Roles of fatalism and parental support in the relationship between bullying victimization and bystander behaviors

Abstract

This article examines how past bullied victims engage two types of bystander behaviors (defender and outsider) when they witness bullying situations.We also investigate if fatalism mediates the relationship between past victimization and two bystander behaviors. Finally, we test if parental support moderates the relationship between fatalism and two bystander behaviors. Based on 3,441 students from 20 middle schools in Taiwan, results support the mediation hypotheses that the relationships of past victimization with defender and outsider behaviors are mediated through fatalism. Furthermore, the results support the moderation hypotheses that parental support is positively associated with defender behavior even when the level of fatalism is high. Future school bullying prevention research and practice may benefit from understanding how to reduce fatalistic belief and strengthen parental support.

Keywords

Bystander mediation moderation parental support Taiwan fatalism victimization

School bullying has been a major and common concern faced by schools, parents, and students throughout the world. A survey of 35 countries indicated that prevalence rates of school bullying are as high as approximately 32% for girls and 36% for boys (Due et al., 2009). Empirical research has shown that bullying has negative impacts on physical and mental health and social interactions among children involved (e.g. Henry et al., 2014). Being bullied also increases students’ violent and other delinquent behaviors such as drinking and substance uses (e.g. Bender & Lösel, 2011).

In addition to bullied victims, student bystanders who constitutes the majority of the school population witness school bullying (Oh & Hazler, 2009). It has been estimated that as many as 85% of school bullying episodes occur in the presence of student bystanders (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000). Those who witness school bullying can be classified into three types of bystander: followers, defenders, and outsiders (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukialnen, 1996). Followers actively join in the bullying by assisting the bully in different ways, including catching or holding the victim, shouting to incite the bully, laughing, or watching the situation. In contrast, defenders actively stand up for the victim and intervene in bullying by helping and comforting the victim or stopping the bully. Finally, outsiders choose to stay outside the bullying situation by either pretending nothing is happening, or by not doing anything about it. However, one may play any one of the three roles depending on the relational, social, and contextual factors across different bullying episodes. For example, Rigby and Johnson (2006) found that students’ readiness to act as active defenders can be influenced by normative pressure from expectation of their peers or a desire to be accepted by their peers.

Past research (e.g. Salmivalli &Voeten, 2004) has shown that followers and bullies share similar individual characteristics and personality factors, which distinguish followers/bullies from defenders and outsiders. In addition, past bullies tend to be followers when they witness a bullying situation (Salmivalli, 2001). However, there has been very limited evidence about the relationship of bullying victimization with defender and outsider behaviors, or theoretical reasons for why bullying victimization would increase or decrease these behaviors.

To addresses the above research gap, we first examine to what extent bullying victimization is associated with both bystander behaviors. In addition, we investigate if fatalistic belief mediates the relationship between bullying victimization and the two bystander behaviors, and how the fatalism-bystander behavior relationships are moderated by parental support.

The present study makes two major contributions to the existing school bullying literature. First, the study conducted among Taiwanese students advances our understanding about the potential impact of bullying victimization on bystander behaviors through belief in fatalism. With very few exceptions (e.g. Choi & Cho, 2013), bullying bystanders research has primarily been conducted in the Western context. The present study, conducted among Taiwanese students, provides a unique opportunity to examine this global issue in a different cultural context. Second, the study highlights the important role of parental support in countering the adverse effect of fatalistic belief and reducing future school bullying incidents via encouraging defender behaviors. It has been shown that defenders could successfully reduce school bullying through defending or supporting bullied students (Oh & Hazler, 2009). In contrast, outsiders may give bullies silent approval while acting as an avoidant audience (Craig et al., 2000; Craig & Pepler, 1998; Slaby, 2005).

Adverse impacts of fatalism

Fatalism is the belief that luck, chance, fortune, or accidental happenings determine one’s success or failure (Reid & Ware, 1974). People holding a fatalistic view believe that a person’s achievements are determined by external forces and beyond a person’s own control. A strong sense of fatalism would be likely to undermine the persistence and effort to cope with threat or challenges, and negatively affect well-being.

