Effects of a Growth Mindset of Personality on Emerging Adults’ Defender Self-Efficacy,Moral Disengagement,and Perceived Peer Defending

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of a brief educational exercise aimed to promote a growth mindset of personality (the belief that personality traits are malleable) on outcomes linked to peer defending. Undergraduates (N = 60) were randomly assigned to complete a learning task designed to foster a growth mindset of personality or to a matching control task. They then read a vignette of a college student victimized by peers and completed paper-and-pencil measures of defender self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and perceived defender behavior, followed by a brief manipulation check. The experimental manipulation was successful, and participants who completed the growth mindset of personality intervention reported higher defender self-efficacy, lower moral disengagement, and higher perceived defending behavior. There was also a significant indirect effect of the experimental manipulation on perceived defending via self-efficacy, suggesting that a growth mindset of personality may influence peer defending through gains in defender self-efficacy. Implications are discussed for bullying prevention, with emphasis on programming for emerging adults at college.

Keywords

bullying community violence mental health and violence

While peer victimization often declines in frequency throughout childhood and adolescence (Rudolph, Troop-Gordon, Hessel, & Schmidt, 2011; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005), many young adults continue to suffer mistreatment by peers (Chapell et al., 2004). Peer victimization refers to the experience of aggression enacted by one or more peers; it takes multiple forms (e.g., physical, verbal, and relational) and is associated with various psychosocial difficulties in childhood and adolescence, including anxiety, depression, peer rejection, loneliness, academic difficulties, and somatic complaints (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Kumpulainen, 2008; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010). Moreover, childhood experiences of peer victimization predict future challenges in adulthood (Wolke, Copeland, Angold, & Costello, 2013). Nonetheless, relatively few studies have examined peer victimization and its effects in late adolescence and early adulthood.

Emerging Adults and Peer Victimization

The developmental period spanning 18 to 25 years of age is sometimes referred to as “emerging adulthood.” Per Arnett (2000), this period is a transitional phase that primarily occurs in Western nations; it is characterized by self-focus, identity exploration, and instability, including frequent changes in residence, relationships, education, occupations, and worldviews. Emerging adults’ relations with peers are thought to be critical to their well-being as they experience increased autonomy, negotiate new demands (e.g., relocation, peer cohabitation, postsecondary education, and intimate relationships), and support one another in managing these challenges (Dahlen, Czar, Prather, & Dyess, 2013; Storch, Bagner, Geffken, & Baumeister, 2004). Consequently, the experience of peer victimization during this period is proposed to not only contribute to psychosocial difficulties, but also exacerbate existing mental health symptoms linked to past instances of mistreatment by peers (Burt & Masten, 2009).

Researchers have only recently begun to examine peer victimization among emerging adults, and they have found that it is a relatively common experience. Chapell and colleagues (2004) surveyed 1,025 undergraduates about their bullying experiences during college. Approximately 24% of students reported being bullied by peers, with nearly 19% bullied “once or twice,” 5% bullied “occasionally,” and 1% bullied “very frequently.” Notably, the experience of “bullying” refers to a subset of peer victimization that occurs repeatedly and in the context of a power differential between perpetrators and targets (Olweus, 1993). Thus, all bullying is peer victimization, but not all peer victimization qualifies as bullying. Since Chapell and colleagues’ (2004) study focused specifically on bullying, it is probable that an even higher percentage of emerging adults experience peer victimization in their college years.

In terms of specific types of peer victimization, physical victimization appears relatively rare in emerging adulthood; however, relational victimization seems to persist or even intensify. Relational aggression refers to peers’ intentional efforts to damage others’ social reputations or relationships (Werner & Crick, 1999). In a prospective study, Leadbeater, Thompson, and Sukhawathanakul (2014) followed 662 adolescents into young adulthood and assessed their physical and relational victimization across five time points. While physical victimization was consistently infrequent over time, relational victimization was consistently high in frequency and even increased for young men after high school. Other studies indicate that cyber-victimization is also common among emerging adults, with roughly 9% to 11% of college students reporting having experienced peer victimization enacted through electronic communication (Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham, & Rich, 2012; Walker, Sockman, & Koehn, 2011).

As in childhood and adolescence, peer victimization is also associated with reduced psychosocial functioning in adulthood. In Leadbeater and colleagues’ (2014) longitudinal study, physical and relational victimization were both consistently associated with concurrent anxiety and depressive symptoms during the transition from late adolescence to adulthood. Studies have also linked college students’ relational peer victimization to anxiety, loneliness, depression, and stress (Dahlen et al., 2013), along with their cyberbullying experiences to depression (Tennant, Demaray, Coyle, & Malecki, 2015). Accordingly, certain types of peer victimization appear prevalent among emerging adults and likely deleterious to their well-being. Therefore, reducing peer victimization could diminish emerging adults’ risk for psychosocial challenges and optimize their transition to adulthood.

