The Role of Gender,Values,and Culture in Adolescent Bystanders’ Strategies

Abstract

We examined the relationship between adolescent bystanders’ strategies for intervening in the bullying-like situation and their gender, values, and cultural origin. The sample consisted of 682 Estonian and Russian-Estonian adolescents (M_age = 13.02 years). They were shown a video of a bullying-like situation with a non-intervening adult bystander and asked to describe what they would do if they, instead of the adult, witnessed that situation. Only 10% said that they would not intervene. Girls were more likely than boys to suggest multiple actions. Adolescents who valued conformity were less likely to propose using physical aggression. Doing nothing was less likely suggested by those who placed more importance on conformity and less on power. Estonian adolescents were more likely than their Russian-Estonian peers to suggest finding out what is going on, and less likely to say that they would do nothing. The findings suggest that although most adolescents express willingness to help the victim, they might not actually know how to intervene.

Keywords

bullying bystander adolescents values culture

The present study focuses on adolescent bystanders’ strategies for intervening in the bullying-like situation. Studies show that bullying does often occur in the presence of other people (e.g., Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001), and peer onlookers have a significant impact on bullies’ behavior (Jeffrey, Miller, & Linn, 2001; O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999). It is thus important to examine the correlates of bystanders’ intentions and actions as well. We are interested in the role of adolescents’ gender, values, and cultural origin (Estonians vs. Russian Estonians) in their strategies as bystanders.

Children’s and adolescents’ tendencies to engage in prosocial behavior are context-specific (de Guzman, Carlo, & Edwards, 2008; Rutten et al., 2008). Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, and Randall (2003), for instance, found that adolescents’ helping behavior is associated with their need for approval of others in situations where there is an audience. Standing up for others and engaging in peacemaking are also considered as prosocial behaviors (Bergin, Talley, & Hamer, 2003). In the present study, we show adolescents a video of two boys throwing around a younger boy’s schoolbag in the schoolyard and an adult female bystander who does not intervene. We ask adolescents to describe how they would behave in such situation. The term “bullying” is not used as it cannot be claimed that these boys repeatedly attack another boy. The situation does, however, bear similarities to bullying (e.g., another person is hurt on purpose and there is an imbalance of power); therefore, the article primarily cites research on bullying.

A novel aspect in the present study is that an adult acts the role of a non-intervening bystander in the video clip. Based on previous studies, this is a fairly common situation: Adults are found to intervene rarely (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Frisén, Holmqvist, & Oscarsson, 2008). Nevertheless, when asked about the ways to stop bullying, adolescents frequently suggested that teachers should intervene (Frisén, Jonsson, & Persson, 2007). No suggestions were made for peer bystanders’ behavior (Frisén et al., 2007). It might thus be that seeing an adult’s inaction makes adolescents think more thoroughly about what they could do in that situation. Seeing peers’ inaction, however, has been found to increase one’s negative perceptions of the victim (Gini, Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008), which, in turn, could lower the willingness to intervene.

In general, most previous studies indicate that children tend to be reluctant to help the victim of the bully (Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Ginsburg & Miller, 1981; Hawkins et al., 2001; Lodge & Frydenberg, 2005), and with increasing age, this becomes more evident (Chaux, 2005; Menesini et al., 1997; O’Connell et al., 1999; Pozzoli & Gini, 2013; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse, & Neale, 2010). Regarding the strategies of those children who do intervene, it has been found that they prefer to use rather prosocial than aggressive strategies (Craig & Pepler, 1995; Hawkins et al., 2001), to target the bully (Hawkins et al., 2001; Rock & Baird, 2012) and to rather intervene themselves than seek help from adults (Kanetsuna, Smith, & Morita, 2006; Wong, Lok, Lo, & Ma, 2008).

Based on previous research, gender differences are expected in adolescents’ responses to what they would do as a third party in a conflict situation. Some studies show that boys are more likely to intervene than girls (Chaux, 2005; Lodge & Frydenberg, 2005), especially when the victim or the bully is a boy (Hawkins et al., 2001). Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, and Kaukiainen (1996), however, reported that boys were more likely to assume the roles of assistants or reinforcers of the bully, whereas girls were more frequently in the roles of defenders of the victim or outsiders. This is supported by recent findings, which suggest that girls engage in defending behavior more frequently than boys who are more likely than girls to be passive bystanders (Pozzoli & Gini, 2013). Trach et al. (2010) suggest that there are additional differences in the way boys and girls intervene. For instance, girls were more likely than boys to tell the bully to stop and to help the victim, while boys got their friends to get back at the bully more frequently than girls. Boys and girls were equally likely to walk away and to ignore or distract the bully.

