Bystanders' Reactions to Witnessing
Repetitive Abuse Experiences
Gregory R. Janson, JoLynn V Carney, Richard J. Hazier,
and Insoo Oh
Wmhe Impact of Event Scale—Revised (D. S. Weiss & C. R. Marmar, 1997) was used to obtain self-reported trauma levels
from 587 young adults recalling childhood or adolescence experiences as witnesses to common forms of repetitive
abuse defined as bullying. Mean participant scores were in a range suggesting potential need for clinical assessment
at the time these events occurred. Multiple regression analysis identified significant predictors of distress levels, with
intensity of abuse being the strongest. Additional results and implications of findings are discussed.
Concern over different forms of interpersonal violence in
schools remains an increasing concern for millions of students,
parents, educators, and communities not just in the United
States, but worldwide (Carney, Hazier, & Higgins, 2002; Cole,
Cornell, & Sheras, 2006; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Smith,
Nika, & Papasideri, 2004). The literature has well established
that bullying is not the harmless, minor, developmentally
appropriate behavior of popular belief, but it is one that puts
many young people at considerable physical and psychological
risk (Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005; Rigby, 2002; Wolke,
Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2001). The vast majority of
these studies on school bullying have focused on those who
bully and their direct victims, whereas few have explored the
impact of observing this form of repetitive abuse on the many
times greater number of young people who witness it (Hazier,
1996; Janson & Hazier, 2004).
Recent research (Janson & Hazier, 2004) suggests that
witnessing low-level repetitive abuse may aifect bystanders
and direct victims in similar physiological and psychological
ways that can stay with them for years to come. Bullying appears to have the potential to create levels of psychological
distress that approach, and in some cases exceed, the levels
reported for groups in the literature who have suffered traumatic experiences widely recognized as severe. These findings
lend support for the position of some researchers that the
effects of repetitive psychological abuse may be as damaging and enduring as the effects of physical abuse (Janson &
Hazier, 2004). Although this type of research on bystanders
to bullying, harassment, and other common forms of everyday abuse is still uncommon, studies of other forms of abuse
have demonstrated that differences in the impact on victim
and bystander are often blurred (Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor,
1995). Characteristic responses seen in victims and shared
by bystanders are physiological arousal (Hosch & Bothwell,
1990); repression of empathy (Gilligan, 1991); desensitiza-
tion to negative school behaviors (Safran & Safran, 1985);
dangerous, negative behaviors in general (Garbarino, 2001);
and feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and ineffectiveness
(Hazier, 1996). Recognition of the common risks shared by
bystanders and direct victims can be seen in the literature in
the use of alternate terms used to describe bystanders, such
as covictims (Shakoor & Chalmers, 1991) or indirect victims
(Morgan & Zedner, 1993).
Growing recognition of the potential harm to youthful
witnesses of repetitive abuse (Janson & Hazier, 2004) has
been accompanied by identification of their essential roles
in programs aimed at decreasing such abuse among youth
(Hazier & Carney, 2006). The fact that bystanders far outnumber the abusers and victims, who have been traditionally
perceived as the targets of research, makes it all the more
important that research be conducted on the situational and
personal factors that infiuence bystanders' reactions to youthful repetitive abuse.
•Situational Characteristics
The definition of bullying that has become standard in worldwide investigations into youthful repetitive abuse contains
three defining components: a negative action that harms
someone, an imbalance of power, and repetition over time
(Monks & Smith, 2006; Olweus, 1996). These situational
factors in combination appear to have a major influence on
the degree of harm done by repetitive abuse.
Type of harm has recently been a focus of discussion in
the literature (Carney & Hazier, 2001; Craig, Henderson, &
Murphy, 2000; Hazier, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001), with
physical and emotional types getting much attention. Children
subjected to physical harm are the most easily identified and
generally get immediate attention because of visible signs
of injury that may be evident (e.g., blood, bruises, scratches.
Gregory R. Janson, Counseling and Psychological Services, Ohio University; JoLynn V. Carney, Rlchanl J. Hazier, and Insoo
Oh, all at Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park. Insoo Oh is now at the Department of Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gregory R. Janson, Counseling and Psychological Services, Ohio
University, 345 Baker Center, Athens, OH 45701 (e-mail: gregory@ohlo.edu).
© 2009 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.