It has been shown that fatalism tends to be more prevalent in Asian countries such as China and Korea where the traditional philosophies of Confucianism are rooted. In general, people with an Asian culture background tend to hold fatalistic beliefs when facing misfortune in life (Heiniger, Sherman, Shaw, & Costa, 2013), and the fatalistic belief hinders their motivation and effort to optimistically cope with violence (Shen, 2009). Research has shown that Chinese adolescents tend to adopt a do-nothing approach, reflected as a fatalistic belief, to cope with stressful situations (Hamid, Yue, & Leung, 2003). Shen also reported that Chinese adolescents with a high level of fatalistic belief report greater traumatic symptoms, and internalize behavioral problems after they experience physical maltreatment at childhood.

Frequent and repeated exposure to negative life events and catastrophes have been shown to increase fatalistic beliefs (Kouabenan, 2009). For example, experience of child sexual abuse (Romans, Martin, & Mullen, 1996) or violent events (McGee, 2000) is associated with a high level of fatalism about life. Similarly, preliminary studies have indicated that exposure to school bullying could lead to a fatalistic belief about the inevitability of bullying. For instance, a survey of 9- to 16-olds in Ireland revealed that 23% of students who had been bullied adopted a fatalistic response, and concluded that bullying is beyond their control and just hoped the problem would go away by itself (O’Neill & Dinh, 2013). Using longitudinal case studies, Johnson and Howard (2008) also demonstrated that due to the ineffective implementation of anti-bullying policy at school, victims develop a fatalistic belief that bullying is beyond their control and there is little or no way to escape or improve the situation.

The above findings suggest that sense of fatalism could be a learned response to past exposure of bullying. To be specific, past bullying experience, repeated bullying in particular, may lead victims to believe that bullying is unavoidable and that there is no possible way to escape from harm, thus helplessness is learned (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008). As a result, past bullying victims may develop a sense of fatalism, which likely disengages efforts to cope with unmanageable situations by staying out of bullying incidents when they are present (acting as an outsider rather than a defender). Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of the mediation hypotheses described as follow: H₁: Past bullying victimization positively relates to a sense of fatalism; H_2a: Fatalism mediates the relationship between past victimization and defender behavior when witnessing school bullying episodes; and H_2b: Fatalism mediates the relationship between past victimization and outsider behavior when witnessing school bullying episodes.
Figure 1.
Mediation model of the study.

Parental support

When children and adolescents experience stressful or threatening events such as being bullied, they may turn to their parents or other significant others to express their distress and seek comfort or assistance (Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998). Parental support provides children with emotional caring and instrumental assistance, which in turn strengthens the attachment bonds between children and parents.

Parental support has been demonstrated to have a profound impact on children’s self-esteem, academic achievement (Bean, Bush, Mckenry, & Wilson, 2003), and competence development (van Aken & Riksen-Walraven, 1992). Strong parental support has been found to be associated with more behavioral coping (e.g. problem solving) and academic competence, less tolerance for deviance (Wills & Cleary, 1996), and less risky behaviors such as substance abuse and delinquency (Parker & Benson, 2004). High parental support is also positively related to friendship quality (Mounts, Valentiner, Anderson, & Boswell, 2006).

Parental support has also been found to relate to children’s roles as perpetrators and victims in school bullying. On the one hand, higher parental support is associated with less involvement in various forms of bullying (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). On the other hand, higher parental support decreases the likelihood of victimization (Cassidy, 2009). Delfabbro et al. (2006) found that girls who were never bullied had significantly higher parental support than those who were often bullied.

However, it is not clear from the existing literature how parental support would be related to defender and outsider behaviors. We might expect that high parental support is positively linked with defender behavior and negatively linked with outsider behavior given that parental support would enhance children’s problem solving skills (Wills & Cleary, 1996). This skill is viewed as an important factor that distinguishes defenders from outsiders (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). Since there is a risk of making an inferential leap based on the above conjecture, we proposed two research questions: RQ1: Is parental support associated with defender behavior? And RQ2: Is parental support associated with outsider behavior?