Compared with examining the effect of gender, considerably fewer studies have investigated the association between bystanders’ strategies and the values they hold. The results of previous studies do, however, suggest that we need to take into account various factors when examining bystanders’ strategies. For instance, Gini et al. (2008) found that empathy was positively related to both active defending and passive bystanding. Thus, as the authors noted, the role of other factors needs to be considered too. The present study focuses on five basic values, which, according to Schwartz (2010), are especially relevant to prosocial behavior: benevolence, universalism, conformity, power, and security. The first three values should, in the context of bullying, promote bystanders’ helping behavior. Those who value power and security, however, are suggested to be concerned with their own needs and thus less likely to intervene (Schwartz, 2010). Some evidence for the role of values is presented by García, Aluja, and del Barrio (2006) who found that valuing benevolence was related to being considerate toward others (e.g., helping others when they are in trouble).

Differences in value priorities might also lie behind cultural differences in adolescents’ strategies for intervening. We compare the strategies of adolescents from the two main cultural groups in Estonia: Estonians attending Estonian-speaking schools and Russian Estonians attending Russian-speaking schools. A recent study showed that Estonians placed more importance on benevolence and universalism, whereas Russians rated higher tradition, security, conformity, and power (Tulviste, Konstabel, & Tulviste, 2014). Estonian early adolescents considered benevolence and security more important and hedonism less important than their Russian-speaking peers (Tulviste & Tamm, 2014). With respect to parents’ socialization values, Tulviste, Mizera, and De Geer (2012) found no differences between Estonian and Russian mothers. The study conducted by Aavik and Aavik (2012), however, indicated that Estonian parents were more concerned with their children’s acceptance and psychological environment than Russian-Estonian parents. The authors suggest that Estonian parents promote higher independence in their children, while Russian-Estonian parents spend more time with their children than Estonian parents. Thus, differences in the strategies of Estonian and Russian-Estonian adolescents are expected. On the basis of Aavik and Aavik’s (2012) study, for instance, Russian-Estonian adolescents might suggest more socially appropriate strategies than Estonians. However, they might have more difficulties proposing strategies due to lower independence.

Aims and Hypotheses

To sum up, the present study examines the role of gender, values, and cultural origin in adolescent bystanders’ strategies in the bullying-like situation. Due to the conflict occurring between boys and previous studies reporting mixed results, we do not put forward a hypothesis on gender differences in the willingness to intervene. We expect, however, to find that girls suggest more prosocial strategies (i.e., talk to the aggressors) than boys, who propose more aggression as a means of managing the conflict. As already pointed out, valuing benevolence, universalism, and conformity more highly are likely to increase one’s willingness to intervene, whereas valuing security and power to decrease it. Placing more importance on benevolence and universalism is also expected to increase the likelihood of suggesting prosocial strategies. Finally, as no studies could be found that would have compared the strategies of Estonian and Russian-Estonian bystanders, we simply hypothesize that their strategies differ.

Method

Participants

The study is part of a large longitudinal project. The sample in the present study consisted of more than 750 seventh graders. The sample was representative of schools in Estonia: Schools differed with respect to location, type (basic and secondary schools, an elite school and a special needs school that followed the normal school curriculum), size, and class sizes (large classes with more than 30 students and small classes with about 10 students). Due to the data set containing missing data and the need to exclude some cases (described more specifically under the next subheading), the sample size was considerably reduced. The final sample included 682 participants (M_age = 13.02 years, SD = 0.39): 307 boys and 375 girls. Of them, 82% were Estonians.

Materials and Procedure

School principals were contacted to request the participation of their school in the project. The study was then described to seventh-grade class teachers and their agreement for their class participation was obtained. With their help, parental informed consent forms were sent to adolescents’ parents. Adolescents were explained that the participation was voluntary and each of them would be attributed a unique identifier to ensure their anonymity. One hundred sixty-three pupils refused to participate (a decision made by themselves or their parents). Students who agreed to participate completed a series of self-report measures on a computer (measures relevant to the present study are described below). Researchers stayed in the same room and provided help on matters concerning computers.

