Peer victimization and empathy for victims of bullying: A test of bidirectional associations in childhood and adolescence.

Anti-bullying interventions often assume that knowing how it feels to be bullied increases empathy for victims. However, longitudinal research on actual experiences of bullying and empathy is lacking. This study investigated whether within-person changes in victimization predicted changes in empathy over 1 year using random-intercept cross-lagged panel models. Self- and peer-reported victimization, and cognitive and affective empathy for victims were measured in a sample of 15,713 Finnish youth (Mage  = 13.23, SDage  = 2.01, 51.6% female; 92.5% had Finnish-speaking parents; data was collected in 2007-2009 when information about participants' race/ethnicity was not available due to ethical guidelines for the protection of personal information). Results indicated small, positive longitudinal associations from victimization to cognitive empathy. Implications for empathy-raising interventions are discussed.

Does defending victimized peers put youth at risk of being victimized?

Defending peers who have been bullied is often thought to put defenders at risk of becoming victimized themselves. The study investigated the concurrent and prospective associations between defending and (peer- and self-reported) victimization, and examined popularity and classroom norms as potential moderators. Participants included 4085 Finnish youth (43.9% boys; Mage  = 14.56, SD = .75; 97% born in Finland). Concurrently, defending was positively associated with self-reported victimization in classrooms with high bullying-popularity norms (b = .28, SE = .16). Defending was negatively associated with peer-reported victimization in classrooms with high defending-popularity norms (b = -.07, SE = .03). Defending was not significantly associated with future victimization, suggesting that it is generally not a risk factor for victimization.

Intention to Stop Bullying following a Condemning, Empathy-Raising, or Combined Message from a Teacher - Do Students' Empathy and Callous-Unemotional Traits Matter?

Knowing which intervention strategies work best and for which student is essential for teachers when they intervene in cases of bullying. The effects of teachers' (1) condemning, (2) empathy-raising, and (3) combined (including elements of both) messages on students' intention to stop bullying were tested in a between-subject experimental design. A total of 277 seventh grade students (Mage = 12.93, SD = 0.49; 47% female) were asked to imagine they had bullied a peer and were invited to a discussion with a teacher. They saw a video vignette with one of the above messages. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that students' intention to stop bullying was highest among those who saw the combined message. Callous-unemotional traits were negatively, and affective and cognitive empathy positively associated with intention to stop bullying. Students' level of cognitive empathy moderated the relative effect of the condemning message on intention to stop bullying. At low levels of cognitive empathy, the condemning message was the least effective, whereas among those with high cognitive empathy, all messages were equally likely to lead to intention to stop bullying. Together, the findings suggest that for educators intervening in bullying among adolescents, an approach involving both condemning and empathy-raising messages is the 'best bet', most likely to lead to intention to stop bullying.

Examining the Potential Mental Health Costs of Defending Victims of Bullying: a Longitudinal Analysis.

It has been speculated that defending victims of bullying is stressful for youth, and may contribute to poor mental health among those who regularly intervene to defend their victimized peers. However, the extant literature is thus far primarily limited to correlational, single-informant studies. The current study examined the concurrent and prospective mental health costs (e.g., social anxiety, depressive symptoms) of peer-reported defending among 4085 youth (43.9% boys; Mage = 14.56, SD = 0.75). Moreover, we examined two potential moderators (victimization and popularity) of the association between defending and internalizing problems. Analyses revealed that there was no evidence of a direct, positive relationship between defending and internalizing symptoms. However, a positive, concurrent association was found between defending and social anxiety, but only among youth who reported that they were also victims - the association was negative among non-victimized youth. In addition, both peer-reported victimization and social status were found to moderate the longitudinal relationship between defending and later symptoms of depression. Specifically, among low-status highly victimized youth, defending was associated with an increased risk of experiencing symptoms of depression, whereas high-status youth who were rarely seen as victims reported decreased symptoms of depression at T2 if they also had a reputation for defending others. The findings suggest that defending others is likely not a risk factor for youth who are not already vulnerable and/or have the protection of high status, and may actually have a protective effect for these youth.

Bystanders' affect toward bully and victim as predictors of helping and non-helping behaviour.

The current study examined how children's relationship with the bully and victim impacted their reactions as bystanders. An ethnically diverse sample of 2,513 Canadian students in grades 4-7 responded to questions about their experiences of bullying, including the frequency with which they witnessed bullying at school. Approximately 89% of the sample reported witnessing bullying at school during the current school year. Subsequently, participants were asked to recall a specific bullying incident that they witnessed and describe: (1) their relationship with the bully and victim; (2) how they felt while witnessing; and (3) how they responded as a bystander. Compared to situations where they didn't know the victim, bystanders were more likely to intervene directly (e.g., try to stop the bully, comfort the victim) if they liked the victim, and less likely to tell an adult if they disliked the victim. Aggressive intervention was more common if the witness didn't like the bully, but also if they didn't like the victim compared to if they didn't know them. Regarding emotions, anger emerged as an especially powerful predictor of bystander defending, with youth being over five times more likely to try to stop the bullying or comfort the victim if they felt angry. Implications of these findings for the development of ecologically valid, anti-bullying interventions are discussed.