Moreover, in the current study, we expect that parental support plays a buffering role in reducing the negative effect of fatalism on defender and outsider behaviors. To be specific, compared to past bullied students with low parental support, past bullied students with high parental support likely engage in less outsider behavior and more defender behavior, even when their level of fatalism is increasing.

There are two reasons why parental support might exert such an influence to counter the adverse effect of fatalism resulting from past victimization. First, parental support provides children with emotional caring and instrumental assistance, which likely soothes the feeling of helplessness and reduces the impact of fatalism on bystander behaviors. Second, parental support, through enhancing children’s emotional and social competence, may decrease the chance of children acting upon the fatalistic belief by engaging in more outsider behavior and less defender behavior. Thus, we hypothesize: H_3a: Parental support moderates the relationship between fatalism and defender behavior, such that the negative relationship between fatalism and defender behavior is stronger among past bullied students with low parental support than those with high parental support; and H_3b: Parental support moderates the relationship between fatalism and outsider behavior, such that the positive relationship between fatalism and outsider behavior are stronger among past bullied students with low parental support than those with high parental support.

Methods

Participants and procedures

Participants were recruited based on the following steps. First, five middle schools were randomly selected from one of four geographical regions of Taiwan (North, Central, South and East). Within each of the 20 selected schools, students of two randomly selected classes of each grade (7th to 9th grade) were invited to participate in the study. A total of 3,441 students aged between 12- and 15-years-old completed a self-administrated questionnaire in their classroom under the supervision of trained research assistants. Consent forms were obtained from all participants, and the project was approved by the Research Ethic Committee of National Taiwan University Hospital (No. 200907009R).

Measures

Defender behavior and outsider behavior

Two bystander behaviors were assessed based on a five-point scale modified from the Participant Role Questionnaires (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Students were asked to indicate how often they engaged with defender behavior (9 items) and outsider behavior (4 items) when witnessing someone else being bullied. Response categories of both scales ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (every time). Samples of defender behavior included ‘Tells the others to stop bullying’and ‘Comforts the victim in the bullying situation’. Samples of outsider behavior included ‘Stays outside the situation’ and ‘Does not do anything’. Coefficient alphas for defender behavior and outsider behavior were 0.87 and 0.71, respectively.

Bullying victimization

The survey first provided students with a standard definition of bullying: ‘Bullying is defined as the use of one’s strength or status to injure, threaten, or humiliate another person in an unpleasant way. Bullying can be physical, verbal, or social. It is not bullying when two students of about the same/similar strength argue or fight’ (Olweus, 1993, p. 8). This definition identifies power imbalance as a prominent criteria of bullying which is consistent with Taiwanese students’ conception of bullying (Cheng, Chen, Ho, & Cheng, 2011). Students were asked to report how frequently they had experienced six forms of bullying (being pushed; being hit or kicked; possessions being damaged; being teased or made fun of; name calling; being excluded) during the past year on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost every day).The coefficient alpha for past victimization scale was 0.91.

Fatalism

Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a two-item Fatalism Scale adapted from McCrae (1984) based on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items included ‘School bullying occurs with fate’ and ‘Nothing could be done about school bullying’. The coefficient alpha for fatalism scale was 0.62.

Parental support

Parental support was measured as a subset of the Family Interaction Scale (Wu, Kao, Yen, & Lee, 2007). Sample items included ‘My parents encourage me when I am confronted with difficulties or challenges’ and ‘My parents help me with things I cannot cope with’. The Parent Support Scale consists of four items, with five response categories varying from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The coefficient alpha of this scale was 0.92.

Results

Because our data came from 20 schools and four regions of Taiwan, we first examined whether there were significant mean differences on the study variables between these schools, and between regions. No significant differences were found among schools and regions.