Bystanders’ strategies

Adolescents watched a video of two boys throwing around a younger boy’s schoolbag in the schoolyard and an adult female bystander talking on the phone nearby and not intervening. As most teachers in Estonia are females, a woman was chosen to play the role of the bystander. Boys have been found to have more conduct problems (Tulviste & Rohner, 2010) and to engage more frequently in physical aggression than girls (Trach et al., 2010). The video clip thus illustrates a typical situation in Estonian schools: boys as aggressors and women as bystanders. After watching the video, adolescents were asked (a) to indicate (by ticking one of the boxes) whether they would behave similarly or differently from the bystander in the video and (b) to describe more specifically what they would do if, instead of the adult bystander, they witnessed the bullying.

The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ)

Adolescents’ values were assessed using Estonian and Russian versions of the PVQ (Schwartz et al., 2001). The PVQ includes 21 verbal portraits that describe a person in terms of what is important to him or her. For example, “He believes that people should do what they are told. He thinks people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching” describes a person for whom conformity values are important. For each portrait, respondents were asked to indicate how similar the person is to themselves on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (very much like me) to 6 (not like me at all). Scores on value domains were calculated according to guidelines provided by Schwartz (2012) for the PVQ:

The coding was reversed so that the higher score indicates higher importance of the value.

Those who had more than five missing answers out of 21, and those who had answered the same way to more than 16 items were excluded from the analysis.

The mean function was used for computing individuals’ scores for each value.

The relative importance of each value was determined and used in subsequent analyses (individual’s mean score on all 21 items was calculated and this was subtracted from previously computed value scores).

The present study addressed only values that have been found to be related to prosocial behavior such as benevolence, universalism, conformity, power, and security (Schwartz, 2010).

Coding

Participants’ responses to how they would behave in such a situation were divided into 11 categories (see Table 1). The selection of categories was based on previous studies (e.g., Salmivalli et al., 1996; Trach et al., 2010) and on an initial analysis of the data. More specifically, the categories such as telling someone, talking to the aggressors, being physically aggressive, and doing nothing were developed on the basis of previous studies. The categories such as going and helping, finding out what is going on, multiple actions, other, depends, inadequate, and no answer emerged from an initial coding process.

Table 1.

Bystanders’ Strategies in the Conflict Situation.

What Would You Do in Such Situation?	Description and Examples
1. Tell someone	Suggests telling someone about the bullying and asking someone to help stop bullying.
1. Tell someone	For example, “I’d run to the nearest teacher and ask for her help.”
2. Go and help	Suggests going and helping, but does not specify how (s)he would do it.
2. Go and help	For example, “I’d go and intervene.”
3. Find out what is going on	Suggests (s)he would first find out whether the boys are just playing or engaged in bullying.
3. Find out what is going on	For example, “I’d find out what this is about.”
4. Talk to aggressors	Suggests talking to the aggressors and telling them to stop bullying.
4. Talk to aggressors	For example, “I’d yell at the bullies and tell them to stop and to give a schoolbag back to the boy, and apologize.”
5. Physically aggressive	Suggests being physically aggressive toward the bullies.For example, “I’d kick the two boys’ butt.”
6. Multiple actions	Suggests two or more different ways for intervening.
6. Multiple actions	For example, “I’d end the phone call and go and help the boy to get back his schoolbag. I’d inform the parents as well. I’d also warn them that if I saw them behaving like this one more time, I’d call the police.”
7. Do nothing	Says (s)he would not intervene.
7. Do nothing	For example, “I wouldn’t think it was necessary to tell anyone about this.”
8. Other action to help the victim	Suggests a strategy that was not mentioned frequently enough to form a separate category.
8. Other action to help the victim	For example, “I’d go over there and take the schoolbag and give it back to the victim.”
9. Depends	Says that his or her strategy depends on some additional situational factors (e.g., the age of the aggressors).
9. Depends	For example, “Depends, if those boys were like 17, then I wouldn’t have intervened. But if they were my age, then I definitely would have gone and told them to stop.”
10. Inadequate answer	It is not clear enough what the respondent would do.
10. Inadequate answer	For example, “I would have behaved a little bit differently.”
11. No answer	No answer was given to the open-ended question.