Prevention scientists largely conceptualize bullying and victimization as socioecological phenomena that are more likely to occur when bullying behavior is recurrently joined, reinforced, or ignored by others (e.g., Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). For instance, bullying appears less prevalent among youth in schools where peers are more likely to defend targets of peer victimization (Kärnä, Voeten, Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2010; Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011). Thus, many contemporary bullying prevention programs aim to change school norms for aggression by encouraging and teaching bystanders to respond to peer victimization in ways that defend or support the targets (Olweus & Limber, 2010; Salmivalli & Poskiparta, 2012). Overall, antibullying programs that emphasize the role of peer bystanders (e.g., Olweus Bullying Prevention Program; Olweus & Limber, 2010) appear moderately effective (see Farrington & Ttofi, 2009); however, a vast majority of these programs were developed and evaluated for children, particularly for preadolescents.

In trying to reduce peer victimization among emerging adults, it may also help to encourage bystanders to respond in prosocial ways to peer victimization. Research indicates that many emerging adults witness peers being mistreated. Chapell and colleagues (2004) found that nearly 30% of undergraduates observe peer victimization during college. While it was beyond the scope of this project to design and assess a university-wide bullying prevention program for emerging adults, the authors examined whether it is possible to increase the likelihood of peer defending in a college sample via a brief learning exercise. Specifically, this study evaluated the effects of a novel and promising intervention (i.e., teaching a growth mindset of personality) on several key variables associated with defending victimized peers.

Growth Mindset of Personality and Peer Defending

Per Dweck (2000), a “growth mindset” refers to the implicit theory that individual characteristics, such as intelligence or social attributes, can be changed or cultivated over time. In contrast, a “fixed mindset” assumes that individual characteristics are unchangeable. Individuals vary in the extent to which they endorse growth versus fixed theories for specific characteristics (Dweck, 2000) and can even hold distinct mindsets for different attributes (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). Though these mindsets are rarely made explicit in everyday life, they are theorized to play a major role in shaping how individuals act in response to different events, particularly challenging tasks (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Relative to fixed mindsets, growth mindsets (e.g., for intelligence and personality) tend to be associated with more adaptive correlates and outcomes (see Dweck, 2000; Yeager & Dweck, 2012; Yeager et al., 2014).

Yeager and colleagues recently examined implicit theories of personality and peer victimization. Yeager and Miu (2011) surveyed adolescents on how they would respond to a peer who victimized them. Participants who endorsed a growth mindset of personality were more likely to report that they would respond proactively by confronting the perpetrator and explaining the impact of the aggression. In a similar study, adolescents who endorsed a fixed mindset of personality reported greater desire to harm and less desire to forgive the perpetrator (Yeager, Trzesniewski, Tirri, Nokelainen, & Dweck, 2011). Yeager and colleagues (2011) also examined the effects of teaching adolescents about the plasticity of personality on their responses to peer victimization. High school students read a vignette about a bullied student and imagined themselves as the targeted student. To promote a growth mindset, half of the participants were randomly assigned to read a brief synopsis of research indicating that personality characteristics are malleable. All participants then reported on how they would respond as the victimized character. Students exposed to growth-oriented information on personality were less likely to endorse aggression and vengeful responses.

In another experiment, Yeager, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2013) assessed the effects of a longer intervention designed to help high school students manage challenges with peers. Participants were randomly assigned to a six-session intervention aimed to promote a growth mindset of personality, a six-session intervention designed to teach coping skills, or a no-treatment condition. The mindset intervention included psychoeducation on the plasticity of personality, along with opportunities to practice managing challenges with peers. While this intervention did not teach children to use any particular skills, the coping skill intervention provided instruction and practice in specific strategies. A subset of participants from each condition completed a computerized laboratory task designed to simulate the experience of social exclusion, after which participants were able to respond to their partners. Participants who received the mindset intervention were less likely to respond aggressively and more likely to respond prosocially than those in the coping skill intervention and no-treatment condition.

If teaching a growth mindset of personality can elicit prosocial responses to experienced bullying, it could also promote prosocial responses to witnessed bullying, perhaps in the form of peer defending. For instance, individuals who endorse fixed mindsets of personality may be less likely to view their own and others’ behavior around peer victimization as changeable, and thus, take no action to intervene (or instead reinforce or join in the aggression) when they witness peers being mistreated (Erdley & Dweck, 1993; Gervey, Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1999). In contrast, individuals who recognize that people have the potential to change aspects of their personality may be more willing to defend peers, insofar as they acknowledge their own potential to develop effective defending behavior, as well as the potential for perpetrators and targets of peer victimization to benefit from their intervention.

If the growth mindset of personality is linked to peer defending, it is also important to consider the mechanisms that may explain the association. For instance, the growth mindset of personality could give rise to stronger beliefs about one’s own efficacy as a peer defender. Per Bandura (1997), “self-efficacy” refers to individuals’ belief in their own capacity to act in ways that achieve their desired outcomes. Individuals with greater self-efficacy may be more likely to defend victimized peers insofar as they hold stronger beliefs about their ability to effectively intervene. Recent studies have linked self-efficacy to defender behavior in children and adolescents (Barchia & Bussey, 2010; Pöyhönen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012). For example, Gini, Albiero, Benelli, and Alto (2008) surveyed early adolescents and found that their social self-efficacy (perceived interpersonal effectiveness) positively correlated with their self-reported defending behavior. Accordingly, a growth mindset of personality could influence peer defending indirectly through its impact on self-efficacy; that is, self-efficacy could mediate the potential effect of this mindset on the likelihood of defending victimized peers.

