning occurs in a social context with a dynamic and reciprocal
interaction between these three factors, with each having a particular relevance to the current
study.

Figure 1
Theoretical Framework

28

Behavior
In terms of bystanders to bullying, there are generally four main types of behaviors for
witnesses to undertake. Three of these behavior types (outsider, reinforcer, and assistant) either
leave the victim in peril or contribute to the act of bullying to some degree and is not a desired
outcome. The desired outcome of upstanding behavior, also known as defending behavior,
includes getting help from an adult, engaging the bully in an intervention, or protecting the
victim in various ways (StopBullying.gov, 2018).
Environment
Primary and secondary school-aged children often have anxiety that they might lose
social influence and be bullied themselves if they were to intervene (Stevens et al., 2000). This
anxiety could not have been gained through a priori knowledge, which is knowledge that is
acquired independently of any particular experience (Kant, 1992). Instead, children's attitudes
towards victims are influenced by their observing others bystander reactions in the environment
(Gini et al., 2008).
The environmental factors in social cognitive theory refer to the locations, influences, and
resources where social learning takes place, be it from passive observations or inbound
communications (Locke & Bandura, 1987). In the context of this study, the environment can be
school specific or unrelated to school activities. The former includes classrooms, hallways, or
school playgrounds whereas the latter includes home or community environments. The
environment can be virtual, such as online platforms (Hill et al., 2009), or even television shows
and movies (Rasit et al., 2015) where a student observes bullying and bystanding-related
behaviors paired with the outcomes of those behaviors.
29

Social and group norms are an important part of the environment that can shape
bystander responses through social learning. In peer groups where bullying is the norm, it is
likely that bullying behaviors will remain until those peer norms are modified (Swearer et al.,
2010). Two other important concepts of social cognitive theory that are relevant to observations
in the environment are vicarious reinforcement and modeling. Vicarious reinforcement refers to
learning that occurs by observing behavior and the consequences of that behavior (Malouff &
Rooke, 2008). The related concept of modeling, also known as observational learning, suggests
learning occurs through a process of making observations, extracting information from those
observations, then making personal determinations about the performance of the observed
behavior (Bandura, 1997). Underlying both of these concepts is the idea that learning behaviors
is a cognitive process that takes place in a social context (Grusec, 1992). These perspectives can
be useful when examining bystander behavior among peer and peer groups in school
environments.
Person and Agency
One of the three factors underlying social cognitive theory is the concept of person or
self. This is where the cognitive processing takes place to become learned behaviors. Many
themes that are present in social cognitive theory relate directly to the previously mentioned
bystander intervention model developed by Latané and Darley (1970) and fall directly under this
category. Concepts such as empathy, moral disengagement, sense of responsibility, self-efficacy,
and outcome expectations can come into play on a bystander’s journey towards an upstanding
response upon seeing occurrences of bullying towards other students (Polanin et al., 2012).
Empathy, the ability to understand and share the emotions of another person, is essential
to perceiving the pain of the bullying target and comprehending the need to take action (Jolliffe
30

& Farrington, 2011). Bandura (1992, 2002, 2006) highlighted that people who experience their
well-being as linked to the welfare of others, are more likely to respond empathetically to the
sufferings and joys of others. On the other side from empathy, moral disengagement is likely to
obscure the need for action (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011). Moral disengagement is when an
individual’s moral control disconnects from detrimental conduct through a potential range of
mechanisms such as displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, moral
justification, advantageous comparison, euphemistic labeling, victim-blaming, and distortion of
the consequences (Bandura et al., 1996). Knowledge, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations are
important for learning (Bandura, 1977) and play a key role in the final steps of deciding to
intervene in bullying situations. These concepts help ensure bystanders know the means of
intervention and believe they will work enough for them to chance negative outcomes such as
making the situation worse for the victim or becoming at risk of becoming a victim as well
(Knauf et al., 2018).
A study of elementary and middle school students suggested that a key factor for
influencing bystander intervention decisions is intervention self-efficacy (Thornberg, 2012),
defined as how effective they believed their actions would be at stopping the bullying. Social
status moderates the effects of empathy and self-efficacy on bystander responses, strengthening
these associations. High status may empower bystanders to defend victims without the believed
risks a low-status child might run of becoming the next target of a bully during or following an
intervention. Having a reputation of being a defender of bullied classmates is associated with a
stronger sense of self-efficacy for defending and greater social status within the student
community. Perceived popularity also moderated the effects of both self-efficacy and affective
empathy on having a reputation of a defender (Pöyhönen et al., 2010).
31

These factors translate into the world of cyberbullying as well. While the bystanders are
not physically present for the perpetration, they still make personal decisions in light of
environment and behaviors. A study of German middle school students revealed higher moral
disengagement and lower feelings of responsibility and self-efficacy related to witnessing
cyberbullying as compared to school bullying. Meanwhile, no significant difference was found in
empathy for bystanders in online or physical environments (Knauf et al., 2018).
Relevance to This Study
The current study’s conceptual framework employed the trio of intertwined systems
featured in social cognitive theory to address a trio of research questions. The first research
question sought to identify what bystanding behaviors high school students observe other
students undertaking in bullying situations. This was achieved through a series of interview
questions about a student’s perception of their school’s climate in general and their personally
observed instances of bystanding behavior. In terms of social learning theory, these questions
focused primarily on the environment portion of the three-way interaction between the
environment through observations, the development of personal attitudes, and behaviors the
individual undertakes.
The second research question sought to explore what role, if any, observed bystanding
behaviors in bullying situations play in high school students’ personal attitudes towards
bystanding. This was undertaken by asking questions about, or that revealed, interviewee
attitudes about bystanding during high school and framing them against reported interviewee
observations of bystanding during high school. In terms of social learning theory, these questions
focused primarily on the personal portion of the three-way framework.
32

The third research question explored what way, if any, the characteristics of observed
bystanders in bullying situations factor into high school students’ personal attitudes towards
bystanding behavior. This final question essentially looked to determine if high schools have
definable influencers who might have an outsized ability to change the attitudes of the school
population about undertaking positive interventions in instances of bullying. This was
approached by questions about observed or expected bystander behaviors undertaken by specific
segments of the school community. This included a focus on the interviewee’s high school role
models, and how the interviewees feel those behaviors related to their own attitudes and
behaviors about intervening in bullying situations during high school. In terms of social learning
theory, these questions focused primarily on the behavior portion of the three-way framework.
An effective study of bystander conditions, responses, and influences benefits from being
framed against the interplaying of social learning theory’s three systems. Essentially, this current
study used the social learning theory framework, as seen below in Figure 2, to examine the
relationship between what a student observes other students are doing in bystander situations at
school (environment), frame them against the respondents’ attitudes towards bullying and
bystanding (person) and compare to the resulting bystanding behaviors with an eye towards
evaluating the relationships between all of these factors.

33

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework that guides this research is a reorienting of Alfred Bandura's
social cognitive theory, the theoretical framework of this study, to view bystander outcomes as a
dependent variable influenced by personal and environmental variables. Figure 2 provides a
graphical representation of this conceptual framework, highlighting personal and environmental
inputs to the student as influencing behavior in bystander situations.
Conclusion
While no consensus exists on the best way to address bullying in high schools, a review
of the literature and research conducted on bullying around the world and across various grade
levels indicates that finding ways to encourage upstanding behavior within the student
34

population holds promise. The prevalence, power, and influence of bystanders make them an
abundant and potentially effective resource towards decreasing the frequency of victimization
and broad impacts that bullying brings to victims in particular and the entire school community
in general. Social cognitive theory offers a relevant lens for examining some of the factors that
influence how bystanders form attitudes about intervening when witnessing bullying. Popularity
has been shown to play some key roles in the impact, prevalence, and attitudes towards bullying
in schools. However, a close look at the influence of observed bystanding on the attitudes of
future bystanders does not appear to have been undertaken. This provides a research opportunity
for the current study.

35

Chapter Three: Methodology
The problem this study explored was bullying in high schools in general with a look at
high school students who witness or become aware of acts of bullying on fellow students. The
study examined factors that may influence the bystander attitudes about intervening, with a focus
on responses those bystanders have witnessed from fellow students. This research can inform the
creation of programs and strategies to encourage positive bystander behaviors in secondary
schools as a method to address bullying and its impacts among students.
Research Questions
Three research questions (RQ) guided this study:
1. What bystanding behaviors do high school students observe other students
undertaking in bullying situations?
2. What role, if any, do these observed behaviors play in high school students’ personal
attitudes towards bystanding behavior related to bullying?
3. In what way do the characteristics of observed bystanders in bullying situations factor
into high school students’ personal attitudes towards bystanding behavior?
Research Design
This study was conducted using qualitative research methods, which is a research
method that involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to
understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. This approach is best suited to gather in-depth
insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In
particular, a one-on-one interview structure was implemented for this study, as interviews can
aid in the understanding of social phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), such as bystander
attitudes and behaviors in high school students.
36

In the case of this research, the study examined the relationship between the observed
behavior of high school students in bystanding situations and the observer’s own bystanding
behaviors and attitudes during high school. In terms of the conceptual framework, personal and
environmental factors like attitudes and observations served as independent variables with
behavior, in the form of the respondent’s reported actions in bystander situations, taking the role
of the independent variable.
Data Collection and Analysis
This study took a non-experimental approach through the use of qualitative interviews as
the instrument for data collection. The target audience for invitations to participate in this study
were limited to anyone over 18 or 19 years old who was or had been a high school student in the
United States and could recall witnessing at least one fellow student at their school being bullied
during that time in front of other students. The minimum age limitation of 18 was in accordance
with the difficulty in gaining permission and access to under-18 populations for research in
studies of this scope. The maximum age limitation of 19 helped with the reliability of recall for
the participants, especially for those who have already graduated.
Non-probability sampling, including convenience, voluntary response, and snowball
sampling, were used to recruit 16 interviewees. The majority of participants were recruited
through an ad that ran on Facebook and Instagram which targeted any 18- or 19-year-old users
on those platforms in the United States. The recruitment process stressed that the study was not
specifically about bullying perpetrated by or on the participants, and that the participant would
be free to end the interview at any time. Candidates for the study who expressed interest then
completed a short screening survey that reiterated the applicant’s understanding of the eligibility
criteria, such as asking if they were a current or relatively recent high school student over 18 in
37

the United States who recalled witnessing bullying take place in front of other students in their
high school.
A total of 16 participants were selected to participate in the study. These were the first 16
applicants who passed the screening procedure. The interviewer visually inspected the
identification of the interviewees before beginning the interview to confirm all were in the
intended age range of 18 or 19 years old.
The initial interview protocol that was designed to meet the needs of the current study
(see Appendix A) had 11 primary questions, most which included additional prompts. The initial
questions, in terms of social learning theory, started of focused on personal and environmental
factors and facets. These established the interviewee’s perception of school climate, self-
efficacy, personal beliefs, and observations of bystanding behavior. The latter half of the
interview focused on looking for impacts of these observations while seeking to parse these
impacts against characteristics of the observed bystander. The interviewees were also led into
discussions about who and what inspired their behaviors and attitudes during high school in
general, and about bystanding in particular. This protocol evolved over the span of the interviews
to include emerging themes from prior interviews.
All interviews were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, none of the
interviews were conducted in person, with each one instead taking place via the Zoom
communications platform. The interviewer and interviewee video cameras were turned on
throughout the interview to maximize interaction and to allow the interviewee access to assess
body-language along with other non-verbal cues as part of the interview process.
All interviews were digitally transcribed for analysis. The researcher utilized ATLAS.ti
qualitative data analysis software to examine the transcriptions from interviews and track themes
38