Prior to examining the proposed model, a series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. First, a two-factor model (outsider behavior and defender behavior) exhibits better fit (χ² = 814.35, df = 62, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06) than a one-factor model that combines these two behaviors (χ² = 3045.87, df = 63, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.83, TLI = 0.79, RMSEA = 0.13). Significant χ² _diff test (χ² = 2231.52, df = 1, p < 0.01) also supports that outsider behaviors and defender behaviors reflect two distinct constructs. Second, a five-factor model based on the five study variables shows better fit (χ² = 2965.42, df = 265, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.06) than a one-factor model that consists of all five measures (χ² = 18753.33, df = 275, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.43, TLI = 0.38, RMSEA = 0.15), which is also supported by the significant χ² _diff test (χ² = 15787.91, df = 10, p < 0.01).

We also followed the procedure suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) to examine the amount of the common method variance resulting from the use of same data colleciton method (i.e. self-reports in this case). A method factor (i.e. all items loading on a latent method factor) is added to the five-factor model mentioned above to examine if common method variance is a concern. Specifically, the six-factor model is compared to the five-factor model to determine the impact of the common method factor. However, this six-factor model is unidentified, and this result suggests that the inclusion of a method factor may not be a viable propostion and thus, common method variance is likely not an issue.

Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables are reported in Table 1. Relationship between defender behaviors and outsider behaviors are trival (r = 0.04), although it is significant given the large sample size. As expected, a significant relationship between past victimization and sense of fatalism (r = 0.12) is found. Moreover, parental support is significantly related to defender behavior (r = 0.22), but not with outsider behavior (r = −0.03). Fatalism is also significantly related to outsider behavior (r = 0.30), but not with defender behavior (r = 0.01). Based on Williams’ tests of two dependent correlations, the fatalism–outsider relationship is significantly stronger than fatalism–defender relationship (t = 11.9), and the parental support–outsider relationship is significantly weaker than the parental support–defender relationship (t = 10.08). Finally, Table 1 demonstrates that past victimization is significantly associated with both defender behavior (r = 0.18) and outsider behavior (r = 0.15).
Table 1.
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Past victimization 1.32 0.48

2. Fatalism 3.03 1.01 0.12^

3. Parental support 3.09 1.22 −0.07^ −0.00

4. Defender behavior 1.98 1.01 0.18^ 0.01 0.22^

5. Outsider behavior 2.05 0.91 0.15^ 0.30^ −0.03 −0.04^**

Note: N = 3, 238. ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01.

Test of hypotheses

Based on the structural analysis, all hypothesized path coefficients in the mediation model are significant as illustrated in Table 2. Specifically, past bullying victimization is significantly related to fatalism (Hypothesis 1), which in turn mediates the victimization–bystander behavior (Hypotheses 2a–2b). Following the bootstrapping procedure suggested by Selig and Preacher (2008), both indirect effects (past victimization → fatalism →defender behavior, and past victimization → fatalism → outsider behavior) are significantly different from 0 (p < 0.01, two-tailed). Thus, these results provide additional evidence to support the mediation hypotheses.
Table 2.
Results of direct and indirect effects of the hypothesized mediation model.

Path Standardized coefficient Indirect effect 95% C.I.

Direct effects

Victimization → fatalism 0.21 (0.04)

Fatalism → defender behavior −0.07 (0.02)

Fatalism → outsider behavior 0.29 (0.02) **

Indirect effects

Victimization → fatalism → defender behavior −0.01 (0.01) [−0.03, −0.01]

Victimization → fatalism → outsider behavior 0.06 (0.01) [0.03, 0.08]

Note: p < 0.01.

Standard errors are reported in the parentheses.

Confidence intervals are derived from bootstrapping approach based on 1000 samples.

To examine the moderating hypotheses, two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. In Step 1, defender behavior or outsider behavior is regressed on fatalism and parental support, respectively. In Step 2, the product between fatalism and parental support is included in both models. Results of Step 1, reported in Table 3, reveal that parental support is significantly associated with defender behavior (b = 0.05), but not with outsider behavior (b = 0.01). It should be noted that the above results are inconsistent with those reported in the final model (b = −0.09, p < 0.01 and b = 0.07, p < 0.05), which suggest the existence of suppression effects (Tzelgov & Henik, 1991). To facilitate interpretation of RQ1 and RQ2, patterns of correlation in Table 1 and the correspondent regression weights at Step 1 in Table 3 are employed. Specifically, the study provides initial evidence that parental support is related to defender behavior, but not with outsider behavior.
Table 3.
Results of moderator regression of fatalism and parental support on defender and outsider behaviors.