A growth mindset of personality may also minimize the tendency to morally disengage from observed peer victimization. Bandura (2002) defined “moral disengagement” as the progression of extricating oneself from behaving humanely and committing harmful acts toward others. Moral disengagement is theorized to occur through eight related cognitive mechanisms (distortion of consequences, diffusion of responsibility, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, moral justification, euphemistic labeling, dehumanization, and attribution of blame) that justify decisions to act inhumanely, while minimizing moral distress (for a review, see Bandura, et al., 1996). Recently, moral disengagement has been conceptualized as both a stable trait and a contextual process that mediates social behavior in morally challenging situations (Moore, 2015). Accordingly, when individuals witness peer victimization, their responses may be influenced by their general disposition to morally disengage, along with various situational factors that influence their likelihood of morally disengaging.

Several of the cognitive mechanisms outlined by Bandura and colleagues (1996) could lead bystanders to morally disengage from observed peer victimization. Bystanders could construe aggressive behavior as rough-and-tumble play, minimize the impact of the victimization on targets’ well-being, assume that others have greater responsibility to intervene, or even conclude that targets deserve to be mistreated. Moral disengagement may then lead bystanders to ignore, reinforce, or join in the victimization. Research reveals that early adolescents who report higher moral disengagement endorse more negative attitudes toward defending victimized peers (Almedia, Correia, & Marinho, 2010). Moreover, preadolescents who assist and reinforce bullying report higher levels of moral disengagement (Gini, 2006; Pozzoli, Gini, & Vieno, 2012). Individuals with a growth mindset of personality may be less susceptible to the cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement and thus, more likely to respond prosocially to observed victimization. Specifically, they may be more likely to see targets as people, acknowledge the impact of peer victimization, and recognize targets’ potential to learn to defend themselves. Accordingly, moral disengagement could also mediate the effects of a growth mindset of personality on peer defender behavior.

Current Study

This study investigated two main questions. First, can a brief educational intervention aimed to promote a growth mindset of personality influence peer defending in emerging adults? It was hypothesized that participants who complete this intervention will report a higher likelihood of defending victimized peers. Second, if the first hypothesis is satisfied, does a growth mindset of personality influence the perceived likelihood of peer defending via increased defender self-efficacy or decreased moral disengagement? As reasonable arguments can be made for both constructs having indirect effects, the authors tested whether both self-efficacy and moral disengagement mediated the potential effect of the intervention on perceived defending behavior. The proposed relations are depicted as a path model in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Proposed effects of a growth mindset of personality on peer defending.

Method

The current study is a randomized experiment with one independent variable, the mindset intervention (with two conditions), and post assessment of three dependent variables: defender self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and perceived defender behavior. A manipulation check was administered to ensure that the mindset intervention was successful in promoting growth-oriented beliefs about personality. Prior to the intervention, data were collected for several demographic characteristics and peer victimization.

Participants

Undergraduate students were recruited via an online registration system for research at a private university in the Northeastern United States; 60 students (32 women and 28 men) consented to participate and completed the study. Participants’ average age was 20.3 years (18-23; SD = 1.36). While data were not collected on participants’ race/ethnicity, the sample generally appeared to represent the composition of the university’s undergraduate students (74% White, 8% Black, 6% Hispanic, and 4% Asian). Although there is considerable variability, the undergraduate population largely come from middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds. Notably, the current study was conducted as an undergraduate senior research project, and the university’s Institutional Review Board discourages the collection of demographic data for such projects. This lack of precise information on the demographic diversity of the current sample is a clear limitation that is discussed later. Participants majoring in psychology received one credit toward a research participation requirement; no other compensation was offered.

Procedure

All participants met individually with the principal investigator (first author) in a designated research room. All 60 volunteers consented to participate and were handed an initial packet that included directions for completing materials and a measure assessing their recent experiences of peer victimization. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Correia & Dalbert, 2007), participants’ own peer victimization was assessed to explore and control for its relations with the peer defending variables. The investigator then left the room and instructed participants to open the door after completing the peer victimization measure.

Once participants opened the door, the investigator returned and handed them a second packet of materials sealed in a large unmarked envelope. This packet came in two versions that were identical with one exception; one included an exercise designed to promote a growth mindset of personality (personality condition), whereas the other included a matching exercise designed to promote a growth mindset of athleticism (athleticism condition). Prior to data collection, the packets were shuffled to ensure random assignment. Specifically, two separate piles of packets were shuffled, one for men and another for women. This was necessary in that certain study materials were matched to participants’ gender (described later).

Participants were then instructed to complete all packet materials in order after the investigator left the room. Participants in the personality condition (n = 30) read an article designed to increase individuals’ endorsement of growth-oriented statements about personality (Appendix A; adapted slightly from Rattan & Dweck, 2010). Participants in the athleticism condition (n = 30) read a matching article about the plasticity of athleticism (Appendix B). This control was used to rule out the threat that simply teaching a growth mindset, regardless of the specific attribute, leads individuals to think more optimistically or prosocially. The two articles contained exactly 867 words and describe a central character who works to change his or her personality or athleticism. The character’s gender was matched to participants’ gender. Both articles include descriptions of scientific studies documenting the plasticity of personality or athletic ability. To encourage careful reading, participants were asked to underline the main ideas and write a summary of themes that would be important to teach others.