Journal ofCounseling& Development • Summer 2009 • Volume 87
319
Janson, Carney, Hazier, & Oh
ripped clothing). It is more challenging to identify children
who are hurt as the result of emotional harm, such as namecalling, verbal abuse, or social isolation (Rigby, 2002), Because the causative actions and the internal scars of this type
of abuse are emotional in nature, they are more difficult to
see and therefore generally receive less attention. The results
are significant feelings of humiliation, hopelessness, and
helplessness with corresponding fantasies of revenge and
suicidal thoughts (Carney, 2000; Hazier & Carney, 2000;
Rigby &Slee, 1999),
Bullying differs from the traditional physical or social
concept of a developmentally appropriate peer conflict because
abusers have an unfair advantage over their targets through
physical strength or size, verbal ability, or social sophistication. The bully's advantage maintains a power inequity that
leaves victims frustrated and expressing feelings of personal
inadequacy, \ov/ self-worth, and limited abilities to gain itifluence (Hazier & Carney, 2000),
The repetition aspect of bullying is a relationship component that convinces victims that their abusers are in total
control. The fact that the bully can repeat the abuse time and
again results in feelings of helplessness, with each incident
reinforcing the perception of being trapped in a hopeless
cycle of violence (Hazier, 1996; Hazier & Carney, 2000),
This repetitive exposure appears to exacerbate distress and
produces more problematic symptoms in children (Garbarino,
2001; Richters & Martinez, 1993),
•Personal Characteristics
A number of personal characteristics of witnesses and victims have been suggested as playing a part in the reactions of
witnesses to youthful repetitive abuse. Sex of the victim has
received considerable attention, whereas sex of the witness
has received considerably less. Females involved in repetitive
abuse have been more likely to be involved in those situations
related to emotional harm, termed relational bullying, than
have males (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Monks & Smith, 2006),
There is little information on how the sex of witnesses plays
into their reactions, although one study did support the idea
that women were more likely to say they would intervene in
bullying situations (Craig et al,, 2000),
Grades 5-8 have been consistently found to be the grades
in which bullying is most likely to take place (Nansel et al,,
2001), In this age range, and on a daily basis, youth must find
ways to deal with the changes of puberty combined with a
change in education format that increases both the number
of teachers and new students. Social, physical, and emotional
changes press students to reevaluate who they are in the
context of others, which leads to a time of unease and power
struggles that often takes the form of bullying, harassment,
and other kinds of repetitive abuse.
The physical characteristics of victims, their race, and
emotional or intellectual abilities have all been cited as factors
320
that can play a role in whether an individual will be targeted as
a victim (e,g., Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Hazier, Carney, Green,
Powell, & Jolly, 1997), Although it is clear that witnessing
repetitive abuse negatively affects bystanders, it is not well
understood how such personal factors influence current and
nature levels of trauma.
Previous research has established that bystanders to
traumatic events can be significantly affected by what they
observe, even when the level of abuse is low, but repeated over
time. It is therefore appropriate to more closely examine the
degree of impact such repetitive abuse might have on bystanders witnessing common forms of repetitive abuse as well as
situational and personal factors that might have an impact on
trauma. The core questions for this study are as follows:
1, To what degree do young adults who were witnesses
to low-level repetitive abuse at an earlier age recall
the level of trauma they experienced?
2, What factors commonly associated with witnessing
repetitive abuse experiences appear to influence how
trauma reactions are recalled by bystanders?
•Method
Participants
Open enrollment classes in a college of education and college
of health and human services were used to recruit 587 participants at a midsized state university (> 20,000) located in
the Midwest, Because some participants did not respond to
all questions on the survey, the data reported here may vary
slightlyfi-omone category to the next.
Participants were primarily traditional-age college students, with 566 (96,4%) who were ages 18 to 24 years; 559
(95,2%) students were single. Women (515, 87,7%) were the
majority participants. Of the educational levels spread across
class ranks, 206 (35.1%) were 1 st-year students, 146(24,9%)
were sophomores, 94 (16%) were juniors, 97 (16,5%) were
seniors, 13 (2,2%) were 5th-year students, and 14 (2,4%)
were students who reported their status as "other," Seventeen
participants (2,9%) did not indicate their educational level.
The sample included 514 (87,6%) European Americans,
13 (2,2%) African Americans, 9 (1,5%) Native Americans, 5
(,9%) Latino/Latina Americans, 3 (,5%) Asian Americans, 4
(,7%) biracial individuals, 9 (1,5%) in the "other" category,
and 30 (5,1%) who did not respond. Self-reported gross
family incomes identified 438 (74,6%) with family incomes
above $42,000 per year, 305 (52%) above $60,000, and only
40 (6,8%) below $30,000,
Procedure
The study was conducted in classroom settings where each
participant received a packet containing a cover sheet (describing the research, confidentiality, and risks) and three
paper-and-pencil instruments. The approach taken in this study
Journal ofCounseling& Development • Summer 2009 • Volume 87
Bystanders' Reactions to Witnessing Repetitive Abuse
was to gather data in the least threatening, least emotionally
arousing method possible while also using reliable instrumentation to measure trauma. Participants were therefore asked to
silently recall how they felt at a time in their past when they
witnessed repetitive abuse of another individual and then to
complete the survey instruments.
Instruments
Three instruments were used to answer the research questions
and to understand the characteristics ofthe participants. The
Personal Information Survey was developed by the authors
ofthe current study to describe aggregate participant characteristics. The Repetitive Abuse Description Form was adapted
from a previous study (Janson & Hazier, 2004) to direct participants in the recall of being a bystander to abuse activity
during their K-12 school years and also to provide descriptive
information on the events they recalled. The Impact of Event
Scale—Revised (IES-R; Weiss & Marmar, 1997) evaluated
the degree of trauma participants recalled from their experience as witnesses to repetitive abuse experiences.
Repetitive Abuse Description Form. This form set the stage
for participants and collected information on issues surrounding the situation experienced by the bystander. Participants
were asked to consider situations they experienced during their
K—12 school career. Directions then began with instructions
on what type of event was to be recalled:
Here's what we would like you to do:
a. Please recall a time in your life when you witnessed another
person or persons being threatened, abused, picked-on,
put-down, bullied, or embarrassed, not just once or twice,
but repeatedly.
b. This experience should be one in which you did not participate, but witnessed only.
c. The abuse may have been psychological, emotional, or
physical. It could have happened in childhood, in school, at
home, or in your workplace. Examples of common forms
of repetitive abuse include bullying, racism, sizism, homophobia, corporal punishment, and sexual harassment.
Following these instructions were a set of 12 questions.
These were designed to help participants recall the quantitative factual circumstances of the abuse they witnessed (participants' age, sex, and grade level when the abuse took place
and characteristics of the victim) and qualitative aspects that
were more likely to be emotionally charged (physical and/or
emotional nature ofthe abuse; duration, intensity, and frequency
ofthe abuse).
IES-R. Participants filled out the IES-R as a measure of
the level of trauma they experienced as a bystander at the
time ofthe repetitive abuse event they chose to describe. The
instrument is based on the original Impact of Event Scale
(IES; Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979), used in hundreds
of clinical studies over the past 25 years, with precipitating
events that range from a ship capsizing to natural disasters and
bullying. The advantages ofthe IES-R are simplicity (short,
clinically transparent items), ease of administration (less than
10 minutes), and correlation to three ofthe four diagnostic
criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The IES-R asks respondents to identify a distressing or
traumatic event or closely related series of events (anchoring
event) and to report the subjective impact of those events during the previous 7 days by responding to 22 statements, such
as "Any reminder brought back feelings about it" and "I felt
irritable and angry." A 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 1
= a little bit, 2 = moderately, 3 = quite a bit, 4 = extremely)
provided scores to yield a total score (0-88) and three subscale
scores (Intrusion, Avoidance, and Hyperarousal).
A number of studies have shown IES-R scores to reliably measure psychological distress and hyperarousal that
can follow exposure to stressful events in both clinical and
nonclinical samples (Janson & Hazier, 2004; Marmar, Weiss,
Metzler, Ronfeldt, & Foreman, 1996; Weiss, Marmar, Metzler,
& Ronfeldt, 1995). Reliability ofthe IES-R scores has been
established using test-retest analyses, item-to-scale correlations, and internal consistency (Weiss, 2004).
The relationship ofthe IES-R to the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria for traumatic stress syndromes
provided important construct validity support (Weiss, 2004;
Weiss & Marmar, 1997). Correlations are also high with other
well-established measures, such as the Global Symptom Index
ofthe Symptom Checklist—90—^Revised (Derogatis, 1992), the
Mississippi Scale of Combat-Related PTSD (Keane, Caddell, &
Taylor, 1988), and the Dissociative Experiences Scale (Bernstein
& Putnam, 1986).
The current study used the IES-R as a forensic instrument
to measure participants' recollections of distress levels at
the time they witnessed a series of past events. Accordingly,
the time frame in the instructions section ofthe IES-R was
changed from "during the past seven days" to "during the
time that these stressful life events were occurring." Similar
alterations ofthe time frame ofthe IES and its versions have
been made by other researchers (Janson & Hazier, 2004;
Sanders Thompson, 1996). Reliability ofthe IES-R scores in
the present study was supported by a high degree of internal
consistency using Cronbach's alpha (alpha = .90).
•Results
Research Question 1
To what degree do young adults who were witnesses to lowlevel repetitive abuse at an earlier age recall the level of trauma
they experienced?
The two methods used to evaltiate the degree of trauma first compared the overall means to the original IES level of concern categories and then to IES-R scores from other studies of trauma.
Journal of Counseling & Development • Summer 2 0 0 9 • Volume 87
321
Janson, Carney, Hazier, & Oh
Tests of significance were run to establish whether there
were differences in trauma scores within demographic variables. No category initially demonstrated any significant
differences among groups. The race/culture category, however, showed an unusual pattern where scores for European
Americans (n = 505, M = 15.71) and African Americans (n =
13, M= 15.38) were very similar, whereas scores for Asian
Americans (« = 3, M = 29.0), Latino/Latina Americans (n
= 5, M= 26.0), Native Americans (n = 9, M = 22.2), and
participants in the "other" category {n = S,M= 19.25) were
considerably higher. When categories were collapsed into
Afiican American, European American, and other, an analysis
of variance demonstrated a significant difference {df= 2, F
= 3.85, p = .02). Although the "other" category contained a
small sample size, which must be viewed with caution, this
result does suggest important potential differences between
groups, where Asian Americans, Latino/Latina Americans,
Native Americans, and those who self-identified as "other"
had higher levels of traumatic reactions to their experiences
as bystanders to repetitive abuse when compared with African
Americans and European Americans.
Three different levels of potential concern have been recommended for the original IES instrument based on a total
score of the Intrusion and Avoidance subscales. These levels
of concern are low (0-8.5), medium (8.6-19), and high (> 19
[Zilberg, Weiss, & Horowitz, 1982]).
The Intrusion and Avoidance subscales of the IES-R
summed and adjusted for comparison with the scoring
guidelines of the original IES resulted in a mean of 15.64.
This score places these recollections, of past witnessing of
another person being repetitively abused, above the sub-
clinical range and into the medium range. Symptoms for a
score of 15.64 range from mild to moderate, with levels of
distress sufficiently elevated to warrant further evaluation
and possible clinical intervention.
Current results were also compared with those of other
IES-R studies of people's traumatic symptoms following
earthquakes (Marmar et al., 1996; Weis et al., 1995), and the
results of another set of studies consisting of undergraduate
students following interviews about previously being bystanders
to repetitive abuse situations (Janson & Hazier, 2004; see Table
1). IES-R Trauma subscale scores from the current study were
all higher than those reported by emergency personnel following two different earthquakes. Trauma reports of current study
bystanders were fewer than comparable recalled trauma from
another study of 77 college students following interviews of
their past repetitive abuse witness experience. Scores were similar, however, to student-reported trauma after years had passed.
It should be noted that the scores reflect trauma reactions of
individuals and not the qualities of the events themselves.
Research Question 2
What factors commonly associated with witnessing repetitive
abuse experiences appear to influence how trauma reactions
are recalled by bystanders?
Entry method multiple regression was selected as the primary
analysis method for this question to examine the effect of
predictor variables on psychological trauma. The specific
seven variables selected for this analysis were chosen based
on research and theory that suggests a potential relationship
to the degree of trauma.
TABLE 1
Studies From the Literature: Subscale and Totai iVIean Scores for the Impact of Event Scale—Revised
Intrusion
Subscale
study and Population
Present study
Undergraduate student reactions to past
witness of common forms of repetitive
abuse (A/ = 566)
Weiss, Marmar, Metzler, & Ronfeldt, 1995
Emergency personnel, San Francisco
earthquake (A/ = 367)
Marmar, Weiss, Metzler, Ronfeldt, & Foreman,
1996
Reactions to earthquake
Police (n= 149)
Firefighters (n = 75)
EMT/Paramedics (n = 100)
Highway staff (n = 115)
Janson & Hazier, 2004
Undergraduate reactions following Interview
on distress as bystander to common
forms of repetitive abuse (A/ = 77)
Current trauma
Past trauma
Avoidance
Subscale
Hyperarousal
Subscaie
Total
Score
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
6.08
5.62
6.43
5.35
3.49
3.64
16.03
12.64
4.99
6.05
4.34
6.63
2.08
3.87
—
—
0.5
5.2
5.4
5.1
6.01
5.76
5.91
6.91
3.4
4.8
4.7
4.8
5.55
7.08
6.25
7.70
1.6
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.68
3.18
4.16
4.64
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6.32
10.66
5.74
6.11
5.53
8.83
5.97
6.32
3.73
7.56
4.49
5.94
15.78
27.05
14.75
16.39
Note. Dashes are used to indicate that total means and standard deviations were not reported.
322
Journal ofCounseling& Development • Summer 2009 • Volume 87
Bystanders' Reactions to Witnessing Repetitive Abuse
The regression model predicted an i? of .344, (R^=.ll9, SEE
= 11.85), which was found to be significant (df= 1,F= 9.26,/» =
.00) based on results of a follow-up analysis of variance. These
results identify a significant but small prediction value where
approximately 12% of the variance in psychological trauma
reactions could be attributed to the combination of the situation
(abuse type,frequency,duration, and intensity) and human factors
(witness sex, victim sex, and witness grade level ). An examination of coefficients relating each of the predictor variables to the
regression formula demonstrates that the greatest contributor
to regression model significance was how people answered the
question on intensity of abuse they observed. Additional analysis of structure coefficients also indicated that intensity was the
noteworthy predictor of trauma (see Table 2).
•Discussion
Levels of Trauma
The Intrusion and Avoidance subscales from the IES-R were
summed and adjusted to allow for result comparisons to scale
criteria for the original IES. The overall adjusted IES-R mean
of 15.64 was found to be in the medium range (8.6-19), which
is defined as a level of distress high enough to warrant fiirther
evaluation and possible clinical intervention. This finding
suggests that participants experienced significant traumatic
reactions as a result of witnessing common forms of repetitive abuse between their peers, reactions that were significant
enough to call for direct attention by counselors.
Trauma recalled by bystanders in the current study were
found to be substantially higher than levels found in emergency workers, firefighters, police, paramedics, and highway
workers following earthquakes in California (Marmar et al.,
1996; Weiss et al., 1995). In another recent study (Janson &
Hazier, 2004), undergraduates recalling being bystanders to
repetitive abuse demonstrated even greater differences in
recalled trauma compared with these emergency workers
and had higher levels of trauma than did the bystanders in
the current study. These results suggest that the experience of
witnessing common forms of repetitive abuse in childhood or
adolescence generated higher levels of psychological trauma
in bystanders than has been reported by other groups following
events such as earthquakes, where injury, death, and destruction are objectively viewed as far more catastrophic.
TABLE 2
Seven-Factor Regression Model
Variable
Constant
Abuse type
Frequency
Duration
Intensity
Witness sex
Victim sex
Witness grade level
ß
-.23
.00
.03
.32
.00
-.03
-.07
f
Sig.
0.53
-5.17
0.06
0.76
7.30
0.03
-0.65
-1.53
.599
.606
.951
.446
.000
.976
.515
.128
Note. Sig. = significance; SC = structure coefficient.
SC
0.04
0.01
0.29
1.02
0.06
-0.19
-0.24
One consideration in the evaluation of these results is that
the current study took the least threatening, least arousing
method of measuring trauma levels by asking students sitting
in a classroom to recall on their own how they experienced
being a bystander to repetitive abuse at the time the abuse was
occurring. It could be expected that recalling these memories
from years past might produce very different responses than
from individuals experiencing the freshness of memory, tension, and direct involvement resulting from the catastrophic
events described in the earthquake studies. Traumatic stress
symptoms tend to recede over time (Sundin & Horowitz,
2003), and one would expect that levels of distress associated
with recalling past bystander experiences would be lower than
if measured at the time of the experience, to the degree that
those memories of pain and suffering had faded over time.
The Janson and Hazier (2004) study took a more aggressive
approach by individually interviewing students for 15 or 20
minutes about their past experiences before asking them to recall
their trauma symptoms. Present tensions and traumatic memories
might well be fewer because of the absence of talking about the
past event with another person over a 15-minute period.
One thought-provoking finding was that racial/cultural
factors resulted in different reported trauma levels. The
limited number of non-European Americans involved in
this study emphasizes caution in the interpretation of findings that show significantly higher levels of recalled psychological trauma for minorities. African Americans had
a mean score quite close to that of European Americans,
but Asian Americans, Latino/Latina Americans, and Native
Americans, along with participants in the "other" category,
reported considerably greater psychological trauma. There
is a paucity of literature on this topic; however, one possible
explanation for this finding may be the differing levels of
language, accent, immigration, and assimilation separating
Caucasian and African American students from Asian, Native
American, and Latino/Latina students. Findings reported by
Rosenbloom and Way (2004) on comparative discrimination
among young people support this view and suggest that differences in patterns of victimization may be due to the fact
that Black and Latino high school students reported higher
levels of repetitive abuse at the hands of adults (e.g., teachers, police officers, administrators), whereas Asian American
students reported greater harassment from peers. These researchers found that teachers and other adults often favored
Asian Americans students, based on the biased perception
that Asian American minorities focus on academic achievement and are model students, a perception that Latino and
African American students clearly recognized and reacted
to by abusing their Asian American peers. Numbers are too
low to draw major conclusions, but the pattern does highlight
concerns that minorities experience more frequent harassment, which may consequently infiuence them more than it
does nonminorities (Fitzpatrick, Dulin, & Piko, 2007; Fox
& Stallworth, 2005; Graham & Juvonen, 2002).
Journal ofCounseling & Development • Summer 2009 • Volume 87
323
Janson, Carney, Hazier, & Oh
Factors Related to Trauma
The findings on situational factors expected to predict the
amount of trauma experienced provided mixed results. The
only situational factor found to be significantly related to bystander-recalled trauma was bystanders' rating of the intensity
of abuse. Multiple regression analysis indicated that type of
abuse, fi-equency, and duration did not appear to infiuence
trauma levels significantly for this sample. This finding goes
against most of the literature on bullying and harassment that
suggests these factors would have an interaction effect that is
not apparent in the current study data.
One explanation for this finding might be that participants
were asked to "please recall a time in your life when you witnessed another person or persons being threatened, abused,
picked-on, put-down, bullied, or embarrassed, not just once
or twice, but repeatedly." This request may have focused
participants on the single most severe episode of abuse rather
than focus on the repeat aspect of the behavior.
The potential roles of participants' sex and grade level of
the event and victims' sex were also not found to be significant predictors of recalled trauma levels. It is possible, based
on the findings, that although these factors are significant in
determining how (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) or why (Nansel
et al., 2001) repetitive abuse occurs, they may not affect the
degree to which a person is hurt by the experience.
It is essential to interpret the results of this study as individual
reactions to events and not the events themselves. Similarities
in recollection of trauma responses to widely varied Stressors
suggest that trauma is, to a great extent, a subjective and phenomenological experience (Shopper, 1995). This perspective is
particularly important when consideration is given to the links
between stress and somatic symptoms (Selye, 1976), emotional
dysfimction (Allen, McBee, & Justice, 1981), and later life
satisfaction (Royse, Rompf, & Dhooper, 1991).
•Conclusion and Clinical Implications
The most significantfindingfi'omthis study for counselors is that
participants clearly recalled experiencing psychological trauma at
levels of distress that would call for increased attention to youthfiil
bystanders ofrepetitive abuse. Victims ofbullying, harassment, and
other forms of repetitive abuserightfiillydeserve priority attention
from the counseling profession, but it has become increasingly clear
that many bystanders share symptoms and emotional responses
with direct victims and need such attention as well (O'Brien, 1998).
Ifbullying is the harmless, developmentally appropriate experience
it is often said to be—especially for bystanders who are frequently
believed to be just passive observers—one would expect any report
of distress levels to remain in a subclinical range. This was certainly
not what students reported in this study and others (e.g., Janson &
Hazier, 2004). The results of moderate to high IES-R scores give
rise to potential clinical considerations for bystanders to repetitive
abuse at least in terms of assessing their needs as counselors would
do for hurricane or earthquake survivors.
324
Various forms of violence, war, and terrorism first brought
attention to the problems of bystanders who witness degradation, injury, or death of others. More current research is now
providing data on the need to accept a higher level of concern
and attention for bystanders of childhood repetitive abuse situations. Counselors are aware that trauma is often expressed in
youth as depression, anxiety, helplessness, somatic complaints
such as severe headaches/stomachaches, and truancy for many
youth who fear the school environment (Rigby, 2002). The
bystanders in the current study were no different as we can
see in excerpts of their many statements showing the complex
emotions of anger, hurt, sadness, and frustration.
Sample Quotes of Affective Reactions and Somatic
Complaints From Bystanders
Sadness andfear. "The emotional abuse of name-calling was
extremely significant. It made me very tense and sad all the
time because I thought they might start making fun of me."
"This boy from school was tall and had bright red hair.
People would taunt him.... He would go on rampages down
the hall. It was really scary. He tried to punch me once because
I was the closest person to him."
Anger and emotional pain. "One boy in particular would
say the meanest things to her, all the time calling her. . . . I
was so mad and hurt by this boy's actions all through middle
school and early into high school."
Helplessness. "People made fun of her because she was
overweight and always wore stretchy clothes. . . . As 1 look
back on it now, it really bothers me. I am so sad and I feel
like I was a coward too."
Physically sick. "It really gave me a sick feeling. The
constant picking on the kid always made me want to say
something, but I didn't know what and I never did."
Intervention and Prevention
The first step for providing support to bystanders is enhancing
counselors' understanding of bystanders' realities by assessing
the level of trauma that bystanders are experiencing. Specifics
to assess are (a) type of witnessed abuse; (b) relationship to
the abuse victim and/or perpetrator; (c) intensity, frequency,
and duration of witnessed abuse; and (d) bystanders' emotional state such as depression, anxiety, anger, and so forth.
Assessing these specific indicators will assist counselors in
developing treatment strategies.
Two key therapeutic approaches have been suggested in
working with individuals exposed to trauma and repetitive
abuse—^narrative therapy for all clients and play therapy specifically for children. The narrative therapy process entails the
telling and retelling of the experience through counselor-guided
questions allowing individuals to seek a more realistic perspective affording them greater options for dealing with the trauma
(Payne, 2006; Shapiro, Friedberg, & Bardenstein, 2006).
Play therapy is used across cultural contexts (Landreth,
2002) with children having various clinical disorders includ-
Journal ofCounseling& Development • Summer 2009 • Volume 87
Bystanders' Reactions to Witnessing Repetitive Abuse
ing symptoms assoeiated with trauma (Kot & Tyndall-Lind,
2005), Posttraumatic play therapy is designed speeifieally
to maximize treatment efforts through structured strategies
incorporated into treatment plans (Dripchak, 2007),
Prevention programs for bullying and harassment have increased dramatically over the past decade because the extent of
the problems has become more apparent to counselors and other
professionals dealing with youth. The vast majority of these programs place primary emphasis on investing all students, faculty,
and staff in understanding the problems and providing them vnth
ways to take effective prevention, intervention, and supportive
actions (Hazier & Carney, 2006). Bystanders are appropriately
identified in these programs as helpers in these efforts while their
own psychological needs are generally not addressed. Bystanders
are often the underserved and undertreated population in response
to trauma. As research continues to identify additional difficulties experienced by bystanders, counselors must be prepared to
teach these youthfijl witnesses to identify and seek appropriate
assistance for the trauma they are experiencing,
•References
Allen, R, H,, McBee, G,, & Justice, B, (1981), Influence of life
events on psychosocial functioning. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 95-100,
American Psychiatric Association, (2000), Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed,, text rev,), Washington,
DC: Author,
Bernstein, E, M,, & Putnam, R W, (1986), Development, reliability,
and validity of a dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 174, 727-735,
Boney-McCoy, S,, & Finkelhor, D, (1995), Psychosocial sequelae
of violent victimization in a national youth sample. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63, 726-736,
Carney, J, V (2000), Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse
and suicidal behavior during adolescence. School Psychology
International, 21, 44-54,
Carney, J, V, & Hazier, R, J, (2001), How do you know if it's bullying?
Common mistakes and their consequences, Topic-Educational
Research, 26, 1-4,
Carney, J, V, Hazier, R, J,, & Higgins, J, (2002), Characteristics of
school bullies and victims as perceived by public school professionals. Journal of School Violence, 3, 91-106,
Cole, J, C, M,, Cornell, D, G,, & Sheras, P (2006), Identification of
school bullies by survey methods. Professional School Counseling, 9, 305-3 \2.
Craig, W, M,, Henderson, K,, & Murphy, J, G, (2000), Prospective
teachers' attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School
Psychology International, 21, 5-21,
Crick, N, R,, & Grotpeter, J, K, (1995), Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development,
66, 710-722,
Derogatis, L, R, (1992), SCL-90 administration, scoring & procedures
manual—//, Townson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research,
Dripchak, V L, (2007), Posttraumatic play: Towards acceptance and
resolution. Clinical Social Work, 35, 125-134,
Espelage, D, L,, & Swearer, S, M, (2003), Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we
go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365-383,
Fitzpatrick, K, M,, Dulin, A, J,, & Piko, B, F, (2007), Not just pushing and shoving: School bullying among African-American
adolescents. Journal of School Health, 77, 16-22,
Fox, S,, & Stallworth, L, E, (2005), Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring
links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438-456,
Garbarino, J, (2001), An ecological perspective on the effects of violence
on ááWtn. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 361-378,
Gilligan, J, (1991, May), Shame and humiliation: The emotions of
individual and collective violence. Paper presented at the Erickson
Lectures, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA,
Graham, S,, & Juvonen, J, (2002), Ethnicity, peer harassment, and
adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 22, 173-199,
Hanish, L, D,, & Guerra, N, G, (2000), The roles of ethnicity and
school context in predicting children's victimization by peers,
American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 201-223,
Hazier, R, J, (1996), Breaking the cycle of violence: Interventions for
bullying and victimization. New York: Taylor & Francis,
Hazier, R, J,, & Carney, J, V, (2000), When victims turn aggressors:
Factors in the development of deadly school violence. Professional School Counseling, 4, 105-112,
Hazier, R, J,, & Carney, J, V (2006), Critical characteristics of effective
bullying prevention programs. In S, R, Jimerson & M, J, Furlong
(Eds,), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp, 273-292), Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum,
Hazier, R, J,, Carney, J, V, Green, S,, Powell, R,, & Jolly, L, S, (1997),
Areas of expert agreement on identification of school bullies and
victims. School Psychology International, 18, 5-14,
Hazier, R, J,, Miller, D,, Carney, J, V, & Green, S, (2001), Adult
recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research,
43, 133-146,
Horowitz, M, J,, Wilner, N,, & Alvarez, W, (1979), Impact of Event
Scale: A measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine,
41, 209-2\&.
Hosch, H, M,, & Bothwell, R, K, (1990), Arousal, description and
identification accuracy of victims and bystanders. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 481—488,
Janson, G, R,, & Hazier, R, J, (2004), Trauma reactions of bystanders and victims to repetitive abuse experiences. Violence and
Victims, 19, 239-255,
Keane, T M,, Caddell, J, M,, & Taylor, K, L, (1988), Mississippi
Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 35-90,
Kot, S,,&Tyndall-Lind, A, (2005), Intensive play therapy with child
witnesses of domestic violence. In L, A, Reddy, T Files-Hall,
& C, Schaefer (Eds,), Empirically based play interventions for
children (pp, 31-49), Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association,
Journal ofCounseling& Development • Summer 2009 • Volume 87
325
Janson, Carney, Hazier, & Oh
Landreth, G. L. (2002). Play therapy: The art ofthe relationship
(2nd ed.). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Marmar, C. R., Weiss, D. S., Metzler, T., Ronfeldt, H., & Foreman, C.
(1996). Stress responses of emergency services personnel to the
Loma Prieta Earthquake Interstate 880freewaycollapse and control
traumatic incidents. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 63-85.
Monks, C. P., & Smith, R K. (2006). Definitions of hullying: Age differences in understanding ofthe term, and the role of experience.
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 801-821.
Morgan, J., & Zedner, L. (1993). Researching child victims: Some
methodological difficulties. International Review ofVictimology,
2, 295-308.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton,
B., & Scheidt, P (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth:
Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.
Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones
may break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: The
psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer
harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 3 7 ^ 8 .
O'Brien, L. S. (1998). Traumatic events and mental health. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems at school: Fact and effective intervention. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Problems,
5, 15-22.
Payne, M. (2006). Narrative therapy: An introduction for counselors
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P (1993). The NIMH Community Violence Project: I. Children as victims of and witnesses to violence.
Psychiatry, 56, 7-21.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. Philadelphia: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1999). Suicidal ideation among adolescent
school children, involvement in bully-victim problems and perceived social support. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior,
29, 119-130.
Rosenbloom, R. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination
among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth & Society, 35, 420-451.
326
Royse, D., Rompf, E. L., & Dhooper, S. S. (1991). Childhood trauma
and adult life satisfaction in a random adult sample. Psychological
Reports, 69, 1227-1231.
Safran, S. P, & Safran, J. S. (1985). A developmental view of children's behavioral tolerance. 5eÄav/ora/£)isorí/ew, 10, 87-94.
Sanders Thompson, V (1996). Perceived experiences of racism as
stressful life events. Community Mental Health Journal, 32,
223-233.
Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. New York: MacMillan.
Shakoor, B., & Chalmers, D. (1991). Co-victimization of AfricanAmerican children who witness violence: Effects on cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral development. Journal ofthe National
Medical Association, 83, 233-238.
Shapiro, J. P, Friedberg, R. D., & Bardenstein, K. K. (2006). Child
and adolescent therapy: Science and art. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Shopper, M. (1995). Medical procedures as a source of trauma. 5«/letin ofthe Menninger Clinic, 59, 191-204.
Smith, P K., Nika, V, & Papasideri, M. (2004). Bullying and violence in
schools: An international perspective and findings in Greece. Psychology: The Journal ofthe Hellenic Psychological Society, 11, 184-203.
Sundin, E. C , & Horowitz, M. J. (2003). Horowitz's Impact of Event
Scale evaluation of 20 years of use. Psychosomatic Medicine,
65, 870-876.
Weiss, D. S. (2004). The Impact of Event Scale—Revised. In J. R
Wilson & T. M. Keane, Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD
(2nd ed., pp. 168-189). New York: Guilford Press.
Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The Impact of Event S c a l e Revised. In J. P. Wilson &T. M. Keane, Assessing psychological
trauma and PTSD (pp. 399-411). New York: Guilford Press.
Weiss, D. S., Marmar, C. R., Metzler, T. J., & Ronfeldt, H. M.
(1995). Rredicting symptomatic distress in emergency services
personnel. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63,
361-368.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2001). Bullying involvement in primary school and common health problems.
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 85, 197-201.
Zilberg, N. J., Weiss, D. S., & Horowitz, M. J. (1982). Impact of Event
Scale: A cross-validation study and some empirical evidence supporting a conceptual model of stress response syndromes. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 407—414.
Journal ofCounseling& Development • Summer 2009 • Volume 87