in the responses. The interviewer also took extensive notes during the interviews to further aid in
analysis. Coding, a way of indexing text in order to establish a framework of themes about it
(Gibbs, 2018), was conducted in stages. The first round of coding centered around codes to
represent the personal, behavioral, and environmental components of social learning theory. A
second pass, conducted before all interviews were completed, introduced codes to capture
emerging themes. All transcriptions were reread and re-coded once all interviews had been
completed. This was done to ensure all codes were considered for all interviews and also as a
way to make a final pass on spotting new themes or categories.
Validity and Reliability
The researcher strove to achieve validity to support the credibility of the qualitative data
provided by the interview process. Internal validity, confidence that the findings of a study avoid
confounding factors that may make the findings questionable, was pursued by inviting another
researcher to analyze the data. Their findings were compared and found to be aligned with the
original researcher’s interpretations of the data. A limited number of member checks were also
conducted by sharing the early and emerging findings of the study with a few of the original
interviewees to get a bearing on if they seemed to be accurate interpretations of their responses.
Interview questions that were specific to the researcher’s hypothesis about what the data would
find were removed to help minimize researcher influence over the data collection. More
specifically, the subject of popularity was not raised by the interviewer unless the interviewee
organically addressed the subject without prompting, helping to remove related data collection
biases. Similarly, the researcher, a previous victim of bullying throughout primary and secondary
school, had the interview questions evaluated by external auditors for potential researcher biases
that could impact the validity of the research. The use of a relatively diverse lineup of
participants, in terms of regional, ethnic, and social diversity, also helped ensure the findings
39

were an internally valid measure of the broad population and not overly skewed towards
particular demographics or locations.
Reliability, the extent to which research finding can be replicated (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016), was considered as a way to enhance the trustworthiness of this study. One approach that
was taken was the requiring of respondents to have been current or relatively recent high school
students no older than 19 years old. This helped minimize response variances from fallible
human memory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Many of the interview questions were repeated in
slightly different ways throughout each interview, so those responses can be compared for
reliability and trustworthiness (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The researcher also conducted
limited pretesting of the interview questions, which provided an opportunity to make an initial
assessment regarding the reliability of those questions to solicit relevant answers. Additionally,
the interviewee often repeated or restated the interviewer's responses to ensure the intent of those
responses were captured as accurately as possible.
Ethics
Ethics are an important consideration when conducting research (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The researcher employed a range of ethical norms. These include adhering to a policy of
honesty, using protocols to ensure minors did not participate in the study, the anonymization and
secure storage of the interview recordings and transcriptions, and a duty of confidentiality for all
those who participated in the study. As required by the University of Southern California (USC),
this research adhered to the several ethical frameworks. These include the Nuremberg Code, the
Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Human Subjects of Research, and the
Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research. This study also underwent review from the USC Internal Review Board to
obtain approval before it commenced.
40

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of observed bystanding behaviors
on high school bystander behaviors and attitudes about intervening. The theoretical framework
this study used to pursue this purpose was social cognitive theory, also commonly referred to as
social learning theory, which postulates that behaviors can be acquired through the observation
and imitation of the behaviors of others (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Walters, 1963).
This chapter begins by providing an overview of participants followed by findings related
to this study. The following three research questions guided this study:
1. What bystanding behaviors do high school students observe other students
undertaking in bullying situations?
2. What role, if any, do these observed behaviors play in high school students’ personal
attitudes towards bystanding behavior related to bullying?
3. In what way do the characteristics of observed bystanders in bullying situations factor
into high school students’ personal attitudes towards bystanding behavior?
Participants
A total of 16 current and former high school students who were either 18 or 19 years old
were interviewed for the study. All participants indicated during a pre-screening survey to have
recalled witnessing bystander interventions of bullying during their time in high school. Thirteen
of the participants identified as cisgender males, two identified as cisgender females, and one
identified as transgender. As displayed in Table 1 below, participants came from locations across
the United States, with the most coming from Southern California due to some use of
convenience sampling. Two of the participants reported attending multiple high schools, having
changed schools. In both cases, those moves were to nearby schools.

41

Table 1
Participant Summary
Participant pseudonym Age High school region
David 18 Southern California
Gary 18 Southern United States
Leela 19 New York
Jennifer 18 Northeastern United States
Kevin 19 Northern California
Patrice 19 Southern California
Mary 19 New York
Amira 18 Nevada
Timothy 19 Southern California
Cindy 19 Southwest United States
Alexa 18 Florida
Carla 18 Central California
Geena 19 New York
Akeem 19 New York
Jacqueline 18 Southern California
Binh 19 Texas

Participant Profiles
Information gathered during the screening process and self-disclosed during the
interviews were used to create the below profiles of the interviewees. The participants were
asked to “describe yourself” in an open-ended first interview question that helped the interviewer
42

frame how the subjects saw themselves. Additional information was gathered through direct and
incidental information provided by the participants during the rest of the interview.
David
He is a cisgender male who went to school in Southern California and identified himself
as having “two or more races.” He was part of the Marine ROTC program at his school which he
said, “made me a little bit of a target for bullying.”
Gary
He is a Vietnamese American cisgender male who loves playing video games and
computer science. He stated that “academics are very important” to him and also shared that he
“kinda didn’t fit in” during high school.
Leela
She is a cisgender female Filipino American who graduated from a large high school in
Southern California the day before her interview. She is an honors student who describes herself
as “very active in school and sports” and “very well known” among the student body for how
active she is in the school community.
Jennifer
She is a White cisgender female who was a cheerleader and played lacrosse and field
hockey at a small high school in the northeast that included seventh graders, unlike most high
schools in her area, which start at eighth grade. She stated she was equally focused on
“academics and social skills” during school.
Kevin
He described himself as being “assigned as a female at birth” who now “identifies as
male.” He went to high school in Northern California and has adopted a male name different
43

from his given female birth name. He runs a suicide prevention group for LGBT youth, as well
as another one specifically for trans youth. He also stated that he suffers from “chronic pain as
well as multiple mental disabilities including autism, ADHD, depression, bipolar and borderline
personality disorder to the point that it is disabling” and “definitely grew up on the wrong side of
the tracks.”
Patrice
She is a Mexican American cisgender female who was the head cheerleader at a Southern
California high school. She switched from an in-person high school to a remote and self-directed
high school (not related to COVID) in the same district during her junior year. The move was
made mostly to get away from the bullying culture of her prior high school.
Mary
She identified herself as an “Asian American” who was a very academically competitive
student at a high school in New York. She shared that her “high school was a specialized school
that required passing academic exams in order to be enrolled.”
Amira
She is a cisgender female Middle Eastern descent who described her personality as
“bubbly” and also “anxious.” She attended a small school and shared that she believes she can
“get along with everyone.”
Timothy
He is a cisgender male who went to high school in SoCal and was the captain of the track
and field team. He stated that he started high school with “zero friends” because he came to the
school from a neighboring district without a high school, where the vast majority of students then
elected to attend a different high school than the one he did.
44

Cindy
She described herself as a “half White and Korean female” and shared that most people
are “surprised to find out I am half Korean” and would often find herself to be a “token friend”
for those who knew her heritage. Cindy went to high school in what she described as a “very
privileged” neighborhood in the Southwestern U.S. and shared that she came from a family that
“did OK but was not as affluent as everyone else” and considers herself “a naturally feisty
person.”
Alexa
She is a cisgender female cheerleader who went to art-focused high school as a freshman
in Florida then transferred to a nearby “sports and academics heavy school with honor societies''
that she likes significantly more than her former high school. She described herself as “very
positive and always happy” and enjoyed the “social climate” that came with being a cheerleader.
Carla
She is a second-generation Vietnamese American cisgender female and current high
schooler in Central California who identifies social media as her primary form of
communication. Carla clarified that she was left back in kindergarten “due to a language barrier
with English.” She now speaks English fluently and describes her high school as “large,” “low-
income,” and “diverse.”
Geena
She is a cisgender female Indonesian American who went to what she describes as a
“fairly large” STEM-focused high school in New York. She said she considers herself a
“humanities person” and that she “didn’t fit in in that regard” but that she still “really enjoyed
my time in high school.”
45

Akeem
This cisgender male identified himself as “South Asian” and went to high school in New
York where “the Asian population and the White population were probably the majority
population." He said he considers himself a person who “actively avoids'' confrontation and that
he liked that his high school was not in his neighborhood where he went to middle school
because it gave him “a lot of freedom in terms of who I was able to interact with.”
Jacqueline
She is a White cisgender female who shared that she “loves Dungeons & Dragons” and
does glass blowing as a hobby. She went to a large high school in Southern California, where she
said she “joined a lot of clubs” and that she and her friends liked high school but that “some of
the weird kids did say mean things about us sometimes.”
Binh
She is a Vietnamese American who attended high school in Texas. She describes herself
as an “introvert” who likes “band and academics.” She also shared that “compared to some of
my friends, I definitely prefer to just listen a lot, rather than talk and be the center of the
conversation.”
Results RQ1: Observed Bystanding Behaviors
The first research question sought to identify what bystanding behaviors high school
students observe other students undertaking in bullying situations. Interviewees reported a range
of bystanding behaviors. Non-intervening behaviors were the ones most commonly observed by
the participants in this study.
Outsiders Were the Most Commonly Observed Bystanders
Outsiders, those who witness but otherwise do not intervene or entirely ignore acts of
bullying (StopBullying.gov, 2018), made up the most common type of bystanders observed by
46

the interviewees in the current study. Thirteen out of the 16 interviewees (81.25%) specifically
indicated that at some point during high school they had witnessed no action taken by bystanders
in a bullying situation. “Not a large presence at all,” was how Patrice described the volume of
students who she observed would in any way get involved upon seeing fellow students being
bullied. She was referring to her first high school, an in-person school that she attended before
transferring to an online only school in her district well before the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic moved her original school online. She indicated she had made the move “mostly to
avoid the bullying mentality” of her prior school.
Amira shared that “nobody did anything,” after relating an example of bullying in her
high school, in a response that mirrored many others from the interviewees. “There wasn’t a lot
of defending and nobody would do anything to console anyone, or anything in terms of de-
escalating the issue … people wouldn’t take one side or another.” Binh summed up the apathy
she observed towards getting involved at her high school by stating that “it's so easy to turn away
and just, like, not react to it and that's eventually what a lot of students did.”
Leela similarly reported a lack of observed involvement, even when the bullying incident
drew a crowd. “I wish that, you know, rather than people watch and record, they'd, like, do what
they can to break up the fight and prevent it from escalating,” she shared. Her account revealed
the steps her fellow students would take in order to not get involved. “I've seen, like, even my
friends like hiding in classrooms so they don't, so they're not part of the situation and they kind
of, like, excuse themselves from the scene,” she stated.
Upstanding Bystanders Were Present
Upstanding behavior, positively intervening on behalf of the victim or offering support to
the victim at some point during or after the incident, made up the second most common type of
47

bystander behavior observed by the interviewees in the current study. Seven of the study’s 16
participants (43.75%) recalled witnessing other students exhibiting upstanding behavior at some
point during high school.
Gary recalls seeing people at his school “just talking to the bully to, like, you know, in a
way, calm them down” as a common type of upstanding behavior. “There was defending
behavior for sure,” noted Timothy, who recalled witnessing “people step up” during high school
in general and Emily indicated witnessing more aggressive defending behavior. “When someone
was being bullied, the person who is being bullied normally was not the one fighting back and
normally was even people who don't know them,” she shared. “I've watched people get in a fight
to protect someone they didn't even know.” Carla would see students “go up to them (bullies)
and just confront them about, you know, the wrongdoings, or comfort that person that's being
bullied.”
The most commonly observed upstanding behavior, reported by five of the seven
interviewees who indicated witnessing upstanding behavior, was for bystanders to seek out and
inform an adult authority figure. Sometimes this was observed to be a teacher. “I would hear
about teachers getting involved,” recalled Mary. “I never really heard about other people, like
students, stepping in and trying to do something about it, because they went to a teacher instead,”
she explained. In all reported cases, the interviewee indicated the bystander turned to an adult
after the incident occurred, as opposed to during the incident.
Sometimes the authority figure would be administrators, such as a principal, rather than a
teacher. Timothy recalled a time when “one of the bystanders went straight to the administration
and explained what happened and they stepped in pretty quickly to deal with that incident.” Carla
48