Variable Defender
Outsider

b b R² b b R²

Step1: 0.01^ 0.11^

Fatalism −0.08^ −0.23^ 0.29^ 0.34^

Parental support 0.05^ −0.09^** 0.01 0.07^*

Step 2: 0.02^ 0.11^

Fatalism × Parental support 0.05^ −0.02⁺

p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ⁺p < 0.1.

Results of Step 2 show a significant moderating effect between fatalism and parental support in predicting defender behavior, but not for outsider behavior. These results support Hypothesis 3a that the strength of relationship between fatalism and defender behavior varies depending on the level of parental support. This result further suggests that, while having high level of fatalism, students with high parental support report more defender behaviors than those with low parental support. Yet, the difference between these students diminishes when they hold low level fatalistic belief.
Figure 2.
Interaction plot for fatalism and parental support on defender behavior.

Discussion

The results show that fatalism mediates the relationships of past bullying victimization with defender and outsider behaviors, respectively. Parental support is also positively associated with defender behavior. In addition, parental support counters the adverse impact of fatalism on defender behavior. However, the study fails to support the moderating effect of parental support on the relationship between fatalism and outsider behavior.

The significant mediation effect suggests that the fatalistic attitude could be reduced when school management and teachers take proactive and effective measures in preventing bullying. Creating an anti-bullying culture both formally (e.g. school management commits anti-bullying policies and practices) and informally (e.g. teachers serve as a role model in defending victims) could convey clearly to all children that bullying will not be tolerated and students can stop bullying successfully if they are willing to stand up for bullied victims.

Furthermore, the significant moderating effect suggests that parental support plays a critical role in supporting defender behavior and countering the adverse effect of fatalism. Parental support provides emotional assistance to help students reduce negative emotions and deal with difficult situations in a more positive way. In addition, it offers instrumental support by offering students advice on solving problems while facing adverse circumstances, or helping them change perception of challenges via a different lens. The mastery experience and the decrease of negative emotion through emotional and instrumental assistances, according to the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), would increase students’ confidence and belief about their ability and capability to defend and comfort their peers during bullying situations.

Strong parental support would further strengthen attachment bonds between students and their parents. Children and adolescents who experience strong attachment bonds tend to exhibit emotional and social competency (Laible, 2007), self-esteem (Emmanuelle, 2009), and psychological health and well-being (Carter, McGee, Taylor, & Williams, 2007). Moreover, strong attachment to parents is related to high quality peer relationships, prosocial behaviors, decreased conflict with peers, as well as fewer interpersonal problems such as interpersonal sensitivity and aggression (Cummings-Robeau, Copey, & Rice, 2009; Priscilla, 2003; Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001). Future school bullying prevention research may benefit from understanding how to develop strong parental support and strengthen attachment bonds, as well as integrate these components into school bullying prevention programs or initiatives.

A small relationship between defender behavior and outsider behavior (r = −0.04), and their differential relationships with parental support (0.22 versus −0.03) and fatalism (0.01 versus 0.31) suggest the need in future research to investigate the aetiology of both behaviors. The present results seem to suggest both behaviors are independent, and may be shaped by different factors. For instance, past research has shown that defenders display higher levels of agreeableness and extraversion (Tani, Greenman, Schneider, & Fregoso, 2003) as well as pro-victim attitudes (Rigby & Johnson, 2006) than outsiders. These differences may explain why defenders have the tendency to be altruistic and sympathetic towards their peers in need, and why outsiders have the tendency to avoid being involved in bullying situations.

Limitations

The present study has contributed to the literature by demonstrating the roles of fatalism and parental support in the relationship between past bullying victimization and bystander behaviors. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution by keeping three limitations in mind. First, the cross-sectional design utilized in this study limits us from making any causal conclusion, even though the significant direct and indirect effects reported in Table 2 support the mediation hypotheses.

