Page 114 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 114
positive youth development in contexts
Being a bystander of bullying
Merely witnessing bullying is distressing; Nishina & Juvonen (2005) re-
port that students who had observed bullying over several days reported
increased levels of anxiety and negative attitudes toward school. Yet, if bul-
lying bystanders can therefore understand the victim’s perspective and dis-
tress, why do only intervene in a small number of cases? Reasons for by-
stander passivity established in existing studies (e.g. Pöyhönen et al., 2010;
Sentse et al., 2007) were mostly a fear of retaliation or threat to one’s own
social position and low self-efficacy for defending victims. Standing up for a
victimised student and thus opposing the bully who is usually highly popu-
lar and influential involves social risk because it jeopardises the intervening
student’s own status. Therefore, observers tend to remain passive (bystand-
er passivity). Perceiving that their peers are also remaining passive further
reinforces their own passive attitude since students misinterpret this pas-
sivity – as if their peers approve the bullying. This reinforces the (non)re-
sponse of the whole group (pluralistic ignorance; Miller & Prentice, 1994)
and enhances the bullying dynamics (Sandstrom et al., 2012). Another cog-
nitive process that can account for the ‘chronification’ of bullying group
dynamics is the phenomenon of moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002), de-
fined as a cognitive mechanism whereby students convince themself that
a behaviour that is contrary to their own moral standards is acceptable
(Meter & Bauman, 2018). This includes blaming the victim (»She deserved
it!«), minimising the impact of bullying (»It’s no big deal, it didn’t real-
ly hurt them!«), displacing the responsibility (»It wasn’t just me!«) etc. It is
thus a socio-cognitive mechanism that enables students (bullies and the
bystanders) to shut down any self-sanctions that would normally accom-
pany the violation of one’s own’s moral standards (e.g. feelings of shame,
guilt and negative self-evaluations). An association between moral disen-
gagement and bullying behaviour was found in many studies (e.g. Gini et
al., 2014; Meter & Bauman, 2018; Runions et al., 2019); however, recently, re-
searchers have also been able to confirm a relationship between moral dis-
engagement and bystander passivity (e.g. Bussey et al., 2020; Thornberg et
al., 2020).
The bullying classroom dynamic described above is not only unfa-
vourable for the students who experience bullying; it is a problem for all
students since it supports the learning of patterns of social behaviour that
are exclusive and is hence completely the opposite to an inclusive school
and classroom culture. The school or classroom environment represents a
114
Being a bystander of bullying
Merely witnessing bullying is distressing; Nishina & Juvonen (2005) re-
port that students who had observed bullying over several days reported
increased levels of anxiety and negative attitudes toward school. Yet, if bul-
lying bystanders can therefore understand the victim’s perspective and dis-
tress, why do only intervene in a small number of cases? Reasons for by-
stander passivity established in existing studies (e.g. Pöyhönen et al., 2010;
Sentse et al., 2007) were mostly a fear of retaliation or threat to one’s own
social position and low self-efficacy for defending victims. Standing up for a
victimised student and thus opposing the bully who is usually highly popu-
lar and influential involves social risk because it jeopardises the intervening
student’s own status. Therefore, observers tend to remain passive (bystand-
er passivity). Perceiving that their peers are also remaining passive further
reinforces their own passive attitude since students misinterpret this pas-
sivity – as if their peers approve the bullying. This reinforces the (non)re-
sponse of the whole group (pluralistic ignorance; Miller & Prentice, 1994)
and enhances the bullying dynamics (Sandstrom et al., 2012). Another cog-
nitive process that can account for the ‘chronification’ of bullying group
dynamics is the phenomenon of moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002), de-
fined as a cognitive mechanism whereby students convince themself that
a behaviour that is contrary to their own moral standards is acceptable
(Meter & Bauman, 2018). This includes blaming the victim (»She deserved
it!«), minimising the impact of bullying (»It’s no big deal, it didn’t real-
ly hurt them!«), displacing the responsibility (»It wasn’t just me!«) etc. It is
thus a socio-cognitive mechanism that enables students (bullies and the
bystanders) to shut down any self-sanctions that would normally accom-
pany the violation of one’s own’s moral standards (e.g. feelings of shame,
guilt and negative self-evaluations). An association between moral disen-
gagement and bullying behaviour was found in many studies (e.g. Gini et
al., 2014; Meter & Bauman, 2018; Runions et al., 2019); however, recently, re-
searchers have also been able to confirm a relationship between moral dis-
engagement and bystander passivity (e.g. Bussey et al., 2020; Thornberg et
al., 2020).
The bullying classroom dynamic described above is not only unfa-
vourable for the students who experience bullying; it is a problem for all
students since it supports the learning of patterns of social behaviour that
are exclusive and is hence completely the opposite to an inclusive school
and classroom culture. The school or classroom environment represents a
114