recounted seeing bystanders “standing up and addressing the problem to, you know,
administrators.”
Interviewees also reported that sometimes they observed students turning to other
students in positions of authority as a mode of positive bystanding. Some students who
participated in this study and held quasi-leadership roles reported being the person turned to by
positive bystanders. Mary, who led an afterschool theater group that was overseen by a faculty
advisor, shared when bullying occurred in the group that “I was the authority figure, right, and
like they weren't really familiar with the faculty advisor, so they would turn to me.” She further
explained that “I felt, like, fully responsible because, like, this was a rehearsal that I was
leading.”
Timothy admitted that “I definitely felt like I had a little bit more responsibility,” when
asked about his role as captain of the track team when bullying occurred within the team. He
shared that teammates would come to him to tell him about bullying on the team they had heard
about or witnessed. “They (bystanders) came to talk to me when I was, you know, going to my
car or coming to practice by myself.”
Another phenomenon observed by some interviewees was a delayed intervention in
which bystanders would get involved by later on subjecting the bullies to what the researcher is
calling ‘imposed social isolation’ on the bully by other students as an act of support for the
victim or a rebuke of the perpetrator. “A lot of it was just ‘oh I'm not friends with so and so any
more like they betrayed so-and-so’ or a girl would go to someone and say, ‘don't talk to Kate
anymore, because she was the one who was harassing so-and-so online’ and stuff like that,”
related Jennifer upon reflecting on some of her observed bystanding behaviors. Amira recalls
similar experiences, indicating that “they (bystanders) were like ‘oh we're gonna hate the person
49

who said this about you forever and ever and ever you know and we're going to look at them
dirty in the hallway’” She added that this could be more than a short term action, sharing that
“even if it was something like from years back, they would just still hold on to that grind … they
wanted to protect their group.” Carla’s recount was also similar. “They (bystanders) would, you
know, tell others not to, you know, hang out with them (bullies), or talk to them or anything like
that, based on what has happened.”
Reinforcers and Assistants Are Rare
Reinforcing behavior and assisting behavior were the two least reported observed
bystanding behaviors by the study’s participants. Reinforcing bystanders are those who support
the bully or bullies indirectly by behavior such as laughing at the victim, encouraging the bully,
or cheering during or after the bullying incident. Assistants help the bully directly through
actions such as physically restraining the victim, blocking the victim’s path to safety, or joining
in on the bullying activities. These two groups combined were reported less frequently than any
other group, with only two of the 16 participants (12.5%) indicating the presence of either one
during high school.
These instances of reinforcing behavior and assisting behavior were observed
concurrently with bullying taking place on digital platforms. Geena noted this happening at her
school, where a student who was a frequent target of cyberbullying from a few students online,
experienced assisting behavior. “It sort of, like, snowballed into a point where the entire school,
a lot of the entire school, was cyber bullying him,” she recounted.
Leela observed a combination of assisting and reinforcing behavior directly, as a bully’s
threat towards her was amplified on social media. “It happened on a Friday, but I didn’t think
50

much about it,” she remembered. “On Monday I found out people were spreading threats on me
on Instagram. … I was devastated.”
Discovering Something New: Amplifying Bystanders and Secondary Bystanders
The researcher noted another type of bystander that has not been readily discussed in
previous literature. Nine of the 16 participants indicated that at some point they heard about an
incident of bullying from someone else in a casual manner through gossip. This spread of
information about the act or acts of bullying could take place any time after the incident or
incidents occurred. These communications could take place through in-person interactions or be
facilitated by digital platforms.
Mary recalled a specific act of bullying that she “had heard about it through other people
who had just witnessed it but didn't say anything.” In general, she indicated that she “was always
hearing about it (bullying) through my peers.” Leela stated that at her school “gossip spreads like
wildfire and they (people she talks to about bullying at school) say, like, oh, I heard from so and
so or, oh, I saw this happen.” Jennifer related similar experiences where she would learn about
bullying in her high school by sharing that “my school was super small, so I kind of just heard
about most of it and overheard most of it.” Akeem shared that he had himself gossiped about
bullying he had witnessed. “You would share, like, ‘oh like this person (a bully) did this (an act
of bullying),’ or you know, like things along those lines.”
The researcher classifies individuals who witness an act of bullying, do not intervene in
any positive or overtly negative way, then shares it with other students later, as ‘amplifying
bystanders.’ The action of amplifying bystanders to some degree defies the traditional
classification of bystander behavior by crossing the lines that define those classifications.
Amplifying bystanders are not directly behaving as outsiders, in that while they do observe
51

bullying but do not get involved at the time, or in any direct way with the victim later. They are
also not upstanders, being that they are not intentionally seeking or offering help for the victim.
Likewise, they are not actively encouraging or assisting the bully if they talk about it with a
friend later.
However, one upside of amplifying bystanders is that they generate another type of
bystander noted by the researcher and not readily discussed in previous literature. These
‘secondary bystanders’ learn about instances of bullying without being present. This leads to
additional opportunities for positive interventions on behalf of the victim or against the bully.
Many of the participants indicated they were secondary bystanders.
When asked about what types of conversations she could recall having with her friends
and fellow students about bullying, Geena shared that “a lot of it would be in the form of
gossiping … they would say oh wow this person is taking it too far or did you see that Facebook
post?” Binh was discussing how some bullying took place within social groups at her school,
which she referred to as bubbles, when she shared that “word spread outside those bubbles, and
so, like, I think, like inadvertently, like, you as a student there, I did hear about this kid being
picked on or that kid being kicked.” Leela shared that she would ask “Did you tell anyone about
it?” when encountering gossip about bullying.
Of the nine who reported coming into contact with amplifying bystanders, one reported
becoming a positive secondary bystander. Mary first recalled interacting with amplifying
bystanders. “I had heard about it (bullying) through other people who had just witnessed it but
didn't say anything.” This interaction or interactions made her a secondary bystander. Her
response was to undertake upstanding bystanding behavior. “So, then, I went to a teacher about
it,” she reported.
52

Summary of Research Question 1 Findings
In general, the most common bystanding behavior observed by the participants in the
study during high school was for witnesses to ostensibly do nothing. A closer look reveals a
sizable subgroup of these outsiders may actually play a potentially important role in the larger
story of the bullying event they observed. Another frequent but less common observed behavior
was for students to take some action of positive intent on behalf of the victim. The least observed
bystander behavior was for other students to encourage or assist the bully, but the same subgroup
of outsiders mentioned above may also be inadvertently performing the same role by gossiping
about the event with potential negative repercussions for the victim.
Results RQ2: Role of Observed Bystander Behaviors
The second research question sought to explore what role, if any, observed bystanding
behaviors in bullying situations play in high school students’ personal attitudes towards
bystanding. Interviewees reported a range of outcomes from the bystanding behaviors they
observed in other students and the researcher. The researcher identified three roles these
observations played in shaping attitudes about bystanding within the group of participants.
Though there is a certain amount of potential overlap, the three roles were evaluating adult
interventions as a response option, learning how to be a positive bystander, and creating
awareness about potential negative repercussions from intervening.
Students Are Evaluating Adult Interventions
Observed bystanding behavior that included involving an adult, like a teacher or a school
administrator, appeared to have some influence on interviewee decisions-making factors related
to the participant undertaking the same or a similar action. There was some parallel between the
interviewee’s observed results and actual or expected actions the interviewee indicated they
would take or have taken. On one side, observing positive outcomes occurred in tandem with a
53

higher reported likelihood of turning to an adult at school. On the other side, the researcher noted
that interviewees who reported negative outcomes from observed interventions by an adult were
more often less willing to turn to an adult at school in general or that adult in particular.
After sharing about a time she observed a failed intervention when someone went to an
administrator rather than a teacher, Patrice reflected that “you don't want to go to, like, directly to
a principal in that sort of situation then it makes things, like, really serious so having a close
teacher that can try and sort things out is a lot better.” She finished high school with the attitude
that “having close relationships with at least, like, one of your teachers is really important, if you
want to try and help somebody else.”
Mary indicated that during high school she “would hear about teachers getting involved”
in high school and that “it didn't impact my decision whether or not I turned to a teacher … it's
just a matter of which teacher I would turn to.” Later in the interview, she acknowledged that she
had turned to a teacher during a bystanding incident by the end of high school. “I felt like I had
done the right thing at the time,” she shared. “I had gone to a teacher about it.”
Amira related that to her recollection when the school became involved it “necessarily
didn’t do much … the most they do is have the kids (bully and victim) like come up in an area
and they'll be like let's discuss our feelings.” Like many of the other respondents who witnessed
adult interventions, she recalled an impact on her decision-making. “We didn't really trust the
administration, so like one of our (a group of bystanders) discussions, was like, should we tell
the school” Like other students, she also walked away from the observation with a changed
attitude and a degree of distrust in the value of turning to an adult at school. She recalls
wondering “if she (the victim) does go to the school counselor are they going to like go and, like,
54

attack her and make it a situation where it's like a fight but it's not, she's, in reality, like, the
victim.”
Turning to adults held value for some of the students as role models. When asked about
what type of defenders would inspire her the most, Binh believed that “I think myself personally
seeing teachers and or just seeing administrators be more active and involved in defending
students and ensuring the student that it's a safe classroom and school.” Others directly
connected positive observed interventions with a positive bystanding attitude. Leela related that,
upon turning to a teacher after observing her friends fail to protect herself from a bully, she had
“gained a newfound trust for my teachers, when I lost the ones I had with my friends.” Akeem
shared a very different experience, relating that “sometimes the teacher themselves won't feel the
need to go about the proper procedure … so, like a lot of the time it's like oh you're overreacting
… and then you kind of feel like what was the point of even telling them now.”
Like many of the other students, Kevin was very clear about the impacts of observed
teacher interventions on his decision making. He had indicated that he was by nature an
upstanding bystander already. However, the type of bystanding behavior he undertook appeared
to be connected with his prior observations. The majority of the teacher interventions he recalled
witnessing were ineffective in his opinion. When asked if those observations played a role in
how he responded when witnessing bullying, he replied “100% that's definitely why I went to
fighting first before talking it out.”
Students Learn How to Be an Upstanding Bystander by Watching Others
Some students participating in the study indicated they would sometimes use
observations of other bystanders to guide or motivate them in their own bystanding decision-
making. Timothy admitted that “most of what I learned about it (bystanding during high school)
55

came from observing other students.” Patrice related that observing bystanders in high school
“makes me feel like, you know, if I was ever in that situation somebody might have my back or
it makes me feel encouraged like I can stand up for someone.” These observations can lead
students to feel more prepared and likely to get involved in future upstanding opportunities.
Alexa, when asked if she was becoming a more “competent” bystander by watching other
bystanders in high school, shared that “I think I'm becoming one of them (upstanding bystander).
I am learning.”
Carla shared a similar sentiment by saying “there have been, like, motivational speakers,
you know, coming to school and talking about these issues (bullying), but it kind of goes in one
ear and out the other.” She indicated that the information provided was not practical for her
experience. “We've been repetitively taught about bullying and what bullying is and bystanders
and what is to be a bully and how to not be a bully and how to solve that problem … but we've
never actually really been, you know, actively prepared.” This left her turning to observations for
guidance. “It's more passive learning, where we hear from others, and then we just, like, we
process it and we're like oh yeah that's something that's right to do.” She intoned that these
observations shaped her into wanting to be an upstanding bystander. “Seeing these (bystander
interventions) firsthand or seeing as an outside outsider's perspective of you know, bullying
situations has made me feel like if I were to be in that situation, I would want to be that person
who steps in and helps the victim.”
A sub-finding, which emerged when the researcher further explored why students turned
to observations to learn about bystanding, was that three-fourths (75%) of the study’s
participants indicated messaging from school administration about what to do in bystanding
situations largely ceased after middle school. Binh related that “I think they just kind of expected
56