The second limitation of the study is the use of the self-report methodology from a single source. There is evidence supporting the validity and usefulness of applying self-report methodology in research (Spector, 2006), particularly while researchers investigate uncharted questions. Nonetheless, potential common method variance resulted from using the same data collection method and biased information based on the data from a single source should not be overlooked. Therefore, the inclusion of more than one data collection method and measure to assess the same construct, in conjunction with the longitudinal design in future research, would shed light on the aetiology of bystander behaviors such as how bystander behaviors are developed, how fatalism influences bystander behaviors, or how parental support affects the victims’ bystander behaviors.

The third limitation is about the generalizability of the current findings to different countries and cultures. School bullying policies and prevention strategies and regulations vary across and within countries. For instance, the Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence study examined 102 schools’ implementation of a bullying policy, and revealed different responses from strategy not adopted to strategy adopted (Cross et al., 2011). Furthermore, countries have exhibited different values and beliefs (e.g. individualistic versus collectivist values; external versus internal locus of control; mastery over the environment versus harmony with the environment; Smith, Trompenaars, & Dugan, 1995), which may change across time within countries (e.g. young Americans decreasingly believe their lives are controlled by themselves across years; Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004). Thus, it would advance the literature about school bullying and bystander behaviors to replicate the present study in different countries and at different times.

Conclusion

Regarding school bullying literature, the majority of studies have focused on the perpetrator–victim dyad, while bystanders have received relatively less attention. This study investigates the relationships between bullying victimization and two types of bystander behaviors and the roles of fatalism and parental support in these associations. Results of the study suggest the benefit of understanding aetiology of bystander behaviors, and the important roles of fatalism and parental support, which should be one of the key elements in school bullying prevention and intervention programs.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Past victimization	1.32	0.48
2. Fatalism	3.03	1.01	0.12^**
3. Parental support	3.09	1.22	−0.07^**	−0.00
4. Defender behavior	1.98	1.01	0.18^**	0.01	0.22^**
5. Outsider behavior	2.05	0.91	0.15^**	0.30^**	−0.03	−0.04^**

Path	Standardized coefficient	Indirect effect	95% C.I.
Direct effects
Victimization → fatalism	0.21 (0.04) **
Fatalism → defender behavior	−0.07 (0.02) **
Fatalism → outsider behavior	0.29 (0.02) **
Indirect effects
Victimization → fatalism → defender behavior		−0.01 (0.01)**	[−0.03, −0.01]
Victimization → fatalism → outsider behavior		0.06 (0.01)**	[0.03, 0.08]

Variable	Defender	Outsider
Step1:			0.01^**			0.11^**
Fatalism	−0.08^**	−0.23^**		0.29^**	0.34^**
Parental support	0.05^**	−0.09^**		0.01	0.07^*
Step 2:			0.02^**			0.11^**
Fatalism × Parental support		0.05^**			−0.02⁺

Footnotes

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan (grant number NSC 98-2511-S-424 -002 -MY2).

Author biographies

Yiqiong Li, Lecturer at University of Queensland Business School, has a research focus on human resource management practices and employee health and safety. She has shown an early career record of high quality research and has published in the areas of workplace bullying, safety, leadership, and employee wellbeing.

Peter Chen is the Department Head and Professor of Psychology, Auburn University, an incoming Editor of Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, an Associate Editor for Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, and a Fellow of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The overarching theme of his research programs is to understand process of change at individual, organizational, community, and industry levels, and to develop ways to facilitate changes, with the goal of building a healthy workplace and society.

Fu-Li Chen, Professor of the Department of Public Health at the Fu-Jen Catholic University in Taiwan. She has completed many studies about anti-smoking and cigarette cessation program for elementary school students. She is also leading two projects which are Taiwan elementary and high school students and faculty health behaviors survey, and health promotion school accreditation program sponsored by the Taiwan Health Promotion Administration from 2012 to 2015. She has shown a high quality research and has published in the areas of adolescent health, schoolchildren and adolescent risk behaviours prevention.