Participants then read a vignette about a college student who is victimized by a group of peers (Appendix C); the victimized character was matched to participants’ gender, as were the peers in each story. The vignette did not vary between the two experimental conditions and describes a college student who experiences physical (shoving) and relational (rumors) victimization by peers. The student is confused as to why he or she is being mistreated and gradually declines in functioning; she feels alone, struggles to make friends, avoids certain settings, and falters academically. This vignette was included to prime participants to the general experience of witnessing peer victimization. Following the vignette, participants completed measures of defender self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and perceived bystander behavior. Finally, participants completed a brief scale as a manipulation check. All items assessed and analyzed in this study are included in Appendix D.

Measures

Peer victimization

The 20-item Comprehensive Scales of Traditional Peer Victimization (CSTPV; Morrow, Hubbard, Barhight, & Thomson, 2014) was adapted to assess participants’ experiences of peer victimization. This measure was designed to assess preadolescents’ daily experiences of multiple types of peer victimization (e.g., physical, verbal, and relational); it has demonstrated reliability at the daily and child level and has correlated positively with daily negative emotion and negatively with academic achievement (Morrow, Hubbard, Barhight, et al., 2014; Morrow, Hubbard, & Swift, 2014). The CSTPV was modified in three ways. First, the instructions were revised to direct participants to report the frequency (“0 times” to “4 or more times”) of their peer victimization over the “past six months” (rather than for that day). Second, “kid(s)” was changed to “someone” in all items. Third, the item “Kids wouldn’t let me join their game” was modified to “Someone wouldn’t let me join their activity.” A total Peer Victimization score was computed by summing the ratings across the 20 items (α = .73); higher scores reflect more frequent victimization (range of 0 to 80).

Perceived defender behavior

A measure by Thornberg and Jungert (2013) was adapted to assess how participants believed they would respond toward victimized peers. This measure includes eight items represented by three factors: pro-bully behavior (e.g., reinforcing and joining), outsider behavior (staying away and doing nothing), and defender behavior (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013). All eight items were assessed in this study, but only the two defender behavior items were analyzed. This two-item scale has correlated positively with defender self-efficacy and general moral sensitivity and negatively with moral disengagement, pro-bully behavior, and outsider behavior. The original measure asks participants to report how they have responded to past observed peer victimization. For this study, the instructions and two items were adapted slightly to ask participants how they would respond to future instances of witnessed peer victimization. Participants rated the extent to which they would respond with each defender behavior on a 0 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely) scale. The original measure had a 7-point rating scale (1-7). A total Perceived Defender Behavior score was computed by summing the ratings for the two items (α = .84); higher scores indicate greater perceived peer defending (range of 0 to 14).

Defender self-efficacy

Participants’ self-efficacy for defending victimized peers was assessed with five items drawn from two separate scales. The first two items were borrowed from Thornberg and Jungert (2013). These items are moderately correlated and have also correlated positively with defender behavior and negatively with outsider behavior. In this study, participants rated their efficacy for defending victimized peers on a 0 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. The original measure had a 7-point rating scale (1-7). Three items from Pöyhönen and colleagues (2012) were also included. For these items, participants rated how difficult it would be for them to enact specific defender behaviors. This three-item scale has demonstrated adequate internal consistency and has also correlated positively with defender behavior and various positive beliefs about the impact of defending (e.g., the victimization will decrease in frequency). For this study, participants rated their capacity to perform these defender behaviors on a 0 (very easy) to 7 (very difficult) scale. The original measure had a 3-point rating scale (1-3). A total Defender Self-Efficacy score was computed by reversing the scores for the last three items and then summing all ratings; higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy for defending victimized peers (range of 0 to 35). Internal consistency was adequate (α = .64).

Moral disengagement

Participants reported their level of moral disengagement toward victimized peers on a scale by Thornberg and Jungert (2013). This measure provides an estimate of overall moral disengagement, rather than separate estimates of the cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement. As Thornberg and Jungert (2013) explained, previous studies examining the structure of many moral disengagement scales (e.g., Bandura et al., 1996) consistently support a single factor as opposed to multiple factors representing different cognitive mechanisms. While the current measure’s six items may reflect certain cognitive mechanisms more than others, the authors refrained from drawing such interpretations based on the face validity of the items. Participants rated the extent to which they agree with six items on a 0 (not true at all) to 7 (very true) scale. The original measure had a 7-point rating scale (1-7). This scale has evidenced strong internal consistency and has correlated positively with pro-bully behavior and negatively with moral sensitivity and defender behavior. A total Moral Disengagement score was computed by summing the ratings for the six items; higher scores indicate greater moral disengagement (range of 0 to 42). The internal consistency was low (α = .49) compared with past research (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013).