you to translate what you've learned in middle school.” Cindy felt that instruction on handling
bystander situations had “totally disappeared in high school.” Aidan stated, when asked if his
high school administration prepared him to handle bystanding situations, “no, none at all.”
This lack of guidance left some students feeling unprepared to handle bystanding
situations in high school. “I didn't always feel, like, super prepared and super confident I knew
that, you know, if I approached it the wrong way it could get worse,” shared Timothy, “either for
me or for the victim.” Kevin stated, “you are pretty much on your own after middle school,”
when asked about observed support for bystanders in his high school. This created situations
where intervenes reported being active bystanders but unable to assume a positive bystanding
role. Amira shared a time when “this one girl was getting bullied and we knew that it was wrong,
but we didn't necessarily know how to, like, solve it.”
Students Notice and Consider Negative Repercussions of Intervening
Half of the 16 interviewees observed that involvement of bystanders made it worse for
the victim or put the bystander at risk of becoming a target. “There were times where I would
defend someone and then end up with someone from behind me punching me,” reported Kevin,
who as previously mentioned often turned to physical upstanding interventions. Amira revealed
how seeing all the drama that happened when people intervened at her high school made her
think “I want to help you guys, but I don't want to get the drama, because I really felt that, and I
think that's the part where I was just, like, demotivated.” Cindy believes she observed bystanders
considering the ramifications of interceding. She shared that “there definitely is that mentality
that it (upstander bystanding) could definitely switch on to the person that does say something,
which could be a reason why students (at her school) don't want to say anything or choose to
ignore it (bullying).”
57

Patrice remembered “a few times, where I wanted to stand up for somebody and that
person didn't want me to because they felt like it would make the conflict, like, this situation
more complicated.” In the end, she acquiesced, admitting that “I just kind of had to stand back
and let it happen” However, the encounter changed her decision-making about bystanding.
“There were definitely situations before that, where I just jumped in and involved myself,
because I felt like it needed to happen.” That changed for her. “Seeing it from a different
perspective,” she recalled,” where somebody was like ‘no’ even though I'm in this situation,
like,’ I don't want you to get involved,’ definitely gave me a different perspective for the future.”
Alexa recalled that bystander risk impacted observed decision-making by expressing that
“people would jump in and kind of stick up for that person (bullying victim), but then those
people (upstanding bystanders) would get picked on so after a while people kind of stopped
doing that.” She indicated she was one of those people by admitting “I usually just go report it
because I don't want to get picked on.” Akeem stated that his group of friends would also take
potential backlash for the victim into account. “A lot of times there was the conversation, like,
oh, should we intervene and, like, how much of an impact was it on the other person,” he shared
before advising that “you didn't want to blow up the situation.”
Timothy also had observed that upstanding bystanders were not necessarily welcome in
his high school. “There's also, like, the stigma around people who intervened, where you know
it's kind of like people looked at you like, ’why are you getting involved,’ like, ‘it's not your
business.’ and it's kind of like a negative stigma around, like, people really stepping in.” This
may have contributed to Timothy’s own outsider bystanding behavior. “I never really did
intervene with anything,” he volunteered.
Summary of Research Question 2 Findings
58

The interviewees indicated that they pay particular attention to how adults at school
handle requests for support from other bystanders and use that information to determine if they
would turn to an adult, or which one they would turn to, in the same situation. Interviewees also
reported a dependence on observed bystanding behavior to guide their own bystanding behavior
in the lack of institutional guidance from school administration on how to handle bystanding
situations in high school. Additionally, some participants indicated using the observed negative
outcomes towards upstanding bystanders and the victims they seek to protect in observed
bystanding situations to determine their own future bystanding behavior.
Results RQ3: Influence of Observed Bystander Characteristics
The third research question explored what way, if any, the characteristics of observed
bystanders in bullying situations factor into high school students’ personal attitudes towards
bystanding behavior. The researcher had hypothesized that popular students may set the tone for
attitudes towards bystanding in high school. Responses from the participants indicated that this
was not the case. Instead, some participants revealed that interventions by students they
identified as popular were less impactful than from other student bystanders. Upperclassmen
bystanders were identified as particularly influential to underclassmen bystanders. Situations
with friends of the interviewees as observed bystanders or victims of bullying were mentioned
often by the participants and seemed to have some discernible influence on bystander decision-
making. While many of the participants identified at least one characteristic that may have
impacted their decision-making, none of those characteristics besides being an upperclassman or
friendship garnered enough mention among enough interviewees to be viewed as significant.
Popularity Does Not Equate to Influence
Of the 16 participants, seven (43.75%) reported observing upstanding behavior from
popular students. Of these seven, there were two participants, or roughly 29%, who reported any
59

potential positive influence from the observation. Many of the others specifically indicated that
the perceived popularity of the student made their actions less impactful.
While Patrice found popular bystanders to be “definitely brave,” she also noted that “they
were also “pretty extroverted, and so they don't really have a problem, like drawing more
attention to themselves by trying to help someone else.” When asked to describe the type of
students in her school who exhibited upstanding bystander behavior, Jennifer essentially
excluded popular people by describing them as “brave because they were going against the norm
of the popular group.” She added that she is inspired by bystanders who “actually go against,
like, the norm, or their clique.” Alexa identified the person she most looked up to in school by
saying “she wasn't, like, your average super skinny, pretty, popular girl. She was the complete
opposite.”
Amira, like the researcher for this study, expected popular extroverts to be an influential
group of bystanders but she shared that “I thought it would be like the people who are more like
extroverted but, in reality, sometimes it would be the people who are like … introverted in our
class kind of situation, those were the kids I think that really played a role.” Akeem described the
upstanding bystanders at his school as students who “didn’t feel the need to be popular.”
One reason cited for the relatively diminished impact of observed popular upstanding
bystanders was a belief that these students were doing so for self-serving reasons. Geena found
that students she perceived as popular who were observed to be upstanding bystanders were “sort
of snotty about it, like, they have like a savior complex.” She elaborated by saying she found
herself questioning their motives, revealing that “I think at some point it's like are you (a popular
upstanding bystander) doing it to actually help a person or for your own ego or image, or
whatever?”
60

Upperclassmen Are Influential Bystanders
Upperclassmen were referred to the most as being influential bystanders. Eight of the 16
participants (50%) identified upperclassmen as having influenced their bystander decision-
making process. Mary recounted that the first person she looked up to in high school was an
upperclassman and that “she always handled, like, altercations or any drama with a really level
head.” She acknowledged that finding her influential because “she had more years of experience
on me, basically.” Amira, when asked whose actions as an upstanding bystander would inspire
her to undertake upstanding behavior, responded “I would say an upperclassman.” She recalled
that each year when the senior class graduated “at those moments were like yeah, we can like
protect others and then, when they left it was kind of like difficult for us, we were, like, oh well,
no one's the role model here anymore.’’
Carla shared that she too tended to “look up to upperclassmen” because she felt “like
they're really mature and, you know, they know their stuff … they've been in those situations
(bystanding)” and “they really know how to handle situations because they have been in them
themselves … and be that positive bystander, really be that role model for us.” Meanwhile,
Timothy reported that “most of the defending behavior that you saw was from upperclassmen” in
his high school but that “seeing someone on my team be it (a defender) would inspire me more.”
Leela identified that some of the bullying at her school came from upperclassmen who
were bullying underclassmen. She shared that “it would be really helpful for me to see like an
upperclassman intervene if they were to see bullying, because that just comes to show that the
division (between the grades) doesn't exist and it's just something made up in the head.” She also
indicated that hearing about bystanding experiences from upperclassmen would impact her
decision-making about bystanding. She related that the school had held a forum where teachers,
61

upperclassmen, and graduates talked openly about bullying for administrators. “If I had the
chance to just hear their opinions and what they had to say and how, like, then I could potentially
learn from their high school experiences,” she related.
Friendship Influences Bystanding Attitudes and Behaviors
The most commonly mentioned characteristic of observed bystanders was that the
bystanders were friends with someone in the scenario. The word ‘friend’ or ‘friends’ was spoken
103 times by the interviewees over 16 interviews, with 11 of the 16 using either or both words at
least once without prompting by the interviewer. The nature of the observed bystanders’
friendships included friendships with the bully, interviewee, or other bystanders in the situation.
Friendship appeared to have some influence on the decision-making of the interviewees.
Andre theorized that seeing “a sophomore student trying to protect his friends from a group of
seniors” would be the most inspirational experience he could observe. Timothy reported that he
mostly observed friends of victims undertaking positive bystanding behavior. “I did see a few
things (bullying), but it was from a distance and then usually someone from their friend group
stepped in to intervene.” Timothy indicated he reserved his upstanding behavior for friends,
recalling that “I never really did intervene with anything big with random kids on campus.”
Some of the participants indicated they would undertake similar behavior and step in for
their friends. Mary theorized that “it was my friend that was getting bullied, like I would have a
personal stake in this.” Others appeared to not be impacted by observing friendship-themed
bystanding. Leela, despite reporting seeing friends hide in classrooms to avoid becoming active
bystanders, identified herself as “the type who likes to report things to, like, adults and faculty
just because I feel like I'm comfortable with doing that.”
62

Others observed that bullying and bystanding were mostly exclusive to friends and
cliques. Aidan recalls that was “there was bullying that you observed, but everyone kind of
stayed in their own like friend groups,” Amira remembered that upstanding bystanders in her
school “wanted to protect their own group.”
No Other Common Influential Factors
Beyond the bystander characteristics of the seniority that comes from being an
upperclassmen and friendship through a connection with one of the involved parties, there were
no other commonly mentioned characteristics that reportedly resonated with more than one or
two interviewees. When asked what type of students she looked up to in high school just in
general, Jennifer shared that she admired “nobody honestly,” and indicated a lack of influence on
her bystanding decision-making. “I make my own path,” she concluded. Conversely, Alexa
found inspiration from a wide range of observed bystanders. “Anybody with bright colored hair
always stood up for people,” was one group she identified. She also indicated that “cheerleaders
at my school were pretty good about sticking up for people who were getting picked on and the
band kids always were 100% diehard saving people from bullying.” When she reflected on their
influence on her bystanding decision-making, she concluded that it was "I just found the
behavior of defenders of students inspiring” and that “anytime I see someone do that (upstanding
behavior), I am, like, that person is so cool. I wish that I was as good as that person.”
While the gender composition of the interviewees for this study skewed significantly
female, there was no indication from the subjects that gender of the bystander played any
observed role in the likelihood to step into a bullying situation for another student. For example,
Jennifer observed that “you could say that there were not a lot of female defenders.” Similarly,
63

the researcher found no discernible gender pattern in reported actions from observed bystanding
instances.
Summary of Research Question 3 Findings
Upperclassmen emerged as the most influential group of bystanders among the study’s
participants. While friendship is the most reported factor in observed positive bystander
intervention attempts, the interviewees did not indicate these observations had an impact on their
own bystander decision making during high school. Witnessing popular students take on positive
bystanding roles also had no reported positive effect on bystander behavior and may lead to
decreased motivation to intervene. Some participants reported finding inspiration in fellow
classmates but there was no apparent characteristic that these had in common, outside of a
slightly higher rate of “quiet kids” being cited as potential role models for bystanders.