Wen-Chi Wu is an assistant professor of the School of Healthcare Management at the Kainan University in Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. from Institute of Health Policy and Management at National Taiwan University (NTU) in 2005. Then, she accomplished her post-doctoral training at the National Health Research Institute in 2007. After then, she worked as a project assistant professor at the School of Public Health in NTU. Her research interests center on the health risk behavior of children and adolescents. She directed some projects sponsored by National Science Council and Health Promotion Administration. She currently investigates the intervention strategies for school bullying prevention.

References

Allen

J. P.

Moore

Kuperminc

Bell

(1998) Attachment and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development 69: 1406–1419. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06220.x.

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York, NY: Freeman.

Bean

R. A.

Bush

K. R.

Mckenry

P. C.

Wilson

S. M.

(2003) The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research 18: 523–541. doi: 10.1177/0743558403255070.

Bender

Lösel

(2011) Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence and other anti-social behavior in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 21: 99–106. doi: 10.1002/cbm.799.

Carter

McGee

Taylor

Williams

(2007) Health outcomes in adolescence: Associations with family, friends and school engagement. Journal of Adolescence 30: 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.04.002.

Cassidy

(2009) Bullying and victimisation in school children: The role of social identity, problem-solving style, and family and school context. Social Psychology of Education 12: 63–76. doi: 10.1007/s11218-008-9066-y.

Cheng

Y. Y.

Chen

L. M.

H. C.

Cheng

C. L.

(2011) Definitions of school bullying in Taiwan: A comparison of multiple perspectives. School Psychology International 32(3): 227–243. doi: 10.1177/0143034311404130.

Choi

Cho

Y. I.

(2013) Influence of psychological and social factors on bystanders’ roles in school bullying among Korean-American students in the United States. School Psychology International 34(1): 67–81. doi: 10.1177/0143034311430406.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

D. J.

(1998) Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 13: 41–59. doi: 10.1177/082957359801300205.

10.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

Atlas

(2000) Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International 21: 22–36. doi: 10.1177/0143034300211002.

11.

Cross

Epstein

Hearn

Slee

Shaw

Monks

(2011) National SafeSchools Framework: Policy and practice to reduce bullying in Australian schools. International Journal of Behavioral Development 35: 398–404. doi: 10.1177/0165025411407456.

12.

Cummings-Robeau

T. L.

Lopez

F. G.

Rice

K. G.

(2009) Attachment-related predictors of college students’ problems with interpersonal sensitivity and aggression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 28: 364–391. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2009.28.3.364.

13.

Delfabbro

Winefield

Trainor

Maureen

Anderson

Metzer

Hammarstrom

(2006) Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 71–90. doi: 10.1348/000709904X24645.

14.

Due

Merlo

Harel-Fisch

Damsgaard

M. T.

Soc

M. S.

Holstein

B. E.

(2009) Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public Health 99: 907–914. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.139303.

15.

Emmanuelle

(2009) Inter-relationships among attachment to mother and father, self-esteem, and career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior 75: 91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.007.

16.

Hamid

P. N.

Yue

X. D.

Leung

C. M.

(2003) Adolescent coping in different Chinese family environments. Adolescence 38: 111–130. doi: 12803457.

17.

Heiniger

L. E.

Sherman

K. A.

Shaw

L. K. E.

Costa

(2013) Fatalism and health promoting behaviors in Chinese and Korean immigrants and caucasians. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health.1–7. doi: 10.1007/s10903-013-9922-5.

18.

Henry

K. L.

Lovegrove

P. J.

Steger

M. F.

Chen

P. Y.

Cigularov

K. P.

Tomazic

R. G.

(2014) The potential role of meaning in life in the relationship between bullying victimization and suicidal ideation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43: 221–232. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9960-2.

19.

Johnson

Howard

(2008) Causal chain effects and turning points in young people’s lives: A resilience perspective. The Journal of Student Wellbeing 1: 1–15.

20.

Kouabenan

D. R.

(2009) Role of beliefs in accident and risk analysis and prevention. Safety Science 47: 767–776. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2008.01.010.

21.

Laible

(2007) Attachment with parents and peers in late adolescence: Links with emotional competence and social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 43: 1185–1197. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.010.

22.

McCrae

R. R.

(1984) Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 919–928. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.919.

23.