Reliability of analysis

Twenty percent (more than 130 responses) of the material was double coded for reliability by a second coder. The inter-rater reliability was fairly high: Cohen’s kappa was .80.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed in SPSS 20.0. First, descriptive analyses were conducted for adolescents’ strategies and values after which gender and cultural differences in youth’s values and their willingness to intervene were tested by dispersion analyses. A multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to examine the role of gender, values, and cultural origin in adolescents’ responses to what they would do in the bullying-like situation. A multinomial logistic regression was preferred because it enables us to use a categorical dependent variable.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA

Bystanders’ strategies

It is observed that 10.8% would behave just like the bystander in the video (would not intervene) and 89.2% differently from the person in the video. No significant differences occurred between boys and girls. Estonian adolescents (M = 1.90, SD = 0.29), however, reported higher willingness than their Russian-Estonian peers (M = 1.83, SD = 0.33) to behave differently from the person in the video, Welch F(1, 180.96) = 5.57, p = .019, η² = .01. The two most frequently proposed actions were go and help (37.4%) and talk to the aggressors (18.8%); 9.9% said they would do nothing (see Table 2).

Table 2.

The Frequency of Bystanders’ Strategies.

	Frequency %
Bystanders’ Strategies	Boys	Girls	Estonians	Russians	Total
Tell someone	1.5	2.3	1.9	2.6	2.4
Go and help	37.0	33.2	36.1	30.9	37.4
Find out what is going on	5.9	9.8	9.6	2.0	7.8
Talk to aggressors	17.0	20.5	20.6	12.5	18.8
Physically aggressive	2.5	0.8	1.7	1.3	1.7
Multiple actions	2.5	7.5	5.1	4.6	5.8
Do nothing	11.1	9.1	8.6	14.5	9.9
Other	4.9	5.2	5.2	3.3	5.0
Depends	1.9	1.3	1.7	1.3	1.5
Inadequate answer	3.4	3.4	2.9	4.6	2.2
No answer	13.0	7.0	6.7	22.4	7.6

Values

Significant differences in adolescents’ values emerged according to their gender and culture (see Table 3). Boys placed significantly more importance on power, F(1, 758) = 31.02, p < .001, η² = 0.05 and conformity, F(1, 754) = 11.59, p = .001, η² = 0.02. Girls considered benevolence more important than boys, F(1, 732) = 54.11, p < .001, η² = .07. Estonians valued power, F(1, 766) = 7.26, p = .007, η² = .01, and security, F(1, 764) = 21.28, p < .001, η² = .03, higher than Russian Estonians.

Table 3.

Adolescents’ Values by Gender and Culture.

	Boys	Girls		Estonians	Russians
	M (SD)	M (SD)	p	M (SD)	M (SD)	p
Values
Power	−0.68 (0.90)	−1.10 (0.89)	***	−0.94 (0.88)	−0.72 (1.01)	**
Universalism	0.14 (0.70)	0.21 (0.66)		0.19 (0.65)	0.15 (0.76)
Security	−0.18 (0.85)	−0.30 (0.85)		−0.17 (0.82)	−0.52 (0.92)	***
Conformity	−0.56 (0.86)	−0.78 (0.87)	**	−0.67 (0.85)	−0.70 (0.97)
Benevolence	0.35 (0.68)	0.72 (0.68)	***	0.57 (0.70)	0.45 (0.73)

Note. Value scores are centered around individual’s mean score on all 21 items.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Multinomial Logistic Regression

The hypotheses were tested using a multinomial logistic regression analysis. The results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

The Role of Gender, Values, and Culture in Bystanders’ Strategies.

What Would You Do (Ref. Go and Help)	B	SE	Odds Ratio
Find out what is going on
Estonians (ref. Russians)	2.41*	1.03	11.08
Physically aggressive
Conformity values	−1.11**	0.37	0.33
Multiple actions
Girls (ref. boys)	1.06*	0.44	2.89
Do nothing
Power values	0.49*	0.19	1.63
Conformity values	−0.39*	0.17	0.68
Estonians (ref. Russians)	−0.78	0.32	0.46
Other action to help
Power values	−0.59*	0.28	0.55
Inadequate
Benevolence values	−0.78*	0.35	0.46
No answer
Power values	0.46*	0.20	1.58
Estonians (ref. Russians)	−1.24***	0.33	0.29

Note. Pearson’s χ² = 6504.75; df = 6,670; p = ns.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Gender

Compared with boys, girls were 2.89 times more likely to suggest multiple actions than proposing the strategy of going and helping the victim.