64

Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter presents the findings and discusses recommendations generated from this
research study. The problem this study explored was bullying in high schools in general, and in
particular looked at high school students who witness or become aware of acts of bullying on
fellow students (bystanders) then do not take any action to help the victim. The purpose of the
study was to explore the influence of observed bystanding behaviors on high school bystander
behaviors and attitudes about intervening, with an eye towards finding a pathway to encourage
positive bystander behavior and shape school bystanding culture. The theoretical framework this
study applied toward this purpose was social cognitive theory, which postulates that behaviors
can be acquired through the observation and imitation of the behaviors of others (Bandura, 1977;
Bandura & Walters, 1963). This framework looks at the interrelations of an individual, their
behaviors, and the observations in the environment (Bandura et al., 1963). Non-probability
sampling, including convenience, voluntary response, and snowball sampling, were used to
recruit 16 interviewees. All participants in the study were former or recent high school students
who recalled witnessing bystanding during school. This chapter presents a summary and
discussion of the findings, implications and recommendations for practice, guidance for potential
future research, and conclusions of the study, in that order.
Discussion of Findings
Three research questions guided this study. The first question explored the types of
bystander responses observed by high school students. The other two questions focused on the
potential impacts of those observations. The second question looked at what role these observed
bystanding behaviors play in high school students’ personal attitudes towards bystanding. The
third question examined if and how any characteristics of the observed bystanders factor into
high school students’ personal attitudes towards bystanding behavior. The findings from Chapter
65

Four are summarized and discussed below. To facilitate discussion, findings related to
observations in the high school environment by the participants are grouped together, followed
by findings related to personal factors of the interviewees, then behavior-centric findings.
Environmental Findings
The bystander behaviors that this study’s participants observed and shared provide an
important peek into the inner-workings of bystander culture in high schools, including how it is
shaped and by who. An exploration into the type of bystander behavior the participants recalled
observing revealed the most commonly observed bystander behavior was to do nothing, with
81.25% indicating witnessing such behavior during high school. This suggests that outsider
behavior is prevalent in high schools. This is in line with what would be expected based on prior
research (Datta et al., 2016; Frisén et al., 2012; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2018) which finds most
witnesses to bullying in secondary schools do not intervene on behalf of the victim in a positive
way.
The second most common type of bystander behavior that participants recalled observing
was for someone to intervene in a positive way, known as upstanding behavior, which was
reported by 43.75% of the interviewees. This suggests that upstanding behavior is present, but
not prevalent in high schools. Some prior research (Datta et al., 2016) reported that as many as
roughly half of middle school bystanders undertake upstanding behavior, so the current findings
could suggest that those numbers may hold through high school as well. As the current study
suggests, upstanding behavior where other students can see it happen begets upstanding
behavior, which can create a ripple effect. The impacts of that effect, where the bystanding
culture produces more upstanding behavior, include a decreased prevalence of bullying
(Salmivalli et al., 2011) and a minimization of the negative effects of bullying on the victims and
66

the school climate (Flaspohler et al., 2009; Gini et al, 2008). The upstanding bystanders among a
school’s population represent an on-the-ground resource that already exists for opposing
bullying.
Within the group of seven participants who observed upstanding bystanders, turning to an
adult for help was the most common specific upstanding behavior reportedly observed, with five
interviewees, or just under a third (31.25%) of the study’s overall participants, indicating they
witnessed a bystander turn to a teacher or school administrator. All five of those interviewees
reported the bystander turned to an adult after the incident had happened, as opposed to during
the incident. This indicates that adults at high schools can play a role in high school bullying
instances even when they are not present at the time. Prior research indicates that “traditional” in
person bullying on school property often occurs in locations where there are only other students
to witness these acts (Perkins et al., 2014). With pandemic-mandated campus closures moving
more interactions between high schoolers online, even more bullying may be taking place away
from any adult supervision. Observations by these five interviewees suggest that this does not
stop teachers from being in a position to intervene to some degree, even if it is after the fact.
Three out of the 16 participants, or 18.75%, indicated they themselves were turned to by
bystanders when they were in positions of leadership as students. This indicates authority figures
at high school, even if they are not adults, may be in a heightened position to intervene in
bullying situations. As this study seeks to identify students in positions to influence bystanding
culture, student leaders sit in a unique nexus between authority and credibility with students.
This gives them the potential to be more influential than adults on student bystander attitudes and
behaviors.
67

Participants also reported seeing many bystanding situations that involved friends
sticking up for friends. This indicates a personal relationship with the victim may help motivate
bystanders to undertake upstanding behavior. This puts friends in the positions to be mini-
influencers, who may not be able to sway the attitudes of an entire high school’s bystanding
culture to a noticeable degree but can have an impact on smaller social groups in more of a
grassroots fashion.
The least reported observed behavior was situations where bystanders supported or joined
the bully, with two participants (12.5%) reporting witnessing such actions. This indicates such
behavior may be uncommon in high schools. This is in line with expectations set by prior
research which suggest such behavior is not prevalent (Datta et al., 2016; Frisén et al., 2012;
Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2018). The possibility exists that the continued trend towards a lack of
negative bystanding behavior is due to the lack of opportunities for student to observe and adopt
such behavior. If the findings can lead one to postulate that positive bystanding begets positive
bystanding, then a lack of negative bystanding may also conversely beget a lack of negative
bystanding.
A notable amount of students (56.25%) reported encountering a specific type of
bystanding that entails gossiping about bullying with other students after the incident has
occurred. These amplifying bystanders demonstrate no overtly malicious or upstanding intent yet
observations by the participants in this study indicate this hidden class of bystanders may be a
catalyst for positive behavior that generates a group of secondary bystanders. The bottom line is
that equates to more opportunities for positive interventions. These findings suggest that
amplifying bystanders may play a sizable role in mobilizing the most motivated upstanding
bystanders embedded in a high school’s bystander culture.
68

Personal Findings
The main finding related to personal factors of high school bystanders is that many
students felt personally unprepared to undertake upstanding bystander behavior. A common
theme expressed by the interviewees was that their high school in particular had not adequately
prepared them for bullying and that messaging about bullying had dropped off sharply since the
end of middle school. Of the 16 participants, 12 indicated little or no messaging from their high
schools about how to be upstanding bystanders, potentially leaving them in positions to be turned
to as bystanders without the personal tools to take that role on. This finding suggests that schools
are not making an adequate effort, or not experiencing significant success, to co-opt students into
their efforts to curtail bullying and its negative impacts.
As previously mentioned, bystanders represent a resource against bullying that already
exists embedded in the school environment. Those that behave in upstanding ways have the
ability to decrease the prevalence of bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011) and mitigate its negative
effects (Flaspohler et al., 2009; Gini et al, 2008). If messaging around efforts against bullying are
not making it to or resonating with this high school subculture, and the majority of onlookers
remain only onlookers, then resources are being left on the field and unutilized.
Another finding is that students personally worry about repercussions related to
undertaking a positive intervention in a bullying situation and that these feeling spur from
observations of interventions that have included negative outcomes for the victim or the
bystanders. Concerns included making the bullying worse for the victim or for the bystander.
Another concern was about the possibility of intervening when perhaps the victim did not want
an intervention. These concerns from observations of other bystander interventions serve to
demotivate bystanders from adopting upstanding behavior in some situations.
69

This puts the quality of student-led interventions in the spotlight as a factor that shapes
bystander culture for any given school. How this quality or success of interventions are measured
by student observers will vary based on local and cultural perspectives. Some communities may
view upstanding bystanders, particularly to those who go to adults, as “snitches” and target these
for violence or other retribution. Administrators need to consider such factors from many angles
before embracing and encouraging bystanding behaviors among their student population.
Behavioral Findings
The interviews generated some behavior-related findings that suggest upperclassmen may
play the largest role of any student group in high schools for influencing attitudes and behaviors
related to bystanding interventions. This comes with the benefit of being a well-defined and easy
to target group of students for administrators. The researcher also found that adults at the school
play a role in shaping bystander behavior by how they are observed to respond. Students look at
not just if adults respond, but also which ones respond and how, when considering if they should
take on the behavior of turning to an adult as a bystander. Findings also indicate that high school
student behavior is not overly shaped by popular students, in opposition to the researcher’s initial
hypothesis.
The study revealed that many students are inadvertently put into positions to behave as
secondary bystanders by amplifying bystanders, whose defining behaviors are gossiping and not
getting involved in the moment when bullying occurs. When in those situations, nearly all
secondary bystanders exhibit outsider behavior and do not take the opportunity to intervene on
behalf of the victim. This finding suggests that secondary bystanders represent a potentially
sizable and currently underutilized resource in efforts to decrease incidents of bullying in high
schools. Bullying often takes place away from adults, be it traditional bullying (Perkins et al.,
70

2014) or digital in nature (Anderson, 2019). This means adults are not only not around to offer
help, they are also absent at a key opportunity to model positive bystanding behavior. In their
absence in the moment, it falls to student bystanders, and the complicated process that follows
from amplifying bystanders to secondary bystanders, to keep the moment alive until help arrives
in the form of secondary upstanding bystander behavior.
All of this paints a rich canvas of players and interactions that shape and define the
bystanding culture of a school. Some of the groups that have expanded influence on bystander
behaviors, like teacher and senior upperclassmen, may seem to represent the low-hanging fruit
when it comes to moving the needle on the prevalence of upstanding bystanders. However, the
many microsystems, such as groups of friends or student leaders, if motivated and
operationalized without too much of a drain on resources, could prove impactful if tapped as a
whole.
Implications and Recommendations for Practice
The findings of this study have several potential implications on efforts to reduce
bullying behavior and its negative impacts by increasing upstanding bystander behavior in high
schools. These include conducting assessments, maintaining bystander and anti-bullying
messaging started in secondary school throughout high school, outreaching more intentionally to
secondary bystanders, preparing teachers and student leaders to appropriately respond to
bystander requests for bullying interventions, leveraging friendships among students, and
providing bystander-themed forums for upperclassmen to model positive bystander behavior for
the student population.
Conduct Assessments
Before embarking on any new programs or retooling any current ones, administrators
should consider conducting comprehensive evaluations and assessments of several aspects of
71

their school. Climate surveys should be undertaken or modified to get a measure of the current
state of bystanding culture at the school. How prevalent is bullying at school in question? Do the
students feel other students have their back? Are they prepared to intervene on behalf of other
students? Do they feel comfortable turning to adult when they see someone being bullied? Are
the adults prepared to handle situations brought to them by bystanders? Are there cultural factors
in the school population that support of hinder upstanding behavior? These are all important
questions that can help define the playing field that administrators have to work with. This can
create the opportunity to make data-informed decisions about the type of programs and
interventions to pursue that would impact the culture. Administrators should be wary of using
off-the-shelf assessments that don’t consider local drivers of behavior or fail contextualize the
data provided. Assessments can also establish a baseline to help gauge changes to and impacts on
the school’s bystanding culture that may result from future efforts to curtail bullying and
encourage student bystander interventions. To that end, additional assessments should be
conducted to track potential impacts of undertaken programs and interventions at various
intervals throughout those programs.
Prepare School Adults and Leaders for Bystander-Initiated Interventions
The study revealed that teachers, administrators, and even students in perceived positions
of leadership are likely to be turned to by student bystanders to address instances of bullying in
high school. Students in the study indicated that seeing a teacher perform poorly in an
intervention decreased their likelihood of turning to that teacher, or in some cases any school
adult, for future interventions. Therefore, identifying and preparing these adults and student
leaders to effectively and positively respond to these situations may lead to a better success rate
in those interventions and an improvement in the overall bystanding culture of the school. Since
72