Growth mindset of personality

A manipulation check was performed with a three-item scale. One item was borrowed and another was adapted slightly from a scale by Yeager and colleagues (2014) that assesses growth-oriented beliefs about bullies and victims. One other item was created for this study. Together, these three items were intended to assess growth-oriented beliefs about personality in general. Participants rated the extent to which they agree with each statement on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) scale. Scores were reversed and summed so that higher scores indicate greater endorsement of a growth mindset of personality (range of 3 to 18). Internal consistency was adequate (α = .68).

Results

While there were no missing data, one participant’s Moral Disengagement score was extremely high compared with the other participants’ scores. Specifically, his score (17.00) fell over 5 SD above the mean (1.32) and over 3 SD beyond the second highest score (8.00). The same participant also scored over 3 SD above the mean for Peer Victimization (43.00 vs. 14.90) and nearly 3 SD below the mean for Defender Self-Efficacy (6.00 vs. 22.78). Accordingly, this participant was excluded from further analyses, leaving a final sample of 59 participants (32 women and 27 men), with 29 in the personality condition and 30 in the athleticism condition. Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for the final sample. Two variables (Peer Victimization and Moral Disengagement) appeared positively skewed; the authors address concerns about skewness later in running the primary analyses.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 59).

Variable	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Skewness
Peer Victimization	1.00	39.00	14.42	8.95	0.53
Defender Self-Efficacy	12.00	34.00	22.78	5.73	0.17
Moral Disengagement	0.00	8.00	1.05	2.00	1.97
Perceived Defender Behavior	3.00	14.00	10.22	2.60	−0.48

Note. All variables are raw.

Preliminary Analyses

A manipulation check was performed to ensure that participants assigned to the personality condition were more likely to endorse growth-oriented beliefs about personality traits. An independent-sample t test was conducted and revealed that participants in the personality condition reported significantly higher levels of a growth mindset of personality (M_personality = 14.00; M_athleticism = 10.93), t(57) = 5.24, p < .001.

The authors also tested for gender differences (women = 0; men = 1). Independent-sample t tests were conducted for each variable. There were no significant gender differences in any of the variables (p = .20-.96). The authors then examined whether Peer Victimization related to other variables. Bivariate correlations were computed for Peer Victimization with the other three variables. Peer Victimization positively correlated with Perceived Defender Behavior (r = .38, p = .003) but did not correlate with Defender Self-Efficacy (r = .08, p = .56) or Moral Disengagement (r = −.19, p = .59). To minimize error variance in the primary analyses, both Gender and Peer Victimization were included as covariates.

Primary Analyses

The authors tested one comprehensive path model using linear regression in Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Three variables (Defender Self-Efficacy, Moral Disengagement, and Perceived Defender Behavior) were regressed on Condition (athleticism = 0; personality = 1), Gender (women = 0; men = 1), and Peer Victimization. Perceived Defender Behavior was regressed on Defender Self-Efficacy and Moral Disengagement, which allowed the estimation of joint and separate indirect effects of Condition on Perceived Defender Behavior through Defender Self-Efficacy and Moral Disengagement.

Because several variables were significantly skewed (see Table 1), the model was tested using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors; this approach allows for estimation of parameters and standard errors that are robust to non-normality (Huber, 1981). As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), model fit was evaluated with multiple goodness-of-fit indices, including the chi-square statistic (χ²), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Nonsignificant chi-square statistics indicate good model fit, as do CFI values greater than .95, RMSEA values below .06, and SRMR values below .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kenny & McCoach, 2003). Overall, the current model fit the data well on three of four fit indices, χ²(1) = 1.42, p = .23; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .09; SRMR = 02.

As seen in Table 2, Condition significantly predicted all three outcomes. Specifically, participants in the personality condition reported significantly higher levels of Perceived Defender Behavior and Defender Self-Efficacy and significantly lower levels of Moral Disengagement. Peer Victimization positively correlated with Perceived Defender Behavior. Gender did not correlate with any variables. Defender Self-Efficacy correlated positively with Perceived Defender Behavior; however, Moral Disengagement did not correlate with Perceived Defender Behavior.

Table 2.

Effects of Intervention on Perceived Defender Behavior (N = 59).

	Estimate	SE	Estimate/SE	p
Intercepts
Perceived Defender Behavior	4.27	1.08	3.96	.000
Defender Self-Efficacy	20.19	1.49	13.52	.000
Moral Disengagement	2.18	0.57	3.85	.000
Perceived Defender Behavior on
Condition	1.02	0.52	1.98	.048
Gender	0.82	0.49	1.68	.094
Peer Victimization	0.09	0.03	3.57	.000
Defender Self-Efficacy	0.17	0.05	3.50	.000
Moral Disengagement	−0.15	0.13	−1.14	.253
Defender Self-Efficacy on
Condition	4.63	1.34	3.46	.001
Gender	−0.31	1.29	−0.24	.809
Peer Victimization	0.03	0.07	0.51	.613
Moral Disengagement on
Condition	−1.14	0.52	−2.21	.027
Gender	−0.03	0.51	−0.06	.951
Peer Victimization	−0.04	0.03	−1.32	.187
Residual variances
Perceived Defender Behavior	3.74	0.71	5.24	.000
Defender Self-Efficacy	26.81	3.94	6.81	.000
Moral Disengagement	3.48	0.96	3.63	.000

Note. All estimates are unstandardized; “on” indicates “regressed on.” Condition coded as athleticism = 0 and personality = 1. Gender coded as women = 0 and men = 1.