McGee

Z. T.

(2000) Patterns of violent behavior and victimization among African American youth. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 30: 47–64. doi:10.1300/J076v30n01_03.

24.

Mounts

N. S.

Valentiner

D. P.

Anderson

K. L.

Boswell

M. K.

(2006) Shyness, sociability, and parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 35: 68–77. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-9002-9.

25.

Nielsen

M. B.

Matthiesen

S. B.

Einarsen

(2008) Sense of coherence as a protective mechanism among targets of workplace bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 13: 128–136. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.128.

26.

Hazler

R. J.

(2009) Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying. School Psychology International 30: 291–310. doi: 10.1177/0143034309106499.

27.

Olweus

(1993) Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do, Oxford: Blackwell.

28.

O’Neill, B., & Dinh, T. (2013) Cyberbullying among 9–16 year olds in Ireland. Digital childhoods working paper series (No.5). Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

29.

Parker

J. S.

Benson

M. J.

(2004) Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: Self-esteem, substance abuse and delinquency. Adolescence 39: 519–530.

30.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

31.

Pozzoli

Gini

(2010) Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 38: 815–827. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9.

32.

Priscilla

K. C.

(2003) Perceptions of parent-child attachment, social self-efficacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development 12: 351.doi: 10.1002/icd.316.

33.

Reid

Ware

E. E.

(1974) Multidimensionality of internal versus external control: Addition of a third dimension and non-distinction of self versus others. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 6: 131–142. doi: 10.1037/h0081862.

34.

Rigby

Johnson

(2006) Expressed readiness of Australian schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educational Psychology 26: 425–440. doi: 10.1080/01443410500342047.

35.

Romans

S. E.

Martin

Mullen

(1996) Women’s self-esteem: A community study of women who report and do not report childhood sexual abuse. British Journal of Psychiatry 169: 696–704. doi: 10.1192/bjp.169.6.696.

36.

Salmivalli

(2001) Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: Who considered it useful, who benefited? Educational Research 43: 263–278. doi: 10.1080/00131880110081035.

37.

Salmivalli

Lagerspetz

Björkqvist

Österman

Kaukialnen

(1996) Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior 22: 1–15. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337.

38.

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2004) Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development 28: 246–258. doi: 10.1080/01650250344000488.

39.

Schneider

B. H.

Atkinson

Tardif

(2001) Child-parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology 37: 86–100. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.86.

40.

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software].

41.

Slaby

R. G.

(2005) Knowing the facts: The role of the bystander in preventing bullying. Health in Action 3: 6.

42.

Smith

Trompenaars

Dugan

(1995) The Rotter Locus of Control Scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural realitivity. International Journal Of Psychology 30: 377–400. doi: 10.1080/00207599508246576.

43.

Spector

P. E.

(2006) Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods 9: 221–232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955.

44.

Shen

A. C. T.

(2009) Long-term effects of interparental violence and child physical maltreatment experiences on PTSD and behavior problems: A national survey of Taiwanese college students. Child Abuse and Neglect 33: 148–160. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.006.

45.

Tani

Greenman

P. S.

Schneider

B. H.

Fregoso

(2003) Bullying and the big five: A study of childhood personality and participant roles in bullying incidents. School Psychology International 24: 131–146. doi: 10.1177/0143034303024002001.

46.

Twenge

Zhang

(2004) It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8: 308–319. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5.

47.

Tzelgov

Henik

(1991) Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin 109: 524–536. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.109.3.524.

48.

van Aken

M. A.

Riksen-Walraven

J. M.

(1992) Parental support and the development of competence in children. International Journal of Behavioral Development 15: 101–123. doi: 10.1177/016502549201500106.

49.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009) School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. The Journal of Adolescent Health 45: 368–375. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.

50.

Wills

T. A.

Cleary

S. D.

(1996) How are social support effects mediated? A test with parental support and adolescent substance use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 937–952. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.937.

51.

W. C.

Kao

C. H.

Yen

L. L.

Lee

T. S. H.

(2007) Comparison of children’s self-reports of depressive symptoms among different family interaction types in northern Taiwan. BMC Public Health 7: 1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-116.