the study also shows that the student body may notice the improved success rate, this enhanced
level of preperation can create a multiplier effect that leads to an increase in positive bystanding
behavior related to seeking an adult or person in authority when witnessing bullying in their
school. Social cognitive theory addresses the role that observed rewards and punishments play in
the acquisition of behaviors (Bandura et al., 1963). Observing a bystander turn to a teacher then
be, in a sense, punished via a mishandled intervention by an adult that makes matters worse for
the victim, is likely to discourage student observers from doing the same. Therefore, the school
has an interest in investing time and resources into making sure teachers and other school adults
are prepared to get an intervention right the first time.
This training should be very specific in terms of what to do when a student indicates
another student may be a victim of bullying. The training should also vary depending on the type
of responder, as the primary recommended actions for student leaders with their limited
administrative resources will surely differ from those of teachers and administrators with a range
of options available to them. Elements of effective training that enhance learning should be
applied. Learning improves when learners engage in practice that focuses on a specific goal,
offers an appropriate level of challenge, involves a sufficient quantity and frequency, and is
coupled with effective feedback that is given at a useful time and frequency (Ambrose et al,
2010). As such, the training should be primarily focused on the single objective of removing the
victim from harm. It should also involve teaching a few highly effective intervention techniques
rather than aiming to prepare every responder for every situation, as this would exceed learner
cognitive loads and lead to decreased learning outcomes (Paas et al., 2003) and raise the
challenge too high to be effective for learning (Ambrose et al, 2010). Testing of learning should
73

be undertaken in order to enhance retention (Carpenter, 2012) and coupled with feedback to help
shape learning.
Altogether, providing student and adult bystanders who are prepared to be turned to can
result in a higher rate of successful interventions. The potential that this encourages more
upstanding bystander behavior across the school makes this a valuable investment in time and
resources as the results ripple across the school population.
Secondary Bystander Outreach
One finding of note was that two types of bystanders not readily discussed in previous
literature, amplifying bystanders and secondary bystanders, were fairly prevalent in the high
schools attended by the interviewees. Amplifying bystanders are individuals who witness an act
of bullying and do not intervene in any overtly positive or negative way. Instead, they gossip
about the event later or share it through digital means such as social media. On the other side,
secondary bystanders are individuals who learn about instances of bullying without being
present, usually from an amplifying bystander.
Essentially, any amplifying bystander who shares the story of a bullying incident with
other students has created secondary bystanders. These secondary bystanders, who learn about
the incident after the fact, are still in a position to enact a range of after-the-fact behaviors. These
behaviors include turning to an adult, confronting the bully, comforting the victim, doing
nothing, harassing the victim, or urging the amplifying bystander to become involved. The
secondary bystander can also become an amplifying bystander by re-sharing the story, thereby
creating more secondary bystanders. This process may continue on for some time after a bullying
event, spreading outward through the school population until it fizzles out or reaches an
upstanding secondary bystander. These two subgroups inadvertently work together to provide
74

additional opportunities for upstanding behaviors on behalf of victims, even well after a bullying
act has concluded. However, of the nine participants in the study who encountered amplifying
bystanders and therefore became secondary bystanders, only one indicated taking any upstanding
bystanding action. While this means one victim of bullying was provided access to support, it
also means that eight opportunities were missed to potentially support a student victim of
bullying.
Considering the scale and scope of secondary bystanders in high schools suggested by
this study, the researcher recommends that schools undertake anti-bullying campaigns targeted
specifically to this group. “See something, say something” campaigns and those like it that are
common in middle schools are essentially targeted towards traditional bystanders and urges them
to report instances of bullying they witness.
Social cognitive theory can help shape these outreaches. Establishing self-efficacy, social
comparisons, and outcome expectations, all hallmarks of the theory, can enhance motivation to
undertake tasks and behaviors (Schunck & DiBenedetto, 2020). Therefore, the campaign should
highlight the relative ease of being a secondary bystander, in order to nudge the target audience
towards self-efficacy. This can be achieved by focusing on the approach of turning to an adult, as
it has a relatively low risk and ease of implementation for the bystander. Positioning upstanding
secondary bystanders as essentially the same as primary bystanders can also aid social
comparisons. Several participants in the current study indicated aspiring to upstanding behavior,
so highlighting secondary bystanding as one path to achieve that can prove to be a fruitful
strategy. This strategy needs to be combined with the prior suggestion of training student leaders
and school adults to be ready to intervene when approached by bystanders seeking help for a
victim. Having a well-prepared set of responders ready would likely increase expectation
75

outcomes for bystanders, making it easier for them to decide to reach out. Additionally, having a
prevalence of upstanding bystanders has been shown to have many positive outcomes on efforts
to decrease bullying (Brookmeyer et al., 2006; Salmivalli, 2010) and can mitigate the negative
impacts of bullies (Flaspohler et al., 2009; Gini et al, 2008).
Keeping these parameters in mind, utilizing messages along the lines of “Hear
Something, Say Something” or “Hear Something, Help Someone” are examples of ways for
school administrations to attempt to communicate directly with secondary bystanders to
encourage positive bystanding behavior. A more comprehensive anti-bullying program that
includes traditional bystanders as well as secondary bystanders as targets could better leverage
these populations in the efforts to combat bullying in high school and facilitate those social
comparisons.
Create Platforms for Upperclassmen Bystanders
The study indicates that upperclassmen, more than any other student group, may hold a
higher position in terms of modeling positive bystanding behavior in their schools. This being
the case, schools can benefit from creating ways to amplify or highlight upstanding behavior
undertaken by upperclassmen. It is recommended that schools identify upperclassmen who have
undertaken such positive behavior and create forums for those experiences to be shared. This can
be done in a range of ways. These include holding anti-bullying assemblies for the school
population that features a panel of upstanding seniors, or even graduates, discussing their
bystander actions and fielding questions from students. Considering that social learning theory
postulates that behaviors can be acquired through the observation and imitation of the behaviors
of others (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Walters, 1963), these forums may benefit from
76

roleplaying, demonstrations, or reenactments in order to enhance the potential impact on the
student body.
Schools are providing increasingly less time for students to have lunch breaks, with the
second most common reason cited for this, behind making more time for learning, being to
manage or limit perceived poor behavior of students that occurs during lunchtimes (Baines &
Blatchford, 2019). The researcher instead recommends harnessing lunchtime in the push against
bullying by creating anti-bullying lunch clubs hosted by upperclassmen. These would be smaller
forums for students to discuss bullying, share ideas and experiences, and learn effective
bystanding behavior. Roleplay and vignettes are effective vehicles for demonstrations of
emotional empathy (Rao & Stupans, 2012) which is a key factor in motivating a bystander to
intervene positively. The volunteer nature of this approach would attract the most motivated
students in the school and empower them to amplify the upstanding bystander attitudes already
existent within the school.
Seniors can also be brought on board to make short presentations to students in
underclassmen classrooms. A mentoring program that pairs exiting seniors with incoming
freshmen and includes specific messages related to bystanding will likely prove even more
impactful, as mentoring youth has been shown to prevent bullying (StopBullying.gov, 2020).
Making a public show about praising upperclassmen bystanders could also prove effective. This
could include selecting key senior class bystanders or graduates to be recognized as “outstanding
protectors” or “model bystanders” in a public way that highlights the type of positive behavior
being recognized. This display could also include information to inform students about how to
conduct effective bullying interventions, additionally reinforcing the message and leaving some
students more prepared and motivated to step up if they witness bullying.
77

Maintain Pro-bystander Programs After Middle School
Interviewees almost universally indicated a relative lack of programs, messages, and
information about undertaking positive bystander behavior during high school compared to their
time in middle school, and this left them feeling unprepared to take on positive bystander
responsibilities. However, previous data shows that bullying is still a common occurrence
throughout secondary schools (Datta et al., 2016; Frisén et al., 2012; Waasdorp & Bradshaw,
2018), and that bullying prevention programs can have larger success at the high school level
compared to kindergarten through eighth-grade programs (Polanin, 2012). Therefore, a case can
be made that schools should maintain or increase their anti-bullying efforts as students enter high
school instead of the apparent trend to taper off this type of messaging and outreaches. A study
of elementary and middle school students suggested that a key factor for influencing bystander
intervention decisions was how effective they believed their actions would be at stopping the
bullying (Thornberg, 2012). Addressing how prepared students feel to intervene in high school
could increase that self-efficacy and directly impact the personal component of the triad of
components that make up social learning theory. As it stands with the participants in this study,
the lack of guidance from the school had them turning to observations of other students to obtain
knowledge about bystander interventions. It is advised that administrators refer to the
recommended assessments to determine where gaps in student knowledge on this topic exists so
as to better plan to fill those gaps.
Leverage Friendships
The current study’s revelation that much of observed positive bystanding behavior
includes a friendship relationship between bystander and victim indicates that friends of victims
are potentially more willing, likely, or present to bring upstanding bystanding behavior to
78

bullying situations. Friendships play an important role in adolescents’ attitudes, behavior, and
personal development (Berndt, 1992), which aligns with the three components of social cognitive
theory applied throughout the study.
It is recommended that schools explore ways to leverage friend relationships and friend
groups in the battle against high school bullying. Friendships are characterized by more self-
disclosure and more concern for the well-being of others (McAdams et al., 1984) which are two
traits that are relevant to addressing the problem of practice. Campaigns centered around a
primary message of “tell a friend” will trigger the self-disclosure element of friendships while
“be a friend to a friend” messaging may be effective in triggering the needed concern for others
to generate a level of motivation that turns into upstanding actions. Programs may also be
effective by encouraging friends to check in with each other, a type of bullying checkup, to see if
anyone in the friend group is experiencing bullying. This approach simultaneously leverages the
self-disclosure and care-for-others tendencies inherent in friendships.
Future Research
The study resulted in findings that advances the understanding of bystanding culture in
high schools. The findings suggest upperclassmen may be key influencers in setting the tone for
bystanding behavior in high schools, while amplifying bystanders and secondary bystanders
coalesce to generate extra opportunities for upstanding behavior. How teachers and other adults
at school respond when a bystander turns to them also appears to have some impact on bystander
attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, students report feeling less prepared to be an upstanding
bystander in high school than they did in middle school. These findings lead the researcher to
suggest topics for future research and exploration in the ongoing effort to eliminate bullying or at
least mitigate its negative effects. These start with taking closer looks at secondary bystanders as
well as decision-making in middle schoolers and high school upperclassmen. The author also
79

suggests a closer look at the readiness of adults at schools to respond to bystander requests for
intervention, and an examination of delayed interventions. Finally, a look at other populations
that may influence bystander culture from outside the school is suggested.
Examining Secondary Bystanders
The emergence of amplifying bystanders with their ability to generate secondary
bystanders and the opportunity they represent to increase the odds that a victim of bullying will
eventually get help was an unexpected discovery. Further research into this bystander subgroup
could prove fruitful. A sizable quantitative study would be more useful for determining the
prevalence of secondary bystanders than the current qualitative study with its very modest
sample size. Additionally, more qualitative research on the decision-making of secondary
bystanders could uncover ways to increase upstanding secondary bystander behavior. A closer
look into the negative impacts of amplifying bystanders, considering that, for example, gossiping
about bullying could yield harmful consequences to the victim, will help evaluate the potential
net benefits or drawbacks that this emerging classification of bystanders represents.
Middle Schoolers and Upperclassmen
Two groups on each end of the secondary school spectrum are worth a closer
examination in the quest against bullying through rousing positive bystander behavior in student
populations. The researcher recommends rerunning the current study with middle schoolers as
the primary participants. Bullying is more prevalent in middle schools than high schools
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019) so a researcher with the resources and access
can take a look to determine how observed bystanding impacts decision making in middle
schoolers.
80