Values

Compared with the strategy of going and helping, the odds of claiming to use physical aggression were 3.03 times lower for a one-unit increase in valuing conformity. The odds of proposing to do nothing increased 1.63 for a one-unit increase in power values and decreased 1.47 for a one-unit increase in conformity values. For a one-unit increase in valuing benevolence, the odds of giving an inadequate answer decreased 2.17 times. The odds of giving no answer increased 1.58 times and the odds of suggesting some other strategy decreased 1.82 times for a one-unit increase in valuing power.

Culture

Compared with the strategy of going and helping, the odds of preferring to find out what is going on were 11.08 times higher for Estonians rather than for Russian Estonians. Estonian adolescents were also 3.45 times less likely than Russian Estonians not to give an answer.

Discussion

The study examined the role of adolescents’ gender, values, and culture on their strategies as bystanders in the situation, where two boys are throwing around a younger boy’s schoolbag. The results showed that adolescents’ strategies were related to their value priorities and culture, whereas gender had little effect.

First of all, the situation shown in the video clip tended to be interpreted as bullying (e.g., “I’d intervene and tell the boys to stop bullying the other boy,” “If I’d saw someone being bullied, I’d intervene and chase the bullies away,” “I’d go over there and tell the boys what I think of bullying”). Moreover, adolescents did imagine witnessing the bullying instead of the adult who was shown in the video—they imagined standing in the same spot and talking on the phone as well (“I’d hang up the phone and tell the boys to stop.”). Regarding adolescents’ intentions to intervene on behalf of the victim, only 10% of youngsters reported that they would behave similarly to the bystander in the video and not intervene. As also noted by Lodge and Frydenberg (2005), many reasoned their decision of not intervening with a fear of becoming the next victim (“I would just be afraid that they’d do the same with me”; “Again, I wouldn’t dare to intervene, otherwise I might be the next victim.”). These responses show that our participants did not imagine being grown-ups, but described the way they (as 13-year-olds) would behave.

Nearly 90% reported that they would behave differently from the woman in the video; it can be assumed that they would thus do something to help the victim. This is in accordance with previous studies that have found that the majority of children express willingness to help the victim, but few of them do so in real life (O’Connell et al., 1999). The percentage of children saying that they would intervene has not, however, been that high in previous studies. It is likely that adolescents expressed greater willingness to help the victim because they were disturbed by the bystander’s inaction in the video clip (e.g., “I wouldn’t be that stupid! I’d go over there and yell at them.”). Considering their strategies, many participants simply said that they would go and help. Although this response shows that a person is willing to help, it also implies that he or she does not actually have a specific plan for it. Therefore, in real life, these adolescents might not intervene due to not knowing how. Lack of knowledge regarding what to do has in fact been identified as another reason for bystanders’ inaction (Lodge & Frydenberg, 2005). Nevertheless, similarly to previous studies (e.g., Kanetsuna et al., 2006; Rock & Baird, 2012), participants in the current study preferred to target the aggressors and to intervene themselves than to seek help from others.

As frequently found (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005), girls placed more importance on benevolence and boys on power. In addition, boys valued conformity more than girls. Nevertheless, regarding their strategies for intervening in others’ conflict, our hypothesis that girls suggest more prosocial and boys more aggressive strategies was not supported. Only one significant gender difference emerged. Namely, girls were more likely than boys to propose multiple strategies for intervening (a girl’s response: “I’d at least go and try to forbid them to bully him, and tell them to give back his schoolbag. Or I’d go to the schoolhouse and tell the principal about the bullying.”). On the one hand, this shows that girls are better able to propose alternative solutions to conflict situations and they are better prepared for the situation where their first strategy is ineffective. On the other hand, it might be that girls suggested more strategies because they lack experience with conflicts among boys and do not know which the best ways for managing them are. As studies have shown, boys are almost exclusively third parties in boys’ conflicts and girls in conflicts among other girls (Chaux, 2005). As a consequence, adolescents might show higher self-efficacy in managing conflicts between their same-sex peers.

More associations were found between adolescents’ values and their strategies for intervening. The hypothesis that valuing benevolence, universalism, and conformity more highly would increase the likelihood of intervening, whereas valuing power and security decrease it was partially supported. It was found that adolescents who valued conformity were less likely to propose physical aggression as a means of managing the conflict. Those placing more importance on conformity were less likely to say that they would do nothing, whereas those valuing power were more likely to give that answer. The results thus suggest that those being sensitive to social norms and trying to avoid negative outcomes for self are more willing to help others and use prosocial strategies in doing that. Those being concerned for their own social status and prestige, however, are less likely to intervene. One explanation is that they are more afraid that this would change their reputation among peers. No associations were found between benevolence and universalism values and adolescents’ strategies. This is surprising because one might expect that individuals who are more concerned for the welfare of others would also be more likely to engage in prosocial behavior (García et al., 2006). Nevertheless, valuing benevolence did decrease the odds of giving an inadequate answer, whereas valuing power increased the odds of not giving an answer.

Finally, our results showed that Estonian adolescents were more likely than their Russian-Estonian peers to claim that they would first find out what is going on. This is in accordance with another finding of the present study that Estonians valued security more than Russian Estonians. Being motivated to maintain a protective environment, Estonian adolescents seem to be more cautious and not willing to intervene without being sure what is going on (e.g., “I’d walk towards them whilst talking on the phone to find out whether they’re playing or bullying.”). At the same time, however, Estonian adolescents were less likely than Russian Estonians to say that they would do nothing. It might be that they interpreted the situation differently from Russian Estonians and considered the incident more serious. Estonians were also less likely than Russian Estonians not to give an answer. This partially supports the conclusions made on the basis of Aavik and Aavik’s (2012) study that children from Russian schools might rely more on their parents and find it more difficult to suggest strategies. One of the answers given by a Russian-Estonian student illustrates this well: “I would shout at them and tell them to stop. If that didn’t work, I would shoot this on my mobile phone, show it to my mother and ask her what I should do.” More research is needed to confirm this.

Limitations

The results should be considered in the context of the study’s limitations. First, only one type of conflict was included. It has been shown that bystanders’ strategies depend on the type of situation. For instance, children are more likely to intervene in case of relational aggression, but ask for adults’ help in case of physical aggression (Rock & Baird, 2012). Adolescents’ responses in the present study are thus primarily indicative of their behavioral intentions in that particular conflict situation (i.e., two boys are throwing around another boy’s schoolbag). Second, more valuable information would have been gained by dividing participants into groups and showing them different videos (one with a bystander who does not intervene, another where the bystander intervenes, and a third without a bystander in it). This would have enabled us to study the effect of the adult bystander on adolescents’ responses. Third, although our method was more realistic than pencil-and-paper instruments, not all adolescents’ responses might be indicative of their actual behavior in bullying situations.

Conclusion and Implications

In general, most adolescents in the present study expressed willingness to intervene, but simply claimed that they would go and help. As previously mentioned, this answer might indicate that they actually do not know how to intervene. A discussion of different ways of intervening would thus be a good starting point for improving bystanders’ behavior during bullying situations.

Regarding more specific findings of the study, it seems that girls are better able to suggest several ways for intervening than boys. At the same time, however, previous studies have shown that girls are less likely to intervene (Chaux, 2005). It is thus suggested that intervention and prevention programs target both boys and girls. Boys may benefit primarily from discussions of different ways of intervening, whereas girls from practicing intervening through, for instance, role plays.

The present study also found associations between adolescent bystanders’ strategies and their values and cultural origin. We suggest that schools promote the values that are related to prosocial behavior and make these more explicit among both students and staff. Furthermore, teachers and other staff must be encouraged to intervene in bullying. As Frisén et al. (2008) discuss, adults’ inaction sends children a message that bullying is acceptable and telling adults about it has no effect.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Aaro Toomela, Mari Nõmm, and Grete Arro for developing the video.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was supported by the grants from Ministry of Education and Research (Grant S10012), European Social Fund Program Eduko (via Archimedes Foundation, Grant 30.2-4/549), and Estonian Science Foundation (Grant No. 9033).

Author Biographies

Anni Tamm is a research assistant and a PhD student at the University of Tartu, Estonia. Her research interests lie mainly in children’s and adolescents’ peer and home relations.

Tiia Tulviste is a professor of developmental psychology at the University of Tartu, Estonia. She holds PhD degrees in psychology both from the University of Moscow, Russia, 1985 and Stockholm University, Sweden, 2002. Presently, her main research interest is family socialization in comparative perspective.

References

Aavik

(2012). Personal values and self-reported child-rearing activities of Estonian and Russian parents in Estonia. Trames: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 16, 63-76.

Atlas

R. S.

Pepler

D. J.

(1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-99.

Bergin

Talley

Hamer

(2003). Prosocial behaviors of young adolescents: A focus group study. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 13-32.

Carlo

Hausmann

Christiansen

Randall

B. A.

(2003). Sociocognitive and behavioural correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107-134.

Chaux

(2005). Role of third parties in conflicts among Colombian children and early adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 40-55.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

(1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization: A naturalistic study. Exceptionality Education in Canada, 4, 81-95.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

Atlas

(2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 22-36.

de Guzman

M. R. T.

Carlo

Edwards

C. P.

(2008). Prosocial behaviors in context: Examining the role of children’s social companions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 522-530.

Frisén

Holmqvist

Oscarsson

(2008). 13-year-olds’ perception of bullying: Definitions, reasons for victimisation and experience of adults’ response. Educational Studies, 34, 105-117.

10.

Frisén

Jonsson

A. K.

Persson

(2007). Adolescents’ perception of bullying: Who is the victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying? Adolescence, 42, 749-761.

11.

García

L. F.

Aluja

del Barrio

(2006). Effects of personality, rearing styles and social values on adolescents’ socialisation process. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1671-1682.

12.

Gini

Pozzoli

Borghi

Franzoni

(2008). The role of bystanders in students’ perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 617-638.

13.

Ginsburg

H. J.

Miller

S. M.

(1981). Altruism in children: A naturalistic study of reciprocation and an examination of the relationship between social dominance and aid-giving behavior. Ethology and Sociobiology, 2, 75-83.

14.

Hawkins

D. L.

Pepler

D. J.

Craig

W. M.

(2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.

15.

Jeffrey

L. R.

Miller

Linn

(2001). Middle school bullying as a context for the development of passive observers to the victimization of others. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 143-156.

16.

Kanetsuna

Smith

P. K.

Morita

(2006). Coping with bullying at school: Children’s recommended strategies and attitudes to school-based interventions in England and Japan. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 570-580.

17.

Lodge

Frydenberg

(2005). The role of peer bystanders in school bullying: Positive steps toward promoting peaceful schools. Theory Into Practice, 44, 329-336.

18.

Menesini

Eslea

Smith

P. K.

Genta

M. L.

Giannetti

Fonzi

Costabile

(1997). Cross-national comparison of children’s attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 245-257.

19.

O’Connell

Pepler

Craig

(1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.

20.

Pozzoli

Gini

(2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A multidimensional model. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 315-340.

21.

Rock

P. F.

Baird

J. A.

(2012). Telling the teacher or tell the bully off: Children’s strategy production for bystanders to bullying. Social Development, 21, 414-424.

22.

Rutten

E. A.

Deković

Stams

G. J. J. M.

Schuengel

Hoeksma

J. B.

Biesta

G. J. J.

(2008). On- and off-field antisocial and prosocial behavior in adolescent soccer players: A multilevel study. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 371-387.

23.

Salmivalli

Lagerspetz

Björkqvist

Österman

Kaukiainen

(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.

24.

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviours associated with bullying in schools. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246-258.

25.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In Mikulincer

Shaver

(Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 221-241). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

26.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2012). Human values. Retrieved from http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/1/

27.

Schwartz

S. H.

Melech

Lehmann

Burgess

Harris

Owens

(2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542.

28.

Schwartz

S. H.

Rubel

(2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multi-method studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010-1028.

29.

Trach

Hymel

Waterhouse

Neale

(2010). Bystander responses to school bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 114-130.

30.

Tulviste

Konstabel

Tulviste

(2014). Stability and change in value consensus of ethnic Estonians and Russian-speaking minority. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 93-102. .

31.

Tulviste

Mizera

De Geer

(2012). Socialization values in stable and changing societies: A comparative study of Estonian, Swedish, and Russian Estonian mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 480-497.

32.

Tulviste

Rohner

R. P.

(2010). Relationships between perceived teachers’ and parental behavior, and adolescent outcomes in Estonia. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 222-238.

33.

Tulviste

Tamm

(2014). Value priorities of early adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 525-529.

34.

Wong

D. S. W.

Lok

D. P. P.

T. W.

S. K.

(2008). School bullying among Hong Kong Chinese primary schoolchildren. Youth Society, 40, 35-54.