The joint indirect effect of Condition on Perceived Defender Behavior via Defender Self-Efficacy and Moral Disengagement was significant (Estimate = .94, p = .005); however, only one separate indirect effect was significant. Specifically, the indirect effect of Condition on Perceived Defender Behavior was significant through Defender Self-Efficacy (Estimate = .77, p = .008) but not through Moral Disengagement (Estimate = .17, p = .27). Overall, the model explained 17% of variance in Defender Self-Efficacy (R² = .17), 12% in Moral Disengagement (R² = .12), and 44% in Perceived Defender Behavior (R² = .44).

Finally, given the questionable reliability of the measure used to assess Moral Disengagement, the authors tested the original model without this variable. Although several estimates changed very slightly, the pattern of significant and nonsignificant direct and indirect effects among the remaining variables was identical to the original model.

Discussion

The current study examined whether a brief educational intervention aimed to foster a growth mindset of personality could influence several variables linked to peer defending in a college sample of emerging adults. As past research found that boosting growth-oriented beliefs of personality promotes prosocial responses to imagined and experienced victimization (Yeager et al., 2014; Yeager et al., 2013; Yeager et al., 2011), it seemed plausible that a similar intervention could affect emerging adults’ likelihood of defending victimized peers. Consistent with previous research (Yeager et al., 2014), a brief reading-based exercise was used to expose participants to a growth mindset of personality or athleticism. The manipulation was successful in that those exposed to information on the plasticity of personality were more likely to endorse growth-oriented beliefs about personality than were those who learned about the plasticity of athleticism.

One comprehensive path model was tested to assess the effects of the intervention on all outcomes, along with the joint and separate indirect effects of the intervention on perceived defending through both defender self-efficacy and moral disengagement. Overall, the model fit the data relatively well. Participants who read about the malleability of personality reported greater self-efficacy for defending peers, less moral disengagement toward targets of peer victimization, and greater perceived likelihood of defending peers. These findings are impressive in that the study utilized a control condition carefully designed to minimize the threat that exposure to growth-oriented information about any characteristic may influence peer defending. Accordingly, the results suggest that specific exposure to the growth mindset of personality has an effect on the three outcomes beyond any impact of general exposure to growth-oriented information. Moreover, the effects of the experimental manipulation on the peer defending variables were also significant, while controlling for participants’ gender and their recent experiences of peer victimization.

These findings add to growing research on peer victimization among emerging adults. Furthermore, they reveal that a growth mindset of personality may have the potential to influence emerging adults to respond in prosocial ways to peer victimization. As reviewed earlier, many college students observe peer victimization (Chapell et al., 2004), and most contemporary bullying prevention programs aim to equip bystanders to defend victimized peers and ultimately change the larger socioecology surrounding bullying (Olweus & Limber, 2010). It is possible that promoting a growth mindset of personality could enhance the impact of such prevention programs on peer defending. A brief lesson on the plasticity of personality could be integrated into the educational training found in many programs. Researchers could then evaluate whether this supplemental instruction moderates the efficacy of the standard program.

The present study also sheds light on potential mechanisms that may explain how a growth mindset of personality could influence peer defending. Results reveal an indirect effect of the intervention on perceived defending via defender self-efficacy. Individuals exposed to the notion that personality can change may be more likely to defend victimized peers due to enhanced beliefs about their own capacity to successfully defend victims. This finding adds to previous studies indicating that self-efficacy is an important process in understanding peer defending (e.g., Barchia & Bussey, 2010; Pöyhönen et al., 2012). Building off the notion that a growth mindset could enhance bullying prevention programs, growth-oriented beliefs of personality could increase participants’ defender self-efficacy in ways that boost their openness to learning, practicing, and enacting the defender behaviors taught in antibullying programs.

In contrast with defender self-efficacy, moral disengagement did not mediate the effect of the intervention on perceived defender behavior. Several explanations may account for this null finding. Most notably, the internal consistency of the moral disengagement measure was low; thus, failure to detect an indirect effect may have stemmed from poor measurement. Moreover, this scale assesses overall moral disengagement, but not the different cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013). It is possible that certain mechanisms mediate the link between growth-oriented beliefs of personality and peer defending, while others do not. Perhaps the growth mindset of personality is more likely to mitigate the cognitive mechanisms that more directly influence how another individual or their experience is viewed. For instance, this mindset could have the strongest effect on reducing the likelihood of dehumanizing victims, blaming them, or minimizing the impact of their mistreatment.

It is also plausible that moral disengagement is only a significant mediator for individuals who experience heightened negative emotion when observing victimization. When witnessing peer victimization, some individuals may experience little moral disengagement yet also little guilt. Recently, Mazzone, Camodeca, and Salmivalli (2016) surveyed preadolescents and found that lower levels of moral disengagement predicted more defending and less bullying, but only among students who reported greater guilt. Therefore, a growth mindset of personality could increase peer defending by reducing moral disengagement, but only in those who feel significant guilt or affective distress when observing peers being victimized.

It is important to emphasize that the authors assessed participants’ reported likelihood of defending victimized peers, but not their actual defending behavior. As peer victimization is a relatively low frequency event that often occurs in areas difficult to monitor (Olweus, 1993), it is challenging to study peer defending via naturalistic observation. However, laboratory studies may be more feasible. As mentioned, Yeager and colleagues (2014) assessed the impact of a brief growth mindset intervention on adolescents’ responses to peer exclusion during a computerized laboratory paradigm, known as Cyberball (Williams, 2009). Participants throw a virtual ball with computerized players who reject participants by refusing to pass them the ball. While Yeager and colleagues studied how participants respond to the aggressors, this task could be adapted to study how they react to another player’s exclusion. Participants could be given the option to defend the target by communicating with the other players or by breaking from the group to play separately with the target. Future research involving lab-based assessment is encouraged to study whether growth mindset interventions influence actual defender behavior.

Limitations

While the current study has many strengths (e.g., an experimental design and a carefully crafted comparison condition), several limitations warrant discussion. As just mentioned, participants’ defender behavior was not assessed; thus, it is not possible to conclude that the intervention will increase actual defending. Moreover, the effects of the growth mindset intervention should also be assessed later in time (e.g., a week or month later) to gauge whether its impact persists over a longer period. The study’s sample was also restricted to undergraduates at a small liberal arts university; therefore, the results may not generalize to other age groups or even to emerging adults who are not attending college. As noted earlier, the researchers were limited in their ability to collect detailed demographic information to assess the diversity within their sample. In future research, it will be important to assess whether the current findings vary with certain individual characteristics, including (but not limited to) race-ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

It is also important to reiterate that the model tested in this study was specified such that the intervention predicts defender self-efficacy and moral disengagement, which in turn predict perceived defender behavior. While this model is theoretically grounded (Bandura, 1997, 2002), it is not possible to confirm the hypothesized sequence of effects. For example, it is also plausible that increases in perceived defending lead to greater defender self-efficacy and lower moral disengagement. The authors were tempted to explore these possible effects by testing additional models; however, they chose to restrict their analyses to test only their primary hypotheses and ultimately minimize the overall risk of Type I error.

Conclusion

Though the current study did not evaluate a comprehensive bullying prevention program, the results suggest that interventions aimed to foster a growth mindset of personality could be a promising strategy to curb peer victimization among emerging adults. A growth mindset intervention could essentially “grease the wheel” for bullying prevention programs, by influencing participants in ways that make them more open to learning about peer defending and more willing to practice and enact defender behavior. Universities could implement various programs to promote growth-oriented beliefs of personality among students. Books and articles by Carol Dweck and colleagues could be assigned to incoming freshman as part of their orientation or to the entire campus community as part of a university-wide reading initiative. Group discussions could also help individuals personalize this topic to their own lives by considering the ways their personalities have already changed, how they accomplished these changes, what changes they would like to make in the future, and how they can help others to change. This information could also be integrated into existing antibullying programming. The authors’ university recently hosted a series of group discussions about how to defend community members who are being harassed or victimized. As part of such conversations, it could be helpful to infuse the notion that individuals have the capacity to change their personalities. While additional research is necessary, the authors hope this investigation spurs continued interest in the study and prevention of peer victimization at all ages.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Shannon Derr, BA, is a recent graduate of Arcadia University with a degree in psychology. She graduated with honors and is a member of the Psi Chi organization. She is planning to pursue doctoral training in clinical psychology.

Michael T. Morrow, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Arcadia University. He earned a BA in psychology at Washington and Lee University and a PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Delaware. He conducts research on bullying and peer victimization and runs a small private practice for children and adolescents.

References

Almedia

Correia

Marinho

(2010). Moral disengagement, normative beliefs of peer group, and attitudes regarding roles in bullying. Journal of School Violence, 9, 23-36.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Bandura

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

Bandura

(2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101-119.

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G. V.

Pastorelli

(1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.

Barchia

Bussey

(2010). The psychological impact of peer victimization: Exploring social-cognitive mediators of depression. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 615-623.

Beran

T. N.

Rinaldi

Bickham

D. S.

Rich

(2012). Evidence for the need to support adolescents dealing with harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence, progression, and impact. School Psychology International, 33, 562-576.

Burt

K. B.

Masten

A. S.

(2009). Development in the transition to adulthood: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. In Grant

J. E.

Potenza

M. N.

(Eds.), Young adult mental health (pp. 5-18). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chapell

Case

De la Cruz

Ferrell

Forman

Lipkin

& Whittaker

(2004). Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence, 39, 53-64.

10.

Correia

Dalbert

(2007). Belief in a just world, justice concerns, and well-being at Portuguese schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 421-437.

11.

Dahlen

E. R.

Czar

K. A.

Prather

Dyess

(2013). Relational aggression and victimization in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 140-154.

12.

Dweck

C. S.

(2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

13.

Dweck

C. S.

Chiu

Hong

(1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.

14.

Erdley

C. A.

Dweck

C. S.

(1993). Children’s implicit personality theories as predictors of their social judgments. Child Development, 64, 863-878.

15.

Farrington

D. P.

Ttofi

M. M.

(2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization (Campbell Systematic Reviews No. 6). Oslo, Norway: Campbell Corporation.

16.

Gervey

Chiu

Hong

Dweck

C. S.

(1999). Differential use of person information in decision-making about guilt vs. innocence: The role of implicit theories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 17-27.

17.

Gini

(2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528-539.

18.

Gini

Albiero

Benelli

Alto

(2008). Determinants of adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93-105.

19.

Gini

Pozzoli

(2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059-1065.

20.

Hawker

D. S. J.

Boulton

M. J.

(2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.

21.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

22.

Huber

(1981). Robust statistics. New York: Wiley.

23.

Kärnä

Voeten

Poskiparta

Salmivalli

(2010). Vulnerable children in varying classroom contexts: Bystanders’ behaviors moderate the effects of risk factors on victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 261-282.

24.

Kenny

D. A.

McCoach

D. B.

(2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333-3511.

25.

Kumpulainen

(2008). Psychiatric conditions associated with bullying. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 121-132.

26.

Leadbeater

B. J.

Thompson

Sukhawathanakul

(2014). It gets better or does it? Peer victimization and internalizing problems in the transition to young adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 675-688.

27.

Mazzone

Camodeca

Salmivalli

(2016). Interactive effects of guilt and moral disengagement on bullying, defending and outsider behavior. Journal of Moral Education, 45, 419-432.

28.

Moore

(2015). Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 199-204.

29.

Morrow

M. T.

Hubbard

J. A.

Barhight

L. J.

Thomson

A. K.

(2014). Fifth-grade children’s daily experiences of peer victimization and negative emotions: Moderating effects of sex and peer rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 1089-1102.

30.

Morrow

M. T.

Hubbard

J. A.

Swift

L. E.

(2014). Relations among multiple types of peer victimization, reactivity to peer victimization, and academic achievement in fifth-grade boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60, 302-327.

31.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

32.

Nakamoto

Schwartz

(2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221-242.

33.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at school. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.

34.

Olweus

Limber

S. P.

(2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus bullying prevention program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124-134.

35.

Pöyhönen

Juvonen

Salmivalli

(2012). Standing up for a victim, siding with the bully, or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development, 21, 722-741.

36.

Pozzoli

Gini

Vieno

(2012). Individual and class moral disengagement in bullying among elementary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 378-388.

37.

Rattan

Dweck

C. S.

(2010). Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21, 952-959.

38.

Rudolph

K. R.

Troop-Gordon

Hessel

Schmidt

(2011). A latent growth curve analysis of early and emerging peer victimization as predictors of mental health across elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 111-122.

39.

Salmivalli

Poskiparta

(2012). Making bullying prevention a priority in Finnish schools: The KiVa antibullying program. New Directions for Youth Development, 2012, 13341-13353.

40.

Salmivalli

Voeten

Poskiparta

(2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668-676.

41.

Storch

E. A.

Bagner

D. M.

Geffken

G. R.

Baumeister

A. L.

(2004). Association between overt and relational aggression and psychosocial adjustment in undergraduate college students. Violence and Victims, 19, 689-700.

42.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

D. L.

Vaillancourt

Hymel

(2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38-47.

43.

Tennant

Demaray

Coyle

Malecki

(2015). The dangers of the web: Cybervictimization, depression, and social support in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 348-357.

44.

Thornberg

Jungert

(2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 475-483.

45.

Troop-Gordon

Ladd

G. W.

(2005). Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76, 1072-1091.

46.

Walker

C. M.

Sockman

B. R.

Koehn

(2011). An exploratory study of cyberbullying with undergraduate university students. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 55, 31-38.

47.

Werner

N. E.

Crick

N. R.

(1999). Relational aggression and social-psychological adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 615-623.

48.

Williams

K. D.

(2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275-314.

49.

Wolke

Copeland

W. E.

Angold

Costello

E. J.

(2013). Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes. Psychological Science, 24, 1958-1970.

50.

Yeager

D. S.

Dweck

C. S.

(2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47, 1-13.

51.

Yeager

D. S.

Johnson

Spitzer

B. J.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Powers

Dweck

C. S.

(2014). The far-reaching effects of believing people can change: Implicit theories of personality shape stress, health, and achievement during adolescence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 106, 867-884.

52.

Yeager

D. S.

Miu

(2011). Implicit theories of personality predict motivation to use prosocial coping strategies after bullying in high school. In Frydenberg

Reevy

(Eds.), Personality, stress and coping: Implications for education (pp. 47-62). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

53.

Yeager

D. S.

Trzesniewski

Dweck

C. S.

(2013). An implicit theories of personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion. Child Development, 84, 970-988.

54.

Yeager

D. S.

Trzesniewski

Tirri

Nokelainen

Dweck

C. S.

(2011). Adolescents’ implicit theories predict desire for vengeance after remembered and hypothetical peer conflicts: Correlational and experimental evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1090-1107.