The current research indicates a possible outsized role for upperclassmen as influencers
on the bystanding culture of their schools. There can be value in a deeper examination of the
decision-making of this group. The goal would be to unlock clues for motivating their positive
bystander behavior.
Impacts of Teacher Readiness
One of the recommendations made by the author of this paper is to better prepare
teachers to respond to bystander inquiries to intervene. This recommendation would be more
effective to implement with a clearer picture of what that preparation should look like.
Additionally, it would be helpful to know how much of an impact the extra training has on the
success rates of student bystander-initiated interventions. A deeper look at what correlation
exists between teacher readiness and positive student bystanding behavior could be enlightening.
Impacts of Delayed Interventions
Secondary bystanders who elect to undertake upstanding behavior are likely taking that
action a significant amount of time after the initial bullying. This raises questions about what
types of delayed upstanding interventions are most impactful. A study on the effectiveness of
different types of bystanding intervention at different lengths of time after the bullying incident
could help determine if secondary bystander interventions have a measurable expiration date
before it is too late to take any action.
External Influences on Bystanding Culture
This study sought to examine high school bystanding culture from the inside, by
gathering data and perspectives from students who lived it and witnessed its operation up close.
This provided a look at influences that were to a large degree internal to the school. However,
many layers of influence and experience shape behavior, so any pathway to understand
81

bystanders should also travel beyond the real and metaphysical walls of the school to look at
other factors that help create the attitudes underlying the behaviors. This could include
examinations of parents, siblings, the media, mentors, and gangs as influencers on individual and
societal attitudes around bystanding behavior.
Limitations of the Study
Some factors beyond the control of the researcher likely impacted this study. The timing
of this study coincided with the COVID-19 global pandemic. This means that most of the
respondents were reflecting on a time period that likely included a very non-typical school
experience where campuses were closed partway through the year and all instruction was
conducted online. Therefore, the interviews included many responses specific to online bullying
to a degree that may not be typical for previous or future students.
Digital methods were partially used to distribute invitations to participate in the study,
and all participants needed to have access to certain technology in order to complete the
interview, which was conducted remotely and digitally. This partially limited participants to
students with access to various digital platforms needed to become aware of the study and apply
for participation. All participants also were required to have access to the equipment needed to
remotely participate in the interview on the Zoom platform, such as a laptop or desktop computer
with reliable internet access.
The requirement that participants must be 18 years or older came with limitations. The
minimum age limit excluded a large part of the current high school population, which in general
is between 14 to 18 years old (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Therefore, many
respondents need to rely on memory and recall to a greater degree, which is more fallible over
time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). There was also a significant gender disparity that skewed the
pool of interviewees, with 13 of the 16 participants identifying as cisgender females. This
82

occurred despite efforts to specifically recruit males into the study when the gender disparity
became apparent.
Perhaps most importantly, the relatively small sample size (n=16) significantly decreases
the chances that the collection of interviewees that participated in this study accurately mirrors
the experiences and sentiments of the approximately 15.4 million students in the United States
who were enrolled in high school at the time (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
While the participants were a diverse group on many levels, including ethnic and socio-
economic, their aggregated perspectives only represent a small peek into the lives of high school
students in America. This makes the findings of this study hard to generalize to every, or any,
high school. A wealth of cultural, societal, local, and other unique factors swirl together and
must be considered in order to untangle and begin to understand any given school’s bystanding
climate. This is why the recommendations section includes taking an assessment of the situation
and environment. Just as research data needs an expert eye to become findings, how those
findings are implemented needs an equally expert eye with ground-level knowledge of the reality
in which they are being operationalized.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of observed bystanding behaviors
on high school bystander behaviors and attitudes about intervening. This research resulted in
findings that suggest upperclassmen may be key influencers in setting the tone for bystanding
behavior in high schools. The research also shows that how adults at school respond when
approached by bystanders may be impactful on the bystanding culture of the school. Friends
were observed to play a larger than average role in student bystander interventions. In a
refutation of the researcher’s hypothesis, popular students do not appear to have a meaningful
impact on shaping bystander responses across the school. The researcher also uncovered that
83

many students feel less prepared to intervene in bullying than they did in middle school. The
study unexpectedly surfaced amplifying bystanders and secondary bystanders, two newly
identified classes of bystanders, as active contributors to the bullying and bystanding ecosystems
of school populations. Secondary bystanders in particular are found to be in a key position to
potentially move the needle on bullying by presenting additional opportunities for positive
bystanding behavior, which decreases bullying and its negative impacts.
A range of recommendations were made from these findings. These included providing
bystander-themed forums for upperclassmen to model positive bystander behavior for the student
population, maintaining bystander and anti-bullying messaging started in secondary school
throughout high school, preparing teachers and student leaders to appropriately respond to
bystander requests for bullying interventions, outreaching more intentionally to secondary
bystanders, and leveraging friendships among students to encourage positive bystanding
behavior within friend groups.
Neil deGrasse Tyson (n.d.), an American astrophysicist, has been quoted as saying “for
me, I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew
yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You’d be surprised how far that gets you (as cited in
Creighton, J., 2014).” This research aligned with both of Dr. Tyson’s philosophies. Through
attempting to gain a deeper understanding of one small corner of our world - the experiences of
high school bystanders of bullying - the researcher has strived to lessen the suffering of the
untold numbers of bullying victims waiting or hoping for a hero to step forth in the form of a
well-prepared upstanding bystander.
84

References
Adams, F. & Lawrence, G. (2018). Bullying victims: The effects last into college. American
Secondary Education, 40(1), 4–13.
Alsaker, F & Nägele, C. (2008). Bullying in kindergarten and prevention. In: Pepler, D. J., &
Craig, W. (eds). Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective.
Author House. 1. 230–248.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching (1st ed.). Jossey-
Bass.
American Psychology Association (2020). Bullying. https://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/
Anderson, M. (2018). A majority of teens have experienced some form of cyberbullying. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-
content/uploads/sites/9/2018/09/PI_2018.09.27_teens-and-cyberbullying_FINAL.pdf
Anderson, M (2019). How parents feel about and manage their teens’ online behavior and screen
time. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/how-
parents-feel-about-and-manage-their-teens-online-behavior-and-screen-time/
Ansary, N. S., Elias, M. J., Greene, M. B., & Green, S. (2015). Guidance for schools selecting
antibullying approaches. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 27–36.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14567534
Baams, L., Talmage, C. A., & Russell, S. T. (2017). Economic costs of bias-based bullying.
School Psychology, 32(3), 422–433.
Baines, E., & Blatchford, P. (2019). School break and lunch times and young people’s social
lives: A follow-up national study. UCL Institute of Education.
85

https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Final-report-School-
break-and-lunch-times-and-young-peoples-lives-A-follow-up-national-study.pdf
Bandura, A. (2006). A murky portrait of human cruelty. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29,
225–226.
Bandura, A. (2002). Reflexive empathy: On predicting more than has ever been observed.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 94–95.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 3(3): 193–209.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior, (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81).
Bandura, A. (1992). Social cognitive theory of social referencing. In S. Feinman (Ed.), Social
referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy (pp. 175–208). Plenum.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1963). Social learning and personality development. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral
disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 364–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67, 601–607.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R.H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. Holt
Rinehart and Winston.
86

Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011). Predictors of student defenders of peer aggression victims:
Empathy and social cognitive factors. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
35(4), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410396746
Berndt, T. J. (1992). Friendship and friends’ influence in adolescence. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 1(5), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11510326
Berthold, K. A., & Hoover, J. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization among
intermediate students in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 21, 65–
78.
Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Ruin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause
emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Journal of
Medicine, 323, 480–484.
Bowen, N., & Bowen, G. (1999). Effects of crime and violence in neighborhoods and schools on
the school behavior and performance of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research,
14(3), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558499143003
Bradshaw, C.P., Sawyer, A.L., & O’Brennan, L.M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at
school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology
Review, 36(3), 361–382.
Brewster, W. & Tucker, J.M. (2016). Understanding bystander behavior: The influence of and
interaction between bystander characteristics and situational factors, Victims &
Offenders, 11(3), 455–481, https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1009593
Brody, G., Chen, Y., Murry, V., Ge, X., Simons, R., Gibbons, F., Gerrard, M., & Cutrona, C.
(2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American youths: A five-
87

year longitudinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development, 77(5),
1170–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00927.x
Brookmeyer, K., Fanti, K., & Henrich, C. (2006). Schools, Parents, and Youth Violence: A
Multilevel, Ecological Analysis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
35(4), 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3504_2
Burk, F. L (1897). Teasing and bullying. Pedagogical Seminary, 4, 336-371.
Caravita, S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy
and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18(1), 140–163.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current directions in
psychological science. Journal of the American Psychological Society, 21(5), 279–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United
States, 2017. Morbid and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(8).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/pdfs/ss6708a1-h.pdf
Choi, B., & Park, S. (2021). When empathy leads to passive bystanding or defending of the
victim in a bullying situation: Interaction with the perceived popularity of the bully.
Educational Researcher, 50(5), 276–289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20982559
CNN. (2020, May 13). Mass shootings in the US fast facts. CNN.com.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts/index.html
Columbia Journalism Review. (March 13, 2013). And that’s the way it was. March 13, 1964.
https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/and_thats_the_way_it_was_march_8.php
88

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and
bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1),
138–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030416
Correia, I., Alves, H., De Almeida, A., & Garcia, D. (2010). Norms regarding secondary
victimization of bullying victims: Do they differ according to the victim’s categorization?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(2), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2009.00732.x
Cowie, H., & Hutson, N. (2005). Peer support: A strategy to help bystanders challenge school
bullying. Pastoral Care in Education, 23(2), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0264-
3944.2005.00331.x
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B.,
Molcho, M., Gaspar de Mato, M., Overpeck, M., Due, P., & Pickett, W. (2009). A cross-
national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries.
International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-
5413-9
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (Fifth ed.). Sage Publications.
Darley, J. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
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
89

De Bruyn, E., Cillessen, A., & Wissink, I. (2009). Associations of peer acceptance and perceived
popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 30(4), 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609340517
Dijkstra, J., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2008). Beyond the Class Norm: Bullying Behavior
of Popular Adolescents and its Relation to Peer Acceptance and Rejection. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(8), 1289–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-
9251-7
Diliberti, M., Jackson, M., Correa, S., and Padgett, Z. (2019). Crime, violence, discipline, and
safety in U.S. public schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety:
2017–18 (NCES 2019-061). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for
Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C. L. (2003). Peer harassment, school
connectedness, and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 73, 311–316.
Farrell, A., & Sullivan, T. (2004). Impact of witnessing violence on growth curves for problem
behaviors among early adolescents in urban and rural settings. Journal of Community
Psychology, 32(5), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20016
Farrington, D., & Ttofi, M. (2009). School‐Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and
Victimization. Campbell Systematic Review, 5(1), i–148.
https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2009.6
Feshbach N. D. (1969). Sex differences in children’s modes of aggressive responses toward
outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 15(3):249–58
Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Stand
by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on
90

quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46(7), 636–649.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20404
Frisén, A., Hasselblad, T., & Holmqvist, K. (2012). What actually makes bullying stop? Reports
from former victims. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), 981–990.
Gansberg, M. (1964, March 27). 37 who saw murder didn't call the police; Apathy at stabbing of
Queens woman shocks inspector. The New York Times, p. A1.
Garandeau, C., & Cillessen, A. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible aggression: A
conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 11(6), 612–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.08.005
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Sage Publications.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hauser, M. (2011). Bullies have enhanced moral competence to judge
relative to victims, but lack moral compassion. Personality and Individual Differences,
50(5), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.002
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008). The role of bystanders in students’
perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46(6), 617–
638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.02.001
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents’
bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33(5), 467–476.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204
Gladstone, G. L., Parker, G. B., & Malhi, G. S. (2006). Do bullied children become anxious and
depressed adults? A cross-sectional investigation of the correlates of bullying and
anxious depression. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194, 201–208.
91

