Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05735-w
The influence of social norms and bullying types on the defending
intentions of school bullying bystanders
Xinyue Wu1 · Lu Li2 · Rui Zhen1,3
Accepted: 6 February 2024 / Published online: 21 February 2024
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024
Abstract
The defending behavior of bystanders toward bullied individuals in bullying situations can effectively prevent the occurrence
and development of bullying incidents. However, owing to the influence of peer group behavior and specific situational factors, bystanders often do not undertake defending behaviors in bullying situations. To explore the influence of social norms
(group factor) and bullying types (situational factor) on bystanders’ defending intentions among 325 senior high school
students in China, a 4 (social norms: descriptive, injunctive, descriptive-injunctive, no norms) × 4 (bullying types: physical,
verbal, relational, cyber) two-factor mixed design was used. The results revealed that the interactive effect between social
norms and bullying types was significant after controlling for gender and age. Only when descriptive norms and injunctive
norms were presented concurrently was the level of defending intentions in verbal and cyber bullying situations significantly
higher than that in physical bullying situations. These results indicate that social norms and bullying types jointly affect
bystanders’ defending intentions. This finding provides insight into the mechanisms underlying bystanders’ defending intentions in bullying situations, and how to improve defending intentions.
Keywords School bullying · Social norms · Bullying types · Bystander · Defending intentions
Introduction
School bullying refers to the behavior of one party intentionally or maliciously using physical, verbal, relational, and
cyber-based means to repeatedly bully or insult another party
with less power, both inside and outside the school, causing
physical, financial, or mental harm to the other party (Jeffrey & Stuart, 2020; Olweus, 1993). School bullying is also
a group phenomenon, and bystanders are present in many
bullying situations in addition to the bullies and victims
(Hawkins et al., 2001; Stueve et al., 2006). Bystanders may
undertake positive defending behaviors, or may be indifferent
* Rui Zhen
zhenrui1206@126.com
1
Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal
University, No. 2318 Yuhangtang Street, Hangzhou 311121,
China
2
The No.1 Middle School of Xiaochi Town in Huangmei
County, Huang’gang 435500, China
3
Zhejiang Philosophy and Social Science Laboratory
for Research in Early Development and Childcare, Hangzhou
Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China
and do nothing (Hawkins et al., 2001; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010).
Bystanders’ defending behavior in bullying situations represents a particular type of prosocial behavior (Pozzoli & Gini,
2010). Specifically, when bystanders witness other students
being bullied, they may use words and actions to discourage
the bullies, or they may provide support and comfort to the
victims. Furthermore, even if they think they cannot directly
intervene, they may ask teachers or parents for help (Pozzoli
& Gini, 2010; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). This behavior can
effectively prevent more occurrences and the further escalation
or development of bullying incidents, and can also reduce the
physical and mental harm experienced by bullied individuals
(Juvonen et al., 2016; Yun, 2020). However, not all bystanders
in bullying situations undertake defending behavior. Previous
studies reported that 88% of bullying situations involve the
presence of bystanders, but students acted to defend the bullied
individual in only 19% of situations (Hawkins et al., 2001).
Therefore, exploring the underlying reasons for and ways to
improve defending behavior is urgent and essential for developing school bullying prevention and intervention solutions.
Importantly, previous studies found that, attitudinally, most
people surveyed were against bullying, but only a small proportion undertook defending behavior in the face of bullying
Vol.:(0123456789)
19284
(Hawkins et al., 2001; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). This divergence between attitude and behavior may be related to the
group settings in which bullying often occurs, because individual behaviors are greatly influenced by group standards
and expectations (Hymel et al., 2015; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010).
These group-level standards and expectations are called social
norms (Cialdini & Trost, 1998), and may be an important
factor influencing bystanders’ defending behavior. Some
previous research findings support this view, indicating that
perceived expectations or rules of peers’ defending behavior
are positively associated with an individual’s own defending
behavior and negatively associated with passive bystanding
behavior (e.g., being an indifferent onlooker) (Kubiszewski
et al., 2019; Pozzoli et al., 2012). However, most of these previous studies used questionnaires to measure people’s perceptions of social norms, while few used experimental manipulation to explore whether showing people defending norms can
influence defending intentions. Furthermore, because norms
and expectations are often implicit (Perkins et al., 2011), it
is possible for misunderstandings to arise in the perception
process, which may have impacted explorations into the roles
of social norms in bystanders’ intentions. To avoid this problem, explicit and positive norms can be directly presented
to bystanders through experimental manipulation, enabling
exploration of the impact of social norms. Furthermore, social
norms include both descriptive norms and injunctive norms
(Cialdini et al., 1991), and it is still unclear whether these different norms have different effects on bystanders’ defending
intentions. Therefore, to expand and deepen previous research,
and to provide theoretical support and suggestions for practical bullying interventions, this study investigated the influence
of social norms on bystanders’ defending intentions through
experimental manipulation, and further explored the influence
of different types of social norms.
Individuals’ behaviors can be influenced by current situational factors (Oh & Hazler, 2009). In addition to considering the behavior of a group, people may also observe specific information in the current bullying situation, conduct a
relevant risk assessment, then decide whether to engage in
defending behavior (Oh & Hazler, 2009; Ren et al., 2018).
Owing to differences in types of bullying (i.e., physical,
verbal, relational, and cyber bullying), bullying situations
can vary widely (Antiri, 2016; Olweus, 1993; Smith et al.,
2008). The characteristics of a given bullying type include
severity, risk, and cost of intervention; thus, bystanders may
behave differently in response to differences in these factors
(Oh & Hazler, 2009; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010).
At present, few studies have specifically explored the
underlying mechanisms of bystanders’ defending intentions from these two perspectives (social norms and bullying types), and no research to date has investigated whether
group factors and situational factors have interactive effects
on bystanders’ defending intentions. Therefore, the current
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
study explored the influence of bullying types on bystanders’
defending intentions, as well as examining whether social
norms and bullying types have interactive effects.
Social norms and bystanders’ defending intentions
Social norms are typically viewed as standards and rules
of behavior that are accepted and followed by members of
a group (Cialdini & Trost, 1998), which is different from
the explicit stipulations of laws and regulations. According to the theory of normative social influence (Pettigrew,
1991), social norms strongly influence people’s behaviors.
To be accepted and liked by others, individuals will adhere
to the norms of the group to ensure their behavior meets the
rules and expectations of the group. Thus, in school bullying
events, when the norm is to defend the victim, students are
more likely to take such actions themselves (Kubiszewski
et al., 2019; Pozzoli et al., 2012). In addition, Bandura’s
(1977) social learning theory can provide useful suggestions
for interpreting bystanders’ intentions and their relationships
with social norms. For example, by observing others, one
forms an idea of how to perform new behaviors, and this
coded information serves as a guide for action on subsequent
occasions. Hence, if students predominantly see other people
defend bullying victims, they may learn to implement that
behavior in similar situations.
Furthermore, social norms include descriptive norms and
injunctive norms (Cialdini et al., 1991). Descriptive norms
refer to what most people do in a specific situation (e.g.,
most students do or do not defend their victimized classmates when they observe a bullying situation). Injunctive
norms refer to what should be done in a specific situation
(e.g., most students typically believe that victims of bullying
should be defended whenever such a situation is observed).
Social psychology research on the two norms has shown
that descriptive norms have a greater impact than injunctive
norms on individuals in many cases (Cialdini et al., 1991;
Pearson & Hustad, 2014). This is because the influence of
descriptive norms on behavior is often unconscious, and
the information processing speed of fact judgment involved
in descriptive norms is faster (Chen et al., 2018; Smith &
Louis, 2008). However, some studies on social norms and
bullying suggest that injunctive norms may have a primary
effect (Kollerová et al., 2018), because their effect is more
likely to transcend situational boundaries, whereas descriptive norms are more likely to exert influence only in the
specific context in which the behavior occurs (Smith &
Louis, 2008). Some researchers also suggest that both types
of norms can exert a powerful influence on behaviors, but
for different reasons (Kubiszewski et al., 2019). Moreover,
descriptive and injunctive norms may appear at the same
time, and when they remain consistent, injunctive norms
can enhance the effect of descriptive norms and create the
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
strongest behavioral intention (Rimal & Real, 2003; Smith
et al., 2012). In general, it is still unclear how the two norms
affect bystanders’ intentions in school bullying. Through
combining relevant theories and studies, we hypothesized
that when presenting information regarding descriptive and
injunctive norms together, the level of defending intentions
would be higher compared with that when only presenting
single norms or no norms.
Bullying types and bystanders’ defending intentions
Individuals’ behavior is not only influenced by group factors,
but also by situational factors (Oh & Hazler, 2009). Bullies
may commit different types of bullying, including physical
(e.g., pushing and punching), verbal (e.g., satirizing, threatening, and nicknaming), relational (e.g., spreading rumors
and isolating to discredit the victim’s reputation or social
status), or cyber bullying (e.g., slandering and exposing
private information via the internet) (Antiri, 2016; Olweus,
1993; Smith et al., 2008). Thus, different characteristics of
these bullying types may influence bystanders’ behavior. A
study by Tapper and Boulton (2005) reported that bystanders had different responses to different forms of aggression.
Compared with bystanders’ responses to witnessing direct
physical and verbal aggression, their responses were more
strongly supportive of the aggressor when they witnessed
indirect verbal and relational aggression (Tapper & Boulton,
2005). Notably, cyberbullying is a special type of bullying
that differs from traditional bullying in important ways, and
also differs in its influence on bystanders’ behavior (Bastiaensens et al., 2014). However, limited studies to date have
explored the specific relationship between different bullying
types and defending intentions.
According to social information processing theory
(Crick & Dodge, 1994), the cognitive processing of specific information in social interactions affects the subsequent response. On the basis of this perspective, whether
a school bullying bystander responds positively mainly
depends on their cognitive processing of bullying information, such as the risk and severity of the bullying incident, in that situation (Oh & Hazler, 2009). Additionally, according to the cost-reward model (Dovidio et al.,
1991), if people believe their defending behavior may
incur some negative evaluation—that is, when the cost
of defending behavior is greater than the reward—they
will be less likely to engage in defending behavior. For
example, in a physical bullying situation, students may
witness intense physical aggression and might feel that
they also risk being attacked if they attempt to defend
the victim; the cost may be deemed too high, making the
student less likely to engage in defending behavior (Oh
& Hazler, 2009; Ren et al., 2018). In contrast, in verbal
bullying situations, students may observe an individual
19285
being ridiculed by others, and may conclude that it is easy
and not very risky to defend the victim. Therefore, from
the perspective of information processing and cost- and
risk-assessment, and by accounting for the characteristics
of different bullying types, we argue that bystanders may
exhibit higher levels of defending behavior in verbal bullying situations compared with physical bullying situations.
Furthermore, although intervening in relational bullying
confers less risk on a bystander, the concealed and complex (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006) nature of this type of
bullying often means bystanders cannot easily engage in
defending behavior. The risk for a bystander of intervening in cyber bullying situations is also relatively low, and
because of the inherent anonymity and convenience (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Machackova et al., 2013), bystanders’
defending intentions in such situations tend to be high.
Social norms and bullying types may each influence
bystanders’ behavioral intentions, but social norms do not
always affect people’s behavior, and the power of social
norms is precarious (Smith et al., 2012), sometimes depending on the specific situation (Schwartz, 1977). For example, because verbal bullying is less dangerous and easier to
intervene in, bystanders may be more likely to help victims
in such situations if that is what they believe most people
would do. However, bystanders may be unwilling to defend
others in physical bullying situations even if that is the social
norm because of the high risk and the difficulty involved in
intervening. Additionally, the roles played by bullying types
in bystanders’ defending behavioral intentions may change
according to varying social norms. This background raises
the question of how social norms and bullying types interact
to affect bystanders’ defending intentions. Addressing this
question could provide insights into the inherent complex
mechanisms and specific conditions that determine whether
school bullying bystanders engage in defending behavior;
this may, in turn, inform more targeted and effective interventions for school bullying.
Overall, the current study aimed to examine the effects of
social norms and bullying types on adolescents’ defending
intentions as school bullying bystanders. Using an experimental design, we manipulated various social norms and
bullying types, then measured adolescents’ defending intentions under different situations. On the basis of the theory of
normative social influence (Pettigrew, 1991), social learning
theory (Bandura, 1977), social information processing theory (Crick & Dodge, 1994), the cost-reward model (Dovidio
et al., 1991), and previous studies, three main hypotheses
were tested. First, we hypothesized that when adolescents
are under both descriptive and injunctive norms at the same
time, their defending intentions will be higher than those
under a single norm or no norm (H1). Second, we hypothesized that adolescents’ defending intentions would be higher
in a verbal and cyber bullying situation compared with those
19286
in a physical or relational situation (H2). Third, we hypothesized that social norms and bullying types would show an
interactive effect on adolescents’ defending intentions (H3).
Methods
Participants
In total, 343 Grade 10 students in Hubei Province, China,
participated in this study. Data for 18 students were excluded
because of missing information on many items or presenting
regular responses, leaving valid data for 325 participants.
Of these, 175 (53.8%) were boys, 135 (41.5%) were girls,
and 15 (4.6%) did not report their gender. Participants had
an average age of 15.96 years (SD = 0.57), ranging from 14
to 18 years old.
Study design
The experiment employed a 4 (social norms: descriptive,
injunctive, descriptive-injunctive, and no-norms) × 4 (bullying types: physical, verbal, relational bullying, and cyberbullying) mixed design. Social norm was a between-participants
variable, and bullying type was a within-participants variable. The dependent variable was adolescents’ intentions to
undertake defending behavior. Four sets of questionnaires
were designed, and each of them contained one social norm
condition and four bullying type conditions. Students were
randomly assigned to rate one set of questionnaires. The
numbers of participants under each of the four social norms
were as follows: descriptive norms 80 (24.61%), injunctive norms 80 (24.61%), descriptive-injunctive norms 80
(24.61%), and no-norms 85 (26.15%).
Materials
Social norms manipulation We used the manipulation paradigm of social norms reported by Smith et al. (2012), which
has been found to be effective in both British and Chinese
samples (Smith et al., 2012). In this paradigm, participants
are typically provided with an investigation report that
includes information about how many people (majority or
minority) had performed a behavior (descriptive norms) or
approved or disapproved of a behavior (injunctive norms).
On this basis, we manipulated social norms of defending
behavior by presenting statements about a large proportion (more than 50%) of people who engaged in (descriptive norms), or suggested that people ought to engage in
(injunctive norms) defending behavior. Social norm was
manipulated as a between-participants variable, and comprised four conditions: descriptive, injunctive, descriptiveinjunctive, and no norms. In the four sets of questionnaires
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
we designed, each contained only one social norm condition.
For example, for descriptive/injunctive norms, the statement
was “Previous investigations showed that the proportion of
participants who take action to/suggest that one ought to
care for and comfort bullied individuals when witnessing a
bullying scene was 88%.” The proportion was presented in
a pie chart. For the descriptive-injunctive norms condition,
we presented the two norms at the same time, and for the nonorms condition we did not present any norms (see Table 1).
Bullying types manipulation Bullying type was a withinparticipants variable, and contained four conditions: physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying. In each of the four
sets of questionnaires, there were four bullying type conditions. Bullying types were manipulated by textual description based on the definitions of physical, verbal, relational,
and cyber bullying (Antiri, 2016; Smith et al., 2008). The
physical bullying situation was described as follows: “A is a
student at Liuxing Middle School. At school, some students
often threaten A, maliciously push A, deliberately break A’s
things, and even punch and kick A” (see Table 1). The verbal
bullying situation was described as follows: “B is a student
at Baiyun Middle School. At school, some students often
laugh at B, call B an ugly nickname, and say things that hurt
B.” A different description was also provided for relational
bullying and for cyberbullying in accordance with their
respective definitions (Olweus, 1993; Smith et al., 2008).
The relational bullying situation was described as follows:
“C is a student at Yumin Middle School. At school, C is
often bullied by some classmates, who often exclude C from
school activities, speak ill of C during school activities, or
tell or encourage others not to be friends with C.” The cyberbullying situation was described as follows: “D is a student
at Shengli Middle School. At school, D is often bullied by
some classmates who use WeChat, QQ, SMS, or other electronic communication methods to send threatening messages
to D. They also post negative messages about D on social
media sites such as WeChat Moments, QQ, or Weibo.”
Defending intentions We adapted a five-item defending
intentions questionnaire on the basis of the definition of
bystander intervention behaviors reported by Kubiszewski
et al. (2019), as well as the items assessing “defending the
victim (three items)” and “passive bystanding (three items)”
from Pozzoli and Gini (2010) and Pozzoli et al. (2012).
Kubiszewski et al. (2019) proposed that bystander intervention behaviors included three main defending behaviors
(e.g., alert, care, and opposition) and one passive behavior
(e.g., passive bystanding). The “defending the victim” and
“passive bystanding” items from Pozzoli and Gini (2010)
and Pozzoli et al. (2012) also entailed alert, care, opposition, and passive bystanding behaviors, and showed acceptable reliability. In our adapted five-item questionnaire, the
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
19287
Table 1 Material sample of social norms and bullying types
Physical bullying situation: A is a student at Liuxing Middle School. At school, some
students often threaten A, maliciously push A, deliberately break A’s things, and even punch
and kick A. If you were a classmate of A, what would you do when witnessing such things?
(Please circle a number from 1 to 5; with 1 representing “Completely disagree” and 5
representing “Completely agree”.)
Sample item of defending
intentions: I would care for,
comfort,
and
encourage
Slightly
disagree
Uncertain
Slightly
agree
Completely
agree
1
2
3
4
5
A,
make friends with A, and help A
overcome diffiiculties.
Completely
disagree
12%
88%
Cared for and comforted the
bullied
Sample information of descriptive norms: On the left
is the proportion of participants who “cared for and
comforted the bullied” in previous surveys.
No action was taken
10%
90%
People suggested ought to care for
and comfort the bullied
Sample information of injunctive norms: On the left is
the proportion of participants who “suggested that they
ought to care for and comfort the bullied” in previous
surveys.
People suggested ought not to care
about this
language was revised to be more suitable for understanding
by Chinese adolescents and in line with the context of the
above variable manipulation. The items were: “I would persuade those classmates who bully A and tell them that doing
so is wrong (opposition)”, “I would warn the bullies to stop
bullying A (opposition)”, “I would care for, comfort, and
encourage A, make friends with A, and help A overcome
difficulties (care)”, “I would tell my teachers or parents what
I see and seek their help (alert)”, and “I wouldn’t do anything because I would be afraid of encountering unnecessary
trouble (passive behavior)”. Participants were first shown a
text description of one bullying situation and a pie chart with
information about social norms. Next, they thought about the
question, “If you were a classmate of A/B/C/D, what would
you do when witnessing such things?” and responded to all
the questionnaire items, which were measured on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree, 5 = Completely
agree). Higher summed scores indicated higher intentions
to undertake specific defending behaviors. The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients of this questionnaire in the four bullying
types situations ranged from 0.70 to 0.78.
Procedure
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee
of Hangzhou Normal University and the principals of the
participating schools. The research assistants explained the
purpose of the study and the voluntary nature of participation
19288
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
before the investigation. Written consent forms were provided to participants, who were informed that they were free
to withdraw from the survey at any time. The research assistants distributed questionnaires to five participating classes.
Four sets of questionnaires were randomly distributed to students. Participants were first asked to provide demographic
information. After reading the text description of bullying
situations and specific social norm-related information, they
responded to the items about defending intentions. It took
approximately 20 min to complete the questionnaires. When
all of the questionnaires were completed, the researchers
thanked the participants and collected the questionnaires.
Data processing and analysis
SPSS 26.0 was used for analyzing the missing data (Little’s MCAR test). The results indicated that missing items
were completely random, and the proportion of missing data
was less than 1%. We interpolated data using the expectation maximization algorithm. We then conducted a normal
distribution test on defending intentions under different
social norms and bullying types. The P-P and Q-Q plots
showed that most points were distributed on a straight line
with a clear linear trend. Hence, overall, the data followed
a normal distribution. Descriptive statistics and analysis of
variance were used in the subsequent analysis.
Results
Descriptive statistics were calculated for participants’
defending intentions relative to different social norms and
bullying types (see Table 2). Additionally, a 4 (social norms:
descriptive, injunctive, descriptive-injunctive, no norms) ×
4 (bullying types: physical, verbal, relational, cyber bullying) mixed analysis of variance was conducted. The results
revealed that the main effect of social norms was not significant, F (3, 321) = 1.57, p = 0.20, ηp2 = 0.014 (see Fig. 1),
but the main effect of bullying types was significant, F (3,
319) = 4.07, p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.037 (see Fig. 2). Specifically,
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of bystanders’ defending intentions
Social norms (M ± SD)
Bullying types
Descriptive norms
(n = 80)
Injunctive norms
(n = 80)
Descriptive-injunctive
norms (n = 80)
No norms (n = 85)
Total
(n = 325)
Physical bullying
Verbal bullying
Relational bullying
Cyber bullying
Total
3.50 ± 0.88
3.51 ± 0.93
3.43 ± 0.98
3.50 ± 0.93
3.49 ± 0.85
3.70 ± 0.71
3.81 ± 0.78
3.72 ± 0.72
3.70 ± 0.82
3.73 ± 0.70
3.55 ± 0.84
3.70 ± 0.70
3.67 ± 0.76
3.73 ± 0.87
3.66 ± 0.75
3.71 ± 0.73
3.70 ± 0.82
3.64 ± 0.84
3.67 ± 0.81
3.68 ± 0.75
3.62 ± 0.79
3.68 ± 0.82
3.62 ± 0.84
3.65 ± 0.86
3.64 ± 0.77
Fig. 1 The main effect among
social norms. There were
no significant differences
between different social norms.
Descriptive = descriptive
norms. Injunctive = injunctive
norms. Descriptive-injunctive = descriptive-injunctive
norms
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
19289
Fig. 2 The main effect among
bullying types. *p < 0.05.
Physical = physical bullying. Verbal = verbal bullying.
Relational = relational bullying.
Cyber = cyber bullying
irrespective of social norms type, participants had higher
levels of defending intentions in verbal bullying situations
compared with physical (p = 0.02, Cohen’s d = 0.07) and
relational (p = 0.02, Cohen’s d = 0.07) bullying situations.
The interaction between social norms and bullying types
was significant, F (3, 321) = 2.90, p = 0.035, ηp2 = 0.026.
The simple effect of bullying types at each level of social
norms on the measure of defending intentions was examined (see Fig. 3). For descriptive and injunctive norms,
the simple main effect of bullying type was statistically
significant, F (3, 319) = 4.06, p = 0.007, η p 2 = 0.037.
Participants had higher levels of defending intentions in
verbal (M = 3.70, p = 0.035, Cohen’s d = 0.19) and cyber
bullying (M = 3.73, p = 0.024, Cohen’s d = 0.21) situations
compared with physical bullying situations (M = 3.55).
For injunctive norms, the simple effect of bullying type
was marginally significant, F (3, 319) = 2.19, p = 0.09,
ηp2 = 0.020, but there was no significant difference between
any two different bullying types. For descriptive norms
and no norms, the simple effect of bullying type was not
significant, F (3, 319) = 1.36, p > 0.05; F (3, 319) = 0.52,
p > 0.05. The simple effect of social norms at each level
Fig. 3 The simple effect of bullying type at each level of social norms.
*
p < 0.05. Descriptive = descriptive norms. Injunctive = injunctive norms.
Descriptive-injunctive = descriptive-injunctive norms. Physical = physi-
cal bullying. Verbal = verbal bullying. Relational = relational bullying.
Cyber = cyber bullying
19290
of bullying type on the measure of defending intentions
was examined. For every bullying type, the simple effect
of social norms was not significant.
We also examined the effects of gender and age based on
previous evidence (Kollerová et al., 2018; Salmivalli, 2010).
Gender and age were not related to the overall defending
intentions (p > 0.05). Gender (1 = boy, 2 = girl) was significantly and positively related to defending intentions in the
physical and verbal bullying conditions (ps < 0.04), and
age was significantly and positively related to defending
intentions in the relational bullying condition (p = 0.03).
Controlling for gender and age, the results showed that the
main effects of social norms (F [3, 304] = 1.30, p > 0.05,
ηp2 = 0.013) and bullying types (F [3, 302] = 1.60, p > 0.05,
ηp2 = 0.016) were not significant, but the interaction effect
between social norms and bullying types was still significant
(F [3, 304] = 2.71, p = 0.045, ηp2 = 0.026). For descriptiveinjunctive norms, the simple effect of bullying type was statistically significant: F (3, 302) = 3.91, p = 0.009, ηp2 = 0.037.
Participants still had higher levels of defending intentions in
verbal (M = 3.69, p = 0.042, Cohen’s d = 0.18) and cyberbullying (M = 3.73, p = 0.022, Cohen’s d = 0.22) situations than
in physical bullying situations (M = 3.54).
Additionally, we conducted a 4 (bullying types: physical,
verbal, relational, cyberbullying) × 2 (gender: boy and girl)
analysis of variance to test the effects of gender. The results
showed that the main effect of bullying types was significant:
F (3, 306) = 4.15, p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.039. The main effect of
gender was not significant: F (3, 308) = 2.95, p = 0.087,
ηp2 = 0.009. The interaction between bullying types and
gender was not significant: F (3, 306) = 1.48, p = 0.221. The
simple effect showed that participants had higher levels of
defending intentions in verbal (M = 3.69) situations compared with physical (M = 3.62, p = 0.006, Cohen’s d = 0.09)
and relational bullying situations (M = 3.62, p = 0.012,
Cohen’s d = 0.08).
Discussion
The present study explored the relationship between social
norms, bullying types, and bystanders’ defending intentions
using experimental manipulation. We further distinguished
between descriptive and injunctive norms and examined
their different effects, as well as the interactive effects of
social norms and bullying types. Although we observed no
significant differences in defending intentions under different social norms, defending intentions were significantly different under distinct bullying types. Moreover, the results
showed that social norms and bullying types had significant
interactive effects, even when controlling for gender and age.
Overall, these findings contribute to a better understanding
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
of the mechanisms underlying bystanders’ defending intentions, which may be helpful for informing suggestions for
school bullying prevention and interventions.
The present study did not find an individual effect of
social norms on bystanders’ defending intentions when no
other variables were considered, which was inconsistent
with our hypothesis and did not support the theory of normative social influence (Pettigrew, 1991) and some previous
studies (Kubiszewski et al., 2019; Pozzoli et al., 2012; Smith
et al., 2012). We speculate that one possible explanation for
the current results is that social norms were examined with
a between-participants design, which might not be as sensitive as a within-participants design, and there may have been
too many different social norm situations. From a statistical
analysis perspective, this might decompose the variation to
some extent, making significant differences more difficult to
observe. Another possible reason for the current results is
related to the way we manipulated our experiment through
questionnaire scenarios rather than normative manipulation,
which would be closer to a real-world scenario. Thus, it is
possible that the participants may not be sensitive enough. In
future, more research should be conducted on this question,
and attention should be paid to these factors.
The current study revealed that bullying types significantly affected bystanders’ defending behavior without
considering gender and age effects. Additionally, the simple effect of interaction between social norms and bullying
types showed that under descriptive-injunctive norms, the
levels of defending intentions were higher for verbal and
cyberbullying compared with those in physical bullying situations, even when controlling for gender and age. This result
supports information processing theory (Crick & Dodge,
1994) and cost-reward theory (Dovidio et al., 1991). Adolescents process specific information in a school bullying
situation, and make evaluations on the basis of cost and risk.
If the risk of defending a victim is too high and the cost
of investment is too high, adolescents will not engage in
defending behavior (Fischer et al., 2011; Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017). For example, bystanders may be involved in a
physical conflict and get hurt when intervening in a physical
bullying situation; thus they may be less likely to engage in
defending behavior because of the perceived high risk and
cost. In contrast to physical bullying situations, in verbal and
cyberbullying scenarios, bystanders’ defending behavior is
unlikely to result in direct physical harm, and the potential
harm is relatively minor (Grassetti et al., 2020). In addition, in the context of cyberbullying, bystanders can provide
assistance anonymously, and a simple expression or “like”
can be helpful for the bullied individual with a relatively low
risk and cost (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Machackova et al.,
2013). Therefore, it is relatively easy to intervene in verbal
and cyber bullying situations. These results indicate that it
is important to consider the risks and costs associated with
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
different bullying types when exploring bystanders’ defending behavior. For relatively low-risk and low-cost bullying
situations, high levels of defending behavior can be encouraged, whereas in relatively high-risk and high-cost situations, the problem of low levels of defending behavior must
be properly addressed.
The norm activation model (Schwartz, 1977) suggests
that the role of social norms in people’s behavior might be
affected by individual internal norms, awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, and some situational
factors. This model indicates that social norms may interact
with other factors to influence people’s behavior or intentions. In the present study, the interactive effect between
social norms and bullying types was significant in the present study, even after controlling for gender and age. We further found that only when most bystanders engaged in and
believed they should engage in defending behavior was the
level of defending intentions in verbal and cyber bullying situations higher than that in physical bullying situations. This
indicates the co-promoting effects of descriptive norms and
injunctive norms on the defending intentions of bystanders
in low-risk situations. As discussed in some previous studies,
that when descriptive and injunctive norms were presented
simultaneously, this not only conveyed to teenagers that most
people help bullied individuals, giving them the confidence
and effectiveness to help victims, but also led them to perceive pressure from the group (Hymel et al., 2015; Pozzoli
et al., 2012). Thus, to align with the group, they were also
more inclined to defend bullied individuals. Moreover, the
group’s injunctive norms may further strengthen bystanders’
defense of the victims, because they may be criticized or
punished if they violate the group’s expectations and regulations (Kollerová et al., 2018; Rimal & Real, 2003). Therefore, when the two norms occur simultaneously, bystanders’
defending intentions in low-risk situations (i.e., verbal and
cyber bullying) may be more easily stimulated.
Compared with the no-norms condition, the descriptive
or injunctive norms did not significantly promote defending intentions in lower-risk verbal situations. Indeed, presenting only descriptive norms may have negative effects
(Perkins et al., 2011). That is, a bystander’s perception that
most people will defend the bullied individual may lead to
the bystander effect (Darley & Latané, 1968; Fischer et al.,
2011): for example, adolescents may decide to not help a
victim in a bullying situation because they think others will.
Additionally, given the particular developmental stage of
adolescents’ self-consciousness and independence, when
presented with only injunctive norms, adolescents may
challenge the voice of authority and engage in the opposite
behavior. Hence, the impact of social norms information on
behavior is the most effective when the two social norms
are consistent, appear at the same time, and strengthen each
other (Chen et al., 2018; Smith & Louis, 2008).
19291
In light of previous evidence, the exploration of gender
effects was included. Through correlation analysis, we found
that gender was positively related to defending intentions in
physical and verbal bullying conditions. Girls had higher
defending intentions in physical and verbal bullying conditions compared with boys. Consistent with previous studies,
girls were more likely to defend the bullied individual (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017; Kollerová et al., 2018; Salmivalli,
2010), and a preponderance of girls among defenders has
been reported (Sijtsema et al., 2014). Some researchers have
reported that this pattern occurs because boys tend to exhibit
more moral disengagement than girls, and girls tend to have
stronger empathy skills and a greater susceptibility to peer
pressure (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017; Sijtsema et al., 2014).
In the present study, we found that girls had higher defending
intentions regarding physical and verbal bullying. It is possible that girls tend to be more sensitive to verbal and physical bullying behaviors, and these bullying situations more
strongly stimulate girls’ empathy and moral sense. However,
this interpretation is speculative, and the interaction effect
between gender and bullying type was not found in the analysis of variance in the current study. Therefore, more research
will be required in future to further explore and elucidate this
question. Additionally, gender did not influence the interaction of social norms and bullying types, indicating that our
results were still valid after excluding gender effects.
Limitations and implications
Some limitations of the present research should be noted.
First, because norms reflect behaviors that are performed by
most people (greater than 50%) and the code of conduct that
is expected in a group, we used proportions between 70%
and 100% to manipulate social norms of defending behavior
in a bullying situation. However, we did not examine the
proportions as a control variable, and neglected the potential
effects of different proportions in different intervals. Future
research should take the proportions into consideration. Second, because the current study assessed adolescents’ defending intentions using a self-report measure, the results may be
affected by the social-desirability bias effect. Future research
can present bullying situations through videos, virtual reality
technology, and simulating bullying scenes by experimenters, and record adolescents’ defending behaviors through
cameras to reduce social-desirability bias. Third, although
defending is a multidimensional construct that involves
direct (aggressive and solution-focused behaviors) and indirect (comforting and reporting to authority) behaviors, this
study assessed defending intentions as a single construct.
In future research, the current findings could be extended
by differentiating specific defending behaviors. Fourth, this
study only investigated freshmen in senior high school. To
fully understand the mechanisms of the defending behaviors
19292
of adolescent bystanders, follow-up studies should expand
the sample by including adolescents in different age groups
and grades; this would also improve the ecological validity of the research. Finally, the present study only focused
on bullying types as the situational factor. Other situational
factors (e.g., adolescents’ relationships with others present)
require more exploration in future empirical research, as
they may also play important roles with social norms in
adolescents’ defending intentions.
Despite these limitations, our findings enhance current
understandings of the difficulties bystanders face when
deciding whether to intervene in school bullying situations,
and have important implications for the development of bullying interventions. First, the current results suggest that it
is necessary to present both descriptive norms and injunctive norms to bystanders. That is, it is important to not only
convey the value of fraternity and mutual support, but also to
formulate school or class disciplines of conduct to promote
defending and helping behaviors in schools. Importantly,
the effect of social norms on adolescent bystanders was limited and depended on their evaluations of the cost and risk
in specific bullying situations. This indicates that we must
create more effective and safer interventions for bystanders,
especially in relatively high-risk situations such as physical
and relational bullying. When school bullying occurs, for
example, instead of attempting to stop or reprimand the bullies alone, bystanders could inform teachers or their school
security department via a real-time network alert system, or
ask other students to collectively defend the victim. Students
could also show care for and comfort the bullied individual
after the event. These options ensure that bullies cannot discover who the defenders are and retaliate, which reduces the
cost and risk of intervention for bystanders. Bystanders can
thereby also develop a better sense of efficacy and responsibility toward defending in school bullying situations.
Conclusion
The current findings indicate that bullying types influence
the positive defending intentions of bystanders, and, compared with physical bullying, low-risk and low-cost verbal
and cyber bullying situations are more likely to stimulate
the defending intentions of bystanders. The impact of social
norms on bystanders’ defending intentions is limited, and
may affect bystanders’ defending intentions together with
bullying types. When descriptive norms and injunctive
norms are presented at the same time (i.e., when there is an
atmosphere of universal fraternity and mutual support in the
social group environment), and there are also certain social
requirements and disciplines, compared with high-risk and
high-cost bullying situations (physical bullying), the level of
bystanders’ defending intentions under low-risk and low-cost
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
bullying situations (verbal bullying and cyber bullying) will
be higher. These results have implications for revealing the
mechanisms underlying bullying bystander defending intentions and how to improve defending intentions. In future bullying interventions, descriptive and injunctive norms may
play a joint role in promoting defending intentions in verbal
and cyber bullying situations. In addition, interveners should
strengthen guidance for bystanders to adopt safe and effective
defending behaviors in physical and other bullying situations.
Funding This study was supported by “Zhijiang Youth” Special Project
of Philosophy and Social Science Planning of Zhejiang Province (Grant
No. 24ZJQN066Y).
Data availability The data could be made available upon reasonable
request to the first author.
Declarations
Ethics approval The investigation was approved by the Hangzhou Normal University Ethics Committee.
Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants in the study.
Conflict of interest The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Antiri, K. O. (2016). Types of bullying in the senior high schools
in Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(36), 131–138.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​0264-​3944.​2005.​00329.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Cleemput, K. V., Desmet,
A., & Bourdeaudhuij, I. D. (2014). Cyberbullying on social network
sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human
Behavior, 31, 259–271. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2013.​10.​036
Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to
bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational
bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219–231.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​0663.​98.1.​219
Chen, S., He, Q., & Ma, J. (2018). The influence of third-party punishment on cooperation: An explanation of social norm activation
[Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(3), 389–405. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3724/​SP.J.​1041.​2015.​00389
Cialdini, R., & Trost, M. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In T. Gilbert, T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of
norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24(1), 201–234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0065-​2601(08)​60330-5
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of
social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social.
Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
0033-​2909.​115.1.​74
Current Psychology (2024) 43:19283–19293
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8(4), 377–383. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​h0025​589
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., &
Clark, R. D., III. (1991). The arousal: Cost-reward model and the
process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In M. S. Clark
(Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 86–118). Sage Publications Inc.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect:
A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous
and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137,
517–537. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0023​304
Grassetti, S. N., Hubbard, J. A., Docimo, M. A., Bookhout, M. K.,
Swift, L. E., & Gawrysiak, M. J. (2020). Parental advice to preadolescent bystanders about how to intervene during bullying
differs by form of bullying. Social Development, 29(1), 290–302.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​sode.​12397
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic
observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10(4), 512–527. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1467-​9507.​00178
Hymel, S., McClure, R., Miller, M., Shumka, E., & Trach, J. (2015).
Addressing school bullying: Insights from theories of group processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37(1),
16–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​appdev.​2014.​11.​008
Jeffrey, J., & Stuart, J. (2020). Do research definitions of bullying
capture the experiences and understandings of young people? A
qualitative investigation into the characteristics of bullying behaviour. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2, 180–189.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42380-​019-​00026-6
Jenkins, L. N., & Nickerson, A. B. (2017). Bullying participant roles
and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggressive
Behavior, 43(3), 281–290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ab.​21688
Juvonen, J., Schacter, H. L., Sainio, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2016). Can a schoolwide bullying prevention program improve the plight of victims? Evidence for risk×intervention effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 84(4), 334–344. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​ccp00​00078
Kollerová, L., Yanagida, T., Mazzone, A., Soukup, P., & Strohmeier,
D. (2018). They think that I should defend: Effects of peer and
teacher injunctive norms on defending victimized classmates in
early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 2424–
2439. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10964-​018-​0918-2
Kubiszewski, V., Auzoult, L., Potard, C., & Lheureux, F. (2019). Witnessing school bullying: To react or not to react? An insight into
perceived social norms regulating self-predicted defending and
passive behaviours. Educational Psychology, 39(9), 1174–1193.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01443​410.​2018.​15307​35
Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Sevcikova, A., & Cerna, A. (2013).
Bystanders’ support of cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 25–36. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1002/​casp.​2135
Oh, I., & Hazler, R. J. (2009). Contributions of personal and scenarioal
factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying. School Psychology International, 30(3), 291–310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
01430​34309​106499
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we
can do. Blackwell.
Pearson, M. R., & Hustad, J. T. (2014). Personality and alcohol-related
outcomes among mandated college students: Descriptive norms,
injunctive norms, and college-related alcohol beliefs as mediators.
Addictive Behaviors, 39(5), 879–884. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
addbeh.​2014.​01.​008
Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using social norms
to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in
five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
14(5), 703–722. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13684​30210​398004
19293
Pettigrew, T. (1991). Normative theory in intergroup relations: Explaining both harmony and conflict. Psychology and Developing Societies, 3(1), 3–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09713​33691​00300​102
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and
perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
38(6), 815–827. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10802-​010-​9399-9
Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Vieno, A. (2012). The role of individual correlates and class norms in defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: A multilevel analysis. Child Development, 83(6),
1917–1931. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8624.​2012.​01831.x
Ren, P., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2018). The positive participant role
in school bullying: The defenders [Chinese]. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(1), 98–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3724/​SP.J.​
1042.​2018.​00098
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13(2), 184–
203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1468-​2885.​2003.​tb002​88.x
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112–120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​avb.​2009.​08.​007
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes,
group norms, and behaviour in bullying scenarios. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(3), 246–258. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​01650​25034​40004​88
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influence on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10,
pp. 221–279). Academic Press.
Sijtsema, J. J., Rambaran, J. A., Caravita, S., & Gini, G. (2014). Friendship selection and influence in bullying and defending: Effects of
moral disengagement. Developmental Psychology, 50(8), 2093–
2104. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0037​145
Smith, J. R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Do as we say and as we do:
The interplay of descriptive and injunctive group norms in the
attitude-behaviour relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 647–666. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 348/0​ 14466​ 607X2​ 69748
Smith, J. R., Louis, W. R., Terry, D. J., Greenaway, K. H., Clarke, M.
R., & Cheng, X. (2012). Congruent or conflicted? The impact
of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 353–361. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvp.​2012.​06.​001
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
and Allied Disciplines, 49(4), 376–385. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​
1469-​7610.​2007.​01846.x
Stueve, A., Dash, K., O’Donnell, L., Tehranifar, P., Wilson-Simmons,
R., Slaby, R. G., & Link, B. G. (2006). Rethinking the bystander
role in school violence prevention. Health Promotion Practice,
7(1), 117–124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​15248​39905​278454
Tapper, K., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). Victim and peer group responses to
different forms of aggression among primary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 31(3), 238–253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ab.​20080
Yun, H. Y. (2020). New approaches to defender and outsider roles in
school bullying. Child Development, 91(4), e814–e832. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cdev.​13312
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Current Psychology is a copyright of Springer, 2024. All Rights Reserved.