Goldstein, S., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with
school safety and social Climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 641–654.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9192-4
Gorman-Smith , D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence and
developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and Psychopathology,
10(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001539
Greene, M., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer discrimination
among Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and psychological
correlates. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.42.2.218
Grusec, J. (1992). "Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert
Sears and Albert Bandura". Developmental Psychology. 28 (5): 776–786.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.776
Hamburger M.E., Basile K.C., & Vivolo A.M. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization,
perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
https://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/BullyCompendium-a.pdf
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441–455.
Henrich, C. C., Schwab-Stone, M., Fanti, K., Jones, S. M., & Ruchkin, V. (2004). The
association of community violence exposure with middle-school achievement: A
92

prospective study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 327–348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.04.004
Hill, J., Song, L., & West, R. (2009). Social learning theory and web-based learning
environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. American Journal of
Distance Education, 23(2), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640902857713
Holden, G. W., Geffner, R., & Jouriles, E. N. (1998). Appraisal and outlook. In G. W. Holden,
R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory,
research, and applied issues (pp. 409–421). American Psychological Association.
Horn, J. L., & Trickett, P. K. (1998). Community violence and child development: A review of
the research. In P. K. Trickett & C. J. Schellenbach (Eds.), Violence against children in
the family and the community (pp. 103–138). American Psychological Association.
Hudson, J. M. & Bruckman, A. S. (2004). “The bystander effect: A lens for understanding
patterns of participation.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2): 165–195.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1302_2
Hugh-Jones, S., & Smith K. (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects of bullying on
children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 141–158.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Is low empathy related to bullying after controlling for
individual and social background variables? Journal of Adolescence, 34, 59–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.001
Juvonen, J., & Galván, A. (2008). Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Lessons from
research on bullying. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Duke series in child
development and public policy. Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents
(p. 225–244). The Guilford Press.
93

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of
victims. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
psych-010213-115030
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2016). Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in
urban middle schools. Psychological Science, 17(5), 393–400.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01718.x
Kant, I. (1992) Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770, trans. and ed. D. Walford, in collaboration
with Ralf Meerbote, Cambridge University Press.
Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying,
depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychology, 46, 40–49.
Knauf, R., Eschenbeck, H., & Hock, M. (2018). Bystanders of bullying: Social-cognitive and
affective reactions to school bullying and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-3
Koo, H. (2007). A timeline of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03025837
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Björkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive
Behavior, 14(6), 403–414.
Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory,
15(2), 127–147.
94

Latané, B; Darley, J.M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 308–324.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026570
Latané, B., & Darley, J. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Appleton-
Century Crofts.
Lewis, S. (2020, April 14). March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting in the
U.S. since 2002. CBS.com. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-first-march-
without-school-shooting-since-2002-united-states/
Locke, E., & Bandura, A. (1987). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive
view. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 169–171.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258004
McAdams, D. P., Healy, S., & Krause, S. (1984). Social motives and patterns of friendship.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 828–838.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.828
Menolascino, N., & Jenkins, L. (2018). Predicting bystander intervention among middle school
students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 305–313.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000262
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.100.4.674
95

Moreno, M. (2014). Cyberbullying. JAMA Pediatrics, 68(5).
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3343
Musu, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., and Oudekerk, B.A. (2019). Indicators of school
crime and safety: 2018. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019047.pdf
Musu-Gillette, L., Hansen, R., Chandler, K., & Snyder, T. (May 1, 2015). Measuring student
safety: Bullying rates at school. National Center for Education Statistics Blog.
https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/measuring-student-safety-bullying-rates-at-school
Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. J. (2004). Cross-national
consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment.
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 730–736.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Haynie, D. L., Ruan, J., & Scheidt, P. C. (2003). Relationships
between bullying and violence among US youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine, 157, 348–353
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth. JAMA, 285(16), 2094.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2019). Student reports of bullying: Results from the
2017 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019054.pdf
96

Nickerson, A., Mele, D., & Princiotta, D. (2008). Attachment and empathy as predictors of roles
as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 46(6),
687–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.002
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective
school-based intervention program. In: L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior:
Current perspectives (pp. 97–130). Plenum Press.
Olweus D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell.
Oxford University Press. (2020). Bullying. In Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford University
Press.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent
developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
Pankratz, H. (2000, October 3). Columbine bullying no myth, panel told. The Denver Post.
https://extras.denverpost.com/news/col1003a.htm
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Perkins, H., Perkins, J, & Craig, W. (2014). No safe haven: Locations of harassment and
bullying victimization in middle schools. Journal of School Health, 84(12), 810-818.
doi:10.1111/josh.12208
Polanin, J., Espelage, D., & Pigott, T. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying
prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology
Review, 41(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087375
97

Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to stand up for the victim
of bullying?: The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 56(2), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0046
Rao, D. & Stupans, I. (2012). Exploring the potential of role play in higher education:
development of a typology and teacher guidelines. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 49(4), 427-436.
Raosoft (2020) Raosoft sample size calculator. Raosoft, Inc.
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Rasit, R., Hamjah, S., Tibek, S., Sham, F., Ashaari, M., Samsudin, M., & Ismail, A. (2015).
Educating film audience through social cognitive theory reciprocal model. Procedia,
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1234–1241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.742
Reed, K. P., Nugent, W., & Cooper, R. L. (2015). Testing a path model of relationships between
gender, age, and bullying victimization and violent behavior, substance abuse,
depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts in adolescents. Children and Youth
Services Review, 55, 128–137. https:doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.05.016
Rigby, K. and Johnson, K. (2016), The Prevalence and Effectiveness of Anti-Bullying Strategies
employed in Australian Schools, Adelaide, University of South Australia.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d4b0/7b843724ff2c494ec67b612423019227c508.pdf
Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2010). ‘I h8 u’: Findings from a five-year study of text and email
bullying. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 643–671.
doi:10.1080/01411920903071918Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing
quality survey questions. SAGE Publications.
98

Rose, C. A., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Risk and Protective Factors Associated with the Bullying
Involvement of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 37(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700302
Rosenthal, L., Earnshaw, V., Carroll-Scott, A., Henderson, K., Peters, S., McCaslin, C., &
Ickovics, J. (2015). Weight- and race-based bullying: Health associations among urban
adolescents. Journal of Health Psychology, 20(4), 401–412.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313502567
Russell, S. T., Sinclair, K. O., Poteat, V. P., & Koenig, B. W. (2012). Adolescent Health and
Harassment Based on Discriminatory Bias. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3),
493-495. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2011.300430
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
15(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior
in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(3), 246–258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000488
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(5), 668–676.
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), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T
99

Sandy Hook Promise. (2020). Start with hello. Sandyhookpromise.org.
https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/our-programs/program-overview/
Schunk, D.H., & DiBenedetto, M.K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60(1)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Selkie, E., Fales, J., & Moreno, M. (2016). Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and
high school–aged adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 58(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026
Smith, P., Barrio, C., Tokunaga, R. (2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How
useful are the terms? In S. Bauman, J, Walker & D. Cross (eds), Principles of
cyberbullying research: Definition, methods, and measures. Routledge, pp. 64–86.
Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2007.01846.x
Sourander, A., Helstela, L., Helenius, H., & Piha, J. (2000). Persistence of bullying from
childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 24, 873–881.
Stevens, V., Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An evaluation of
anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158056
StopBullying.gov (2018). Bystander to bullying.
https://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/bystanders-to-bullying
100

StopBullying.gov (2018b). Fact sheet: Bystanders are essential to bullying prevention and
intervention. StopBullying.gov. https://www.stopbullying.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
08/Bystander-Factsheet.pdf
StopBullying.gov (2018c). Laws, policies & regulations.
https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws
StopBullying.gov (2020). Mentoring youth helps prevent bullying.
https://www.stopbullying.gov/blog/2020/04/14/mentoring-youth-helps-prevent-bullying
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about
school bullying? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38–47.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09357622
Sutton, J., Smith, P., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy
or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 435–450.
https://doi.org/10.1348/026151099165384
Thornberg, R., Tenenbaum, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., & Vanegas, G. (2012).
Bystander Motivation in Bullying Incidents: To Intervene or Not to Intervene? The
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(3), 247–252.
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
101

Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2010). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a
systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 27–56.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1
U.S. Department of Education (2016). Student reports of bullying and cyberbullying: Results
from the 2015 school crime supplement to the National Victimization Survey, Table 1.1.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017015.pdf
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service, National Threat
Assessment Center. (2019). Protecting America’s schools: a U.S. Secret Service analysis
of targeted school violence.
https://www.secretservice.gov/data/protection/ntac/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf
Umaña-Taylor, A., & Updegraff, K. (2006). Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring the
interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural orientation, self-esteem, and
depressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence, 30(4), 549–567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.08.002
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
Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2011). Examining student responses to frequent bullying:
A latent class approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 336–352.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022747
Waasdorp, T.E., Pas, E.T., Zablotsky, B., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2017). Ten-year trends in bullying
and related attitudes among 4th- to 12th-graders. Pediatrics, 139(6), 20162615.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2615
102

Warden, D., & MacKinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies, and victims: An investigation
of their sociometric status, empathy, and social problem-solving strategies. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367–385.
https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003322277757
Wong, D., Cheng, C., Ngan, R., & Ma, S. (2011). Program effectiveness of a restorative whole-
school approach for tackling school bullying in Hong Kong. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(6), 846–862.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10374638
Yancey-Bragg, N. (2019, September 18). Dozens of teens witnessed boy's fatal stabbing. Some
took video; none helped, police say. USA TODAY.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/18/new-york-boy-fatally-stabbed-
teens-recorded-video-police-say/2364415001/

103

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
1. Tell me a little about yourself?
a. How would you describe yourself?
b. Are you still a high school student? Currently in college?
2. Tell me a little about your high school?
a. Describe the school/student community.
b. Did you like your high school? Why / Why not?
c. How was the climate? Was there bullying?
3. What are some things students do/did when they see/saw other students being bullied
online or in person at your school?
a. How do you know about these instances?
4. What are some words or phrases you would use to describe students in your school
who tend to defend students who are being bullied?
a. How about students who see bullying and do nothing or join in?
5. How do you feel when you see students stand up to bullies for other students?
6. How do you feel when you see other students being bullied and no one helps?
7. Who in your high school class do you think was the biggest defender of bullied
students?
a. Based on what?
b. How would you describe that person?
c. Does their behavior inspire you? In what ways or why not?
8. What type of students/peers would you say you look/looked up to in high school?
a. How do you think they would respond if they saw another student being
bullied?
104

9. What kinds of conversations do you recall having with other people about defending
other students from bullies?
a. Who have you had those types of conversations with?
b. How do you feel information from those conversations has shaped how you
might respond if you saw a fellow student being bullied?
c. Do you feel you were prepared to deal with defending someone?
10. If you saw a fellow student being bullied, what are some factors you would consider
before you decided if you would intervene?
a. Why would you consider those factors?
b. How would these factors shape your response?
11. Fill in the blank for me: Seeing _____ defend a student from being bullied by another
student would inspire me to do the same. Ok to have multiple answers.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The inconsistency of teachers reporting and intervening in bullying situations: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Examining technology obsolescence in music scoring studios

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Promising practices in preventing bullying in K-12 schools: student engagement

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

Building a college-going culture: a case study of a continuation high school

PDF

Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study

PDF

Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education

PDF

Bystander intervention training & the culture of sexual assault on college campuses

Asset Metadata

Creator Zaleski, Jonathan (author)

Core Title The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/29/2022

Defense Date 09/08/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag amplifying bystanders,bullying,bullying interventions,bystander culture,bystanders,High School,OAI-PMH Harvest,school climate,secondary bystanders

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email 6191stplace@gmail.com,jonathan@scorch4x4.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111159638

Unique identifier UC111159638

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Zaleski, Jonathan

Type texts

Source 20220502-usctheses-batch-935 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu