948142

research-article2020
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260520948142Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceJiang et al.

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Why the Victims of

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Bullying Are More Likely sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260520948142
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520948142
to Avoid Involvement journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

When Witnessing
Bullying Situations:
The Role of Bullying
Sensitivity and Moral
Disengagement

Shuyang Jiang,1  Ru-De Liu,1 Yi Ding,2

Ronghuan Jiang,1 Xinchen Fu,1 and Wei Hong1

Abstract
Recent studies have suggested a link between bullying victimization and passive
bystander behaviors, such as more outsider behaviors and fewer defender
behaviors. However, little is known about the internal mechanism underpinning
this relation. The present study aimed to examine the direct and indirect
relationships between bullying victimization and two types of bystander behaviors
(defender behavior and outsider behavior), considering the possible mediator
role of bullying sensitivity and moral disengagement among Chinese adolescents.
Participants were 435 primary school students aged from 11 to 13 years
(M = 12.27, SD = 0.69) who completed measurements of bullying victimization,
bullying sensitivity, moral disengagement, and bystander behaviors. The results
of the total effect model indicated that bullying victimization was positively
related to outsider behavior and negatively related to defender behavior. The

1
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center
for Experimental Psychology Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
2
Fordham University, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Ru-De Liu, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Beijing 100875, China.
Email: rdliu@bnu.edu.cn
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

results from the structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis showed that
bullying sensitivity mediated the relationship between bullying victimization
and defender behavior. The relationship between bullying victimization and
outsider behavior was mediated by moral disengagement, as well as the
multiple mediation of bullying sensitivity and moral disengagement. These
results highlight the roles of bullying sensitivity and moral disengagement in
explaining the relation between bullying victimization and bystander behavior
among adolescent students. The findings provide important implications for
developing intervention programs aiming at school bullying prevention.

Keywords
bullying victimization, bullying sensitivity, moral disengagement, bystander
behavior, adolescents

Introduction
In response to world-wide serious concern over the high prevalence of school
bullying (Heerde & Hemphill, 2019; Strøm et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2017),
researchers have examined bystanders’ roles and behaviors in bullying situa-
tions (Fischer et al., 2011; Polanin et al., 2012; Salmivalli et al., 2011).
Prosocial bystander behaviors, such as defender behaviors (e. g., reporting
bullies to authorities), were shown to be inversely related to bullying perpe-
tration (Espelage et al., 2012). In contrast, passive bystander behaviors, such
as outsider behaviors (e.g., avoiding involvement), served as signals of silent
approval that led to a higher prevalence of bullying (Craig et al., 2000;
Salmivalli, 2014).
Individuals with experience of victimization tend to react differently from
nonvictims when witnessing bullying situations (Storch & Ledley, 2005;
Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011). Some studies have reported that bullying vic-
timization may lead to more passive bystander behaviors and fewer defender
behaviors (Cao & Lin, 2015; Huang et al., 2016); however, little is known
about the psychological mechanism underlying this relation. According to
social cognition and social psychological theories (Bandura, 1999; Crick &
Dodge, 1994; Dodge et al., 2006), bullying sensitivity and moral disengage-
ment are among the most typical cognitive factors that are closely related to
bystander behaviors (Pornari & Wood, 2010; Thornberg & Jungert, 2013).
The present study aimed to examine whether bullying sensitivity and
moral disengagement mediated the relation between bullying victimization
and two types of bystander behaviors: outsider behavior (a passive bystander
behavior) and defender behavior (a prosocial bystander behavior) among
Jiang et al. 3

Chinese primary school students. The findings contribute to the existing lit-
erature by (a) providing a more thorough understanding of why students with
more experience of bullying victimization tend to avoid involvement when
witnessing bullying situations and (b) developing targeted strategies to reduce
the negative effects caused by bullying victimization.

Bullying Victimization and Bystander Behavior

Researchers have described four different types of bullying bystanders: assis-
tants, who join the ringleader bullies; reinforcers, who support the bullies by
laughing, cheering, or being an audience; outsiders, who do nothing and
remain passive; and defenders, who try to help the victims (Craig et al., 2000;
Salmivalli et al., 1996). In the context of school bullying, defender behaviors
are considered as prosocial bystander reactions that can provide negative
feedback to the bully, whereas outsider behaviors are considered as passive
bystander behaviors that can signal silent approval (Salmivalli, 2014).
According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1999), previous bullying
victimization experiences contribute to the shaping of individuals’ behavioral
trajectories and result in different bystander reactions (Cao & Lin, 2015;
Hawker & Boulton, 2000). For instance, bullying victimization is reported to
cause harmful effects on an individual’s emotional and social functions
(Schacter et al., 2014). Victimization may be perceived as a salient threat to
an individual’s social identity (Wilson et al., 2006), involving strong negative
emotions such as shame, depression, anxiety, and low self-worth (Graham &
Juvonen, 1998; Strøm et al., 2018). Such experiences increase victims’ vul-
nerability, and they tend to ruminate on their social failures, adopt more
avoidance strategies, and socially withdraw (Juvonen & Graham, 2014; Kim
et al., 2011). For example, Strøm and colleagues (2018) conducted a 4-year
longitudinal study based on 681 participations and found that bullying vic-
timization was significantly associated with psychological distress, impaired
functioning, and increased barriers to social support. Furthermore, some
researchers suggested that victimization experiences are positively related to
retaliation, which leads to higher aggressive intention, more externalizing
problems, and some victims becoming perpetrators (Arseneault et al., 2006;
Heirman & Walrave, 2012; Katzer et al., 2009). Recent studies (Cao & Lin,
2015; Huang et al., 2016) illustrated that bullying victimization was related
to increased passive bystander behaviors in both bullying and cyberbullying
situations. Following this rationale, we expect students who have more expe-
riences of bullying victimization to be more likely to withdraw from bullying
situations to avoid reliving their own experiences, thus leading to more out-
sider behaviors and fewer defender behaviors.
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Bullying Sensitivity and Moral Disengagement as Possible

Mediating Variables
According to social information processing (SIP) models (Crick & Dodge,
1994; Dodge et al., 2006) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1999), indi-
viduals approach a social situation with a set of preconditions, such as past
experiences and memories. Such experiences contribute to the development
of social schemas and knowledge, which guide SIP and behaviors in social
situations (Terranova, 2009; Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011). With regard to
bullying situations, bullying sensitivity, as an activation of domain-specific
social schema, may be a plausible explanation for the association between
bullying victimization and bystander behaviors.
Bullying sensitivity can be understood as a state of readiness that serves to
recognize bullying situations (Jordan, 2007; Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011).
During the cue interpretation phase and in ambiguous social situations, sen-
sitivity can help individuals be able to “decode” a situation more quickly and
accurately and have better understanding of the possible consequences of
actions, that is, they tend to become emotionally aroused (such as empathy or
guilt), and keep considering possible negative effects caused by bullying
(such as bullying is wrong because it harms the victim for a very long time;
Bebeau, 2002; Morton et al., 2006). Bullying sensitivity is formed through
social interactions, which further influence SIP and behaviors (Dodge et al.,
2006; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005). According to social learning theory
(Bandura, 1999), individuals with more experiences of bullying victimization
may possess lower levels of bullying sensitivity. Being bullied by peers, vic-
timized students tend to become accustomed to violence over time, they are
more likely to view bullying behaviors as a normal way to interact with oth-
ers, which results in lower levels of bullying sensitivity. For example, a study
by Perren et al. (2012) indicated that the older the victims, the more they are
desensitized to issues of unfairness. Several studies also showed that violence
victimization or even witnessing violence can lead to higher acceptance of
violence, maladaptive schemas, and increased risk of future victimization
(Calvete et al., 2018; Vonderhaar & Carmody, 2015). Thus, it is plausible that
high bullying victimization may lead to moral desensitization, and results in
low bullying sensitivity. Furthermore, bullying sensitivity has been consid-
ered as a triggering factor for positive bystander reactions (Akturk, 2015;
Thornberg & Jungert, 2013). Students who have a high level of bullying sen-
sitivity believe that “bullying is wrong because it can cause harmful effects”
and tend to show more empathy toward victims (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013).
Such anti-bullying attitudes and empathetic responsiveness can lead to
increased prosocial reactions such as fewer outsider behaviors and more
Jiang et al. 5

defender behaviors (Datta et al., 2016; Nickerson & Mele-Taylor, 2014).

Taken together, we propose that bullying sensitivity plays a mediating role in
the association between bullying victimization and bystander behaviors.
In addition to bullying sensitivity, moral disengagement has been consis-
tently recognized as an important cognitive factor that is closely related to
bystander behaviors (DeSmet et al., 2016; C. Wang & Goldberg, 2017). Moral
disengagement refers to a cognitive process through which individuals can jus-
tify their immoral behavior by disengaging from their inner moral standards
(Bandura, 1999, 2002). Research has indicated that victimization experience is
positively associated with moral disengagement (Pornari & Wood, 2010). That
is, victimized individuals are inclined to employ moral disengagement (such as
cognitive restructuring or disregarding its negative effects) as an attempt to
make sense of their own experience and protect them from emotional harm.
Moral disengagement was positively related to antisocial behavior such as bul-
lying and aggression (Gini et al., 2015; Perren et al., 2012), and negatively
related to prosocial behavior (Bandura, 1999, 2002). In addition, higher moral
disengagement was associated with pro-bully attitudes, which lead to more
passive bystander behaviors (Almeida et al., 2010; Gini, 2006; Thornberg &
Jungert, 2014). For example, Almeida et al. (2010) showed that higher levels of
moral disengagement can predict positive attitudes toward bullying and nega-
tive attitudes toward defender behavior. To conclude, we assumed that students
who have more bullying victimization experience tend to morally disengage,
which leads to more outsider behavior and less defender behavior.
In addition, bullying sensitivity exerts a pervasive interpretative influence
on moral reasoning and guide moral actions of all kinds (Narvaez & Lapsley,
2005; Pizarro, 2000), including moral disengagement. Researchers have noted
that bullying sensitivity was negatively related to moral disengagement
(Thornberg & Jungert, 2013). Individuals with a high level of bullying sensi-
tivity are more likely to identify bullying transgressions rapidly, and can easily
recognize the moral wrongness of bullying (Caravita et al., 2009; Thornberg,
2010). Such high awareness of bullying is associated with the perception of
responsibility, through which individuals are inclined to consider themselves
as moral agents responsible for the well-being of the victims, thus they are less
likely to disengage morally (Bandura, 1999, 2002; May, 1992). Therefore,
when there is a clear distinction between “right and wrong,” it would be harder
for them to morally disengage. Given that bullying sensitivity and moral dis-
engagement may both play a mediating role in the link between bullying vic-
timization and bystander behaviors, and the association between bullying
sensitivity and moral disengagement, we proposed the multiple mediating
effect of bullying sensitivity and moral disengagement in the relation between
victimization experience and bystander behaviors.
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Figure 1.  The hypothesized model.

The Current Study

Although some studies have shown that individuals with more experiences of
bullying victimization tend to display more passive bystander reactions (e.g.,
Huang et al., 2016), the psychological mechanism remains unclear. The pres-
ent study aimed to investigate how bullying victimization was related to two
different types of bystander behaviors, outsider behavior and defender behav-
ior, among Chinese primary students. In addition, we tested the roles of bul-
lying sensitivity and moral disengagement as underlying mediators of this
relation. We addressed the following hypotheses in our model:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Bullying victimization positively relates to outsider

behavior and negatively relates to defender behavior.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Bullying sensitivity acts as a mediator in the relation
between bullying victimization and two types of bystander behaviors.
That is, bullying victimization negatively relates to bullying sensitivity,
bullying sensitivity negatively relates to outsider behavior, and bullying
sensitivity positively relates to defender behavior.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Moral disengagement acts as a mediator in the rela-
tion between bullying victimization and two types of bystander behaviors.
That is, bullying victimization positively relates to moral disengagement,
moral disengagement positively relates to outsider behavior, and moral
disengagement negatively relates to defender behavior.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Bullying victimization has multiple mediating effects
on two types of bystander behaviors by bullying sensitivity via moral dis-
engagement. The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1.
Jiang et al. 7

Method
Participants
Participants were 435 sixth-grade students from two public schools. The two
schools were different in size with both located in Northern China. All par-
ticipants were native Chinese speakers, and they were all from China.
Participants’ ages ranged from 11 to 13 years (M = 12.27, SD = 0.69),
including 223 boys (51.26%), 208 girls (47.82%), and four students who did
not report gender (0.92%).

Measures
Experiences of bullying and bullying victimization.  The present study utilized
a bullying victimization questionnaire from the Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire (OBVQ) to assess students’ experience of bullying victim-
ization (Olweus, 1996). A sample item was “Hit, kicked, pushed, shoved
around, or locked indoors.” Students were asked to choose the extent to
which each item applied to them during the past 2 months using a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (not once in 2 months) to 5 (several times in 1 week).
The scale demonstrated good validity and reliability in a previous study
(person separation index was 0.87; Kyriakides et al., 2006) as well as in
the current study (Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient = .94).

Bullying sensitivity. We adopted a bullying sensitivity scale (Thornberg &

Jungert, 2013) to assess students’ perception of negative consequences of
bullying. The scale consisted of three items that we modified into a Chinese
version. A sample item was “Bullying can cause harm to the victim for a
very long time.” Students rated the items on a 7-point Likert-type scale from
1 = not true at all to 7 = very true. This scale showed satisfactory internal
consistency in prior research (α = .83). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient was .80.

Moral disengagement of bullying.  The six-item Moral Disengagement in Bul-

lying Scale (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013) was used to assess students’ degree
of moral justification and minimizing of the negative outcomes caused by
bullying. This scale had a one-factor structure with sample items including,
“It’s ok to bully someone you don’t like”; “Some people deserve to be bul-
lied”; and “Bullying really isn’t so bad, it’s just something you should put up
with.” Students were asked to respond on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 = not true at all to 7 = very true. Prior research has confirmed good
reliability (α = .85) of this scale (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013). The internal
reliability in the present study was .89.
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Bystander behavior.  We assessed students’ bystander behavior by means of the

Student Bystander Behavior Scale (SBBS), originally developed by Salmi-
valli (1999) that we modified to a Chinese version. The students were asked
to imagine the following scenario: “If you saw one or some kids bullying
another kid at school, what would you do when you saw the bullying going
on?” Defender behavior included two items (e.g., “Trying to get the bully/
bullies to stop”), and outsider behavior included two items (e.g., “Doing
nothing but be quiet and passive instead”). Students responded on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = always. In the present study,
defender behaviors and outsider behaviors were significantly correlated to
each other (r = −.45).

Control variables.  Research suggested that students’ gender and experience of

bullying others might influence bystander reactions (Gini et al., 2008). These
variables were included as control variables in the present study. The fre-
quency of bullying others was measured with the bullying others questions
from the OBVQ (Olweus, 1996). Respondents responded on a 5-point scale,
ranging from 1 = not once in 2 months to 5 = several times in 1 week. This
questionnaire had good internal reliability in this study (α = .85).

Procedure
Ethical approval for conducting this study was obtained from a major
research university in Beijing. We contacted school administrators to explain
our research purpose and asked for their permission to conduct the study.
Teachers, students and their parents were fully informed about the study
objectives, and the confidential nature of the study. Students’ assent and
written consent from the students’ parents were obtained.
Students completed the questionnaires in their usual classrooms, in which
each seat was spaced at least 1 m apart. Previously trained researchers were
at the site while the questionnaires were being completed. Students were
informed that their participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous,
and they were free to ask any questions about questionnaire items that they
did not understand and they were free to withdraw from the study. All stu-
dents present on the day of the study answered the paper-based question-
naires. Data collection was completed during class time.

Data Analysis Plan

Before testing hypotheses, we conducted analyses of missing data on both
cases and variables using SPSS 23.0 software. The results on cases showed
Jiang et al. 9

that 19 participants did not answer all questions, and all the missing rates of
the 19 participants were less than 13.8% (much lower than 50%), which indi-
cated that their data could be retained. Analysis on variables revealed that all
the missing rates on variables were less than 1.4%, which indicated that the
data were valid. Then, we assessed the pattern of missing data through Little’s
Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test. The result revealed that the
missing data were not random. According to J. Wang and Wang (2012), robust
maximum likelihood estimates (MLR) technique was selected as the imputa-
tion method of the missing data in the following structural equation model
(SEM). In addition, a one-factor test was conducted to check the common
method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Descriptive statistics and
Pearson correlations coefficients between the main variables were calculated.
The hypothesized model was tested using Mplus 7.0. After controlling for
age and gender, we developed a SEM to analyze the possible mediator role of
bullying sensitivity and moral disengagement in the relations among bullying
victimization, defender behaviors, and outsider behaviors. The goodness-of-
fit indicators were reported including comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
The bootstrap technique, with 5000 resamples, was conducted to assess 95%
confidence intervals (CIs) of the mediation paths. If the confidence interval
did not contain zero, the significance of mediated effect was confirmed.

Results
Common Method Variance Analysis
Before testing the hypotheses, we assessed the common method variance
(CMV) by conducting Harman’s one-factor test. According to a study by
Podsakoff and Organ (1986), if one general factor accounts for more than
40% of the total variance, it indicates the presence of a common method vari-
ance. In the present study, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results
extracted six factors with eigenvalues exceeding one, and the first factor
explained 26.98% of the total variance, which indicated that common method
variance was not a serious concern in the present study.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among
major variables. The severity of bullying victimization was significantly pos-
itively correlated with moral disengagement and outsider behavior. Bullying
sensitivity was significantly positively correlated with defender behavior and
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 1.  Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among the Main Variables.
Variable M ± SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender – –  
2. Bullying 1.10 ± 0.45 .01 –  
3. BV 1.33 ± 0.70 −.01 .52*** –  
4. BS 6.20 ± 1.17 .02 −.21*** −.05 –  
5. MD 2.13 ± 1.37 −.10* .37*** .28*** −.38*** –  
6. DB 5.96 ± 1.31 .08 −.14** −.12* .44*** −.31*** –  
7. OB 2.60 ± 1.65 −.07 .32*** .19*** −.26*** .44*** −.45*** –

Note. Gender was coded as 1 = males; 2 = females; BV = bullying victimization; BS = bullying sensitivity;
MD = moral disengagement; DB = defender behavior; OB = outsider behavior.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

negatively correlated with moral disengagement and outsider behavior. Moral

disengagement was significantly positively correlated with outsider behavior
and negatively correlated with defender behavior. Defender behavior and
outsider behavior were negatively intercorrelated. As bullying was both sig-
nificantly correlated with the outcome variables (defender behavior and out-
sider behavior), they were used as covariates in further analyses.

Analysis of the Hypothesized Model

Mplus 7.0 software was used to test the hypothesized model. First, we con-
ducted the total effect model by examining the effect of victimization experi-
ence on bystander behaviors, in which bullying victimization was entered as
an independent variable, defender behavior and outsider behavior were
entered into the model as the dependent variables. The model showed a good
fit to the data (χ2/df = 3.25, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.073).
The results revealed that victimization experience had a negative effect on
defender behavior (β = −0.16, p < .05) and a positive effect on outsider
behavior (β = 0.24, p < .001).
Next, defender behavior and outsider behavior were entered into the
model as dependent variables, bullying victimization was entered as an inde-
pendent variable, and bullying sensitivity and moral disengagement were
introduced as mediating variables. The results of SEM showed an acceptable
fit to the data (χ2/df = 2.60, CFI = 0.936, TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.061),
and parameter estimates of this model are shown in Figure 2.
As shown in Figure 2, the results revealed that students who experienced
a higher degree of bullying victimization had a lower level of bullying sen-
sitivity and a higher level of moral disengagement, and they were less likely
to demonstrate defender behavior. Students who had a higher level of bully
Jiang et al. 11

Figure 2.  SEM analysis of the hypothesized model.

Note. BS = bullying sensitivity; DB = defender behavior; BV = bullying victimization; MD =
moral disengagement; SEM = structural equation modeling; OB = outsider behavior.

sensitivity reported a lower level of moral disengagement, more defender

behaviors, and fewer outsider behaviors. Moreover, students with higher
levels of moral disengagement were more likely to demonstrate more out-
sider behaviors while witnessing bullying.
Beside, we used bootstrapping to generate the 95% CIs (5,000 resam-
ples) to confirm the significance of the indirect effects. If the CI did not
include 0, it indicated a significant path. As shown in Table 2, the indirect
path of bullying victimization through bullying sensitivity on defender
behavior was significant, and the relation between bullying victimization
and outsider behavior through moral disengagement was also significant, as
well as through the multiple mediation effect of bullying sensitivity and
moral disengagement.

Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine why students with more
experiences of bullying victimization tend to stay away when they wit-
ness bullying situations among Chinese primary school students. The
results indicated that students who have more experiences of bullying
victimization tend to become desensitized to bullying incidents, and are
more likely to disengage from moral standards, thus leading to increased
passive bystander behaviors. Our findings shed light on the vicious cycle
of bullying victimization and offered insights regarding school bullying
prevention.
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 2.  Indirect Paths and Estimated Bootstrap CIs.

Indirect Paths Estimated Effect 95% CI

DB
 BV → BS → DB −0.19 [−0.357, −0.022]
 BV → MD → DB −0.07 [−0.163, 0.032]
 BV → BS → MD → DB −0.02 [−0.043, 0.012]
OB
 BV → BS → OB 0.08 [−0.007, 0.174]
 BV → MD → OB 0.29 [0.114, 0.462]
 BV → BS → MD → OB 0.07 [0.002, 0.138]

Note. CI = confidence interval; DB = defender behavior; BV = bullying victimization; BS =

bullying sensitivity; MD = moral disengagement; OB = outsider behavior.

First, the results of the total effect model showed that bullying victimiza-
tion makes a difference in relation to passive bystander behaviors, which is
consistent with our hypothesis 1(H1), as well as the previous studies (Cao &
Lin, 2015; Huang et al., 2016). Specifically, bullying victimization was posi-
tively related to outsider behavior, negatively related to defender behavior.
According to the reciprocity principle (Gouldner, 1960), people are more
likely to follow the principle of “treat others as others have treated you.”
When being bullied, students would learn from their experiences and develop
a more hostile attitude toward others. An extreme example is that some vic-
tims even reported carrying weapons onto campus (Ybarra, 2004). Witnessing
others going through similar experience can help lessen their tendency to
blame themselves and restore intrapsychic balance. Although some studies
asserted that sharing a common victimization experience might increase
empathy responses toward victims (Van Cleemput et al., 2014), it does not
necessarily lead to defender reactions. In fact, intervening bullying situations
is risky (Dovidio et al., 2006). Without proper social skills and effective strat-
egies, individuals cannot help the victims and may even cause trouble for
themselves (Gini et al., 2008; Pöyhönen et al., 2012). According to Juvonen
and Graham (2014), students who have more experiences of bullying victim-
ization already lack the skills to deal with challenging social situations. Under
such circumstances, although they feel sorry for the victims, they are less
likely to defend others when they cannot self-defend.
According to the results of the mediation analysis, bullying sensitivity
seems to play a mediating role in the link between bullying victimization
and defender behavior. This is in line with our H2 and supports the ideas of
SIP models (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge et al., 2006) and social learning
Jiang et al. 13

theory (Bandura, 1999). According to Calvete et al. (2018), students who are
exposed to bullying victimization may learn that bullying is a common phe-
nomenon in school life and adopt a “roll with the punches” attitude, which
contributes to high acceptance and low awareness of bullying, again leading
to fewer defender behaviors. This can also be interpreted in the light of the
cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962)
states that psychological discomfort arises when individuals’ beliefs are
inconsistent with their behaviors or other beliefs. To reduce dissonance,
individuals alter their beliefs to regain consistency. We can apply Festinger’s
theory to the context of bullying. On the contrary, some students with a high
level of bullying victimization may initially consider bullying as immorally.
On the contrary, after suffering from victimization, they might find it diffi-
cult to resist bullying and learn that “bullying is very common.” Such con-
flicting cognitions can cause confusion and psychological tension. Believing
that “bullying is very common” can not only help them reduce the psycho-
logical tension caused by cognitive inconsistency, but also prevent them
from self-blaming attributions (“It must be me”). Therefore, they might have
changed their initial attitudes toward bullying by convincing themselves that
they were originally neutral or might feel even positive toward bullying
(Shim & Shin, 2016). Thus, students with more experiences of bullying vic-
timization may have changed their social schema about bullying via the
logic of the cognitive dissonance, thus leading to low bullying sensitivity
and fewer defender behaviors.
The current findings also revealed that moral disengagement plays a
mediating role between bullying victimization and outsider behavior. This is
consistent with our H3 and with prior studies (Bandura, 1999; Pornari &
Wood, 2010), which suggested that bullying victimization was linked to
more outsider behavior through a higher level of moral disengagement. For
instance, Hara (2002) found that students who were verbally bullied tended
to morally disengage by comparing themselves to other students who were
physically bullied (Hara, 2002). While students are witnessing bullying situ-
ations, high moral disengagement serves to inhibit moral self-sanctions from
activating; thus students are released from self-censure and show more out-
sider behavior.
More importantly, in accordance with our H4, the current findings
showed that the relation between bullying victimization and outsider behav-
ior can be explained through the multiple mediation of bullying sensitivity
via moral disengagement. Specifically, being victimized might hinder the
development of bullying sensitivity. When students with low bullying sen-
sitivity are desensitized to bullying incidents, they can easily disengage
from their “moral burdens”, thus increasing outsider behaviors (Thornberg
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

& Jungert, 2013). These results might imply a vicious cycle of victimiza-
tion: Although the experiences of victimization are highly negative, it is
difficult for the victimized students to resist victimization and “grow from
adversity” (Scholte et al., 2007). Instead, bullying victimization not only
prevents forming an anti-bullying attitude, but also impedes creating a nur-
turing environment for social and moral development (Juvonen & Graham,
2014). In the context of school, bullying victimization is often visible and
known to others, such humiliating and shameful experience has been seen
as a threat to individual’s social self (Wilson et al., 2006). The victimized
students tend to withdraw from their social relationships (e.g., peers) and
reduce social support seeking behaviors, which may potentially diminish
the opportunities for social and moral development (Perren et al., 2012;
Strøm et al., 2018). These findings warrant attention, especially in China.
Unlike students in Western countries, Chinese students usually stay in the
same class for the entire 6 years of primary school. Without effective inter-
vention, the victimized students easily fixate on their specific roles because
their interpersonal relationships and interaction styles remain relatively
stable (DeRosier et al., 1994; Scholte et al., 2007). Once it is formed, a
victimization cycle can be very difficult to change.

Implications
The present study complements the extant literature concerning why students
with more experience of bullying victimization are more likely avoid involve-
ment when witnessing bullying. Our results contribute to a better understand-
ing of the relation between bullying victimization and bystander behaviors
based on SIP models (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge et al., 2006) and social
learning theory (Bandura, 1999).
The findings provide practical implications for school bullying preven-
tion. First, school teachers and counselors should be aware that bullying vic-
timization exerts various negative effects that not only give rise to emotional
and behavioral problems (Strøm et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2017), but also
hinder students’ social and moral development. In this regard, to help the
victimized students, other than dealing with their psychological distress and
adjustment problems (Turner et al., 2017), greater attention should be paid to
their dysfunctional cognition and moral development. For example, J. Wang
and Goldberg (2017) provided an effective approach of using children’s lit-
erature to target at the awareness of bullying, moral disengagement, and
involvement of bystanders to decrease bullying among elementary school
students. Second, our results highlight that “to defend or stay away” is not
just a simple decision, but it relates to complex processes including previous
Jiang et al. 15

experiences, social cognition, and moral reasoning. Therefore, school pre-

vention programs should include specific activities to enhance students’
awareness of bullying, reduce moral disengagement, and improve their social
skills to deal with bullying. For example, teachers can promote students’ pro-
social bystander behavior by fostering an anti-bullying school atmosphere,
setting role models for students to follow, facilitating students’ understanding
of what constitutes bullying, raising collective responsibility, and providing
empathy and perspective-taking training (Garandeau et al., 2014; Jenkins
et al., 2018).

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has several limitations. First, this study is based on a cross-
sectional design, which limited us from establishing the causal relations of
the hypothesized model. Further longitudinal research is needed with respect
to causality. Second, the participants were recruited from two public schools
that were both located in Northern China, which limits the generalizability of
our results. Another limitation is that our data were collected using self-report
measurements, although measures used in this study have been validated in
previous studies, not all students’ responses might be indicative of their actual
behaviors in bullying situations. Future researchers might want to consider
recruiting more representative samples and utilizing multimethod approaches
(such as parents’ and teachers’ report, observations).
Furthermore, our study mainly focused on two types of bystander
behaviors, defender behavior and outsider behavior. Recent research has
indicated that there are many ways for bystanders to help the victims. In
addition to confronting the bully directly, students can also support the
victims by comforting them afterwards (DeSmet et al., 2016). It is possi-
ble that victimized students may lack social skills to directly deal with
conflicts, thus they are inclined to express their empathy in a more indi-
rect, conflict-avoidance way. It would be interesting for further studies to
expand our findings by taking into account multiple helping strategies.
Finally, it is meritorious for future researchers to extend our findings by
taking a broader perspective, and including more factors into consider-
ation, especially given that there is no consistent evidence in the literature
regarding the relations between violence exposure and violence-related
attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Jamnik & Dilalla, 2018; Li et al., 2019;
Mitrofan et al., 2014). For example, research has shown that personal
characteristics (e.g., resilience, self-esteem), social resources (e.g., social
support), and contextual factors (e.g., school setting) may moderate or
buffer the effects of adversity (DeSmet et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019;
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011; Turner et al., 2017). These factors warrant
further investigations by considering both victimization experiences and
bystander behaviors in future studies.

Conclusion
This study contributes to the growing bullying research by examining the
antecedents of bystander behaviors and the roles of previous bullying victim-
ization experiences. The results revealed that the students’ bullying victim-
ization might lead to more outsider behaviors and fewer defender behavior
through the mediating effects of bullying sensitivity and moral disengage-
ment. Our findings not only establish a possible model to predict bystander
behaviors, but also highlight the need for school administrators to develop
targeted interventions that directly involve administrators.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
Shuyang Jiang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8753-8089

References
Akturk, A. O. (2015). Analysis of cyberbullying sensitivity levels of high school stu-
dents and their perceived social support levels. Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, 12(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-07-2014-0016
Almeida, A., Correia, I., & Marinho, S. (2010). Moral disengagement, normative
beliefs of peer group, and attitudes regarding roles in bullying. Journal of School
Violence, 9(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220903185639
Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.
E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems
in young children: A nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118(1),
130–138. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-2388
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities.
Recent Developments in Criminological Theory: Toward Disciplinary
Diversity and Theoretical Integration, 3, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315799292-3
Jiang et al. 17

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral

agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2). 101–119. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0305724022014322
Bebeau, M. (2002). The defining issues test and the four component model:
Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 271–
295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022000008115
Calvete, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., Fernández-Gonzalez, L., Orue, I., & Borrajo, E.
(2018). Maladaptive schemas as mediators of the relationship between previous
victimizations in the family and dating violence victimization in adolescents. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 81, 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.04.028
Cao, B., & Lin, W. Y. (2015). How do victims react to cyberbullying on social net-
working sites? The influence of previous cyberbullying victimization experi-
ences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.06.009
Caravita, S. C. S., Miragoli, S., & Di Blasio, P. (2009). “Why should I behave in this
way?” Rule discrimination within the school context related to children’s bullying.
In L. R. Elling (Ed.), Social development (pp. 269–290). Nova Science Publishers.
Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the play-
ground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300211002
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social infor-
mation-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological
Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
Datta, P., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Aggressive attitudes and prevalence of
bullying bystander behavior in middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(8).
804–816.https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21944
DeRosier, M. E., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Group
social context and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 65(4),
1068–1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00803.x
DeSmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., Cardon,
G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2016). Deciding whether to look after them, to like
it, or leave it: A multidimensional analysis of predictors of positive and negative
bystander behavior in cyberbullying among adolescents. Computers in Human
Behavior, 57, 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.051
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in
youth. In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), D. William, & R. M. Lerner (Editors-in-chief),
Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality devel-
opment (6th ed., pp. 719–788). John Wiley.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2006). The social
psychology of prosocial behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Espelage, D., Green, H., & Polanin, J. (2012). Willingness to intervene in bully-
ing episodes among middle school students: Individual and peer-group influ-
ences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(6), 776–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0272431611423017
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey,
D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A
meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous
emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0023304
Garandeau, C. F., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Tackling acute cases
of school bullying in the KiVa anti-bullying program: A comparison of two
approaches. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 981–991. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10802-014-9861-1
Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong?
Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20153
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of adoles-
cents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of
Adolescence, 31(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Bussey, K. (2015). The role of individual and collective moral
disengagement in peer aggression and bystanding: A multilevel analysis. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(3), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-
014-9920-7
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle
school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 587–599.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587
Hara, H. (2002). Justifications for bullying among Japanese schoolchildren. Asian.
Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
839X.00104
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimiza-
tion and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional
studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,
41(4), 441–455.
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2019). Are bullying perpetration and victimiza-
tion associated with adolescent deliberate self-harm? A meta-analysis. Archives
of Suicide Research, 23(3), 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2018.
1472690
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyber-
bullying: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Psicothema, 24(4),
614–620. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23079360
Huang, Z., Liu, Z., Liu, X., Lv, L., Zhang, Y., Ou, L., & Li, L. (2016). Risk factors
associated with peer victimization and bystander behaviors among adolescent
students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
13(8), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13080759
Jamnik, M. R., & Dilalla, L. F. (2018). A multimethodological study of preschoolers’
preferences for aggressive television and video games. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 179(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1454883
Jiang et al. 19

Jenkins, L. N., Fredrick, S. S., & Nickerson, A. (2018). The assessment of

bystander intervention in bullying: Examining measurement invariance across
gender. Journal of School Psychology, 69, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsp.2018.05.008
Jordan, J. (2007). Taking the first step toward a moral action: A review of moral
sensitivity measurement across domains. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(3),
323–359. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.168.3.323-360
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and
the plight of victims. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 159–185. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115030
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who are the vic-
tims? A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimization in
school. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-
1105.21.1.25
Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. (2011). Shame, guilt, and depressive symp-
toms: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 68–96. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0021466
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the revised
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model.
British. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801.
Li, S., Zhao, F., & Yu, G. (2019). Childhood maltreatment and intimate partner vio-
lence victimization: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 88, 212–224.
May, L. (1992). Insensitivity and moral responsibility. Journal of Value Inquiry,
26(1), 7–22.
Mitrofan, O., Paul, M., Weich, S., & Spencer, N. (2014). Aggression in children with
behavioural/emotional difficulties: Seeing aggression on television and video
games. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-
0287-7
Morton, K., Worthley, J., Testerman, J., & Mahoney, M. (2006). Defining fea-
tures of moral sensitivity and moral motivation: Pathways to moral reason-
ing in medical students. Journal of Moral Education, 35, 387–406. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03057240600874653
Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychological foundations of everyday
morality and moral expertise. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character
psychology and character education (pp. 140–165). University of Notre Dame
Press.
Nickerson, A. B., & Mele-Taylor, D. (2014). Empathetic responsiveness, group
norms, and prosocial affiliations in bullying roles. School Psychology Quarterly,
29(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000052
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for students.
University of Bergen.
Perren, S., Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E., Malti, T., & Hymel, S. (2012). Moral reason-
ing and emotion attributions of adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(4), 511–530. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02059.x
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Pizarro, D. (2000). Nothing more than feelings? the role of emotions in moral judg-
ment. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 354–375. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-5914.00135
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014920638601200408
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-
based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior.
School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47–65.
Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school
students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and out-
come expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ab.20336
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the vic-
tim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying
situations. Social Development, 21, 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2012.00662.x
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for
intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453–459.
Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be uti-
lized in interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1
080/00405841.2014.947222
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social
status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1–15.
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations
between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in class-
rooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 668–676.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090
Schacter, H., White, S., Chang, V., & Juvonen, J. (2014). “Why me?” Characterological
self-blame and continued victimization in the first year of middle school. Journal
of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 53, 446–455. https://doi.org/10.108
0/15374416.2013.865194
Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M. E., Overbeek, G., De Kemp, R. A. T., &
Haselager, G. J. T. (2007). Stability in bullying and victimization and its
association with social adjustment in childhood and adolescence. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-
006-9074-3
Shim, H., & Shin, E. (2016). Peer-group pressure as a moderator of the relationship
between attitude toward cyberbullying and cyberbullying behaviors on mobile
instant messengers. Telematicsand Informatics, 33, 17–24.
Storch, E. A., & Ledley, D. R. (2005). Peer victimization and psychosocial adjust-
ment in children: Current knowledge and future directions. Clinical Pediatrics,
44(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/000992280504400103
Jiang et al. 21

Strøm, I. F., Aakvaag, H. F., Birkeland, M. S., Felix, E., & Thoresen, S. (2018). The medi-
ating role of shame in the relationship between childhood bullying victimization
and adult psychosocial adjustment. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 9,
Article 1418570. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1418570
Strøm, I. F., Thoresen, S., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Dyb, G. (2013). Violence, bullying
and academic achievement: A study of 15-year-old adolescents and their school
environment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chiabu.2012.10.010
Terranova, A. (2009). Factors that influence children’s responses to peer victimiza-
tion. Child & Youth Care Forum, 38, 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-
009-9082-x
Thornberg, R. (2010). A study of children’s conceptions of school rules by investi-
gating their judgements of transgressions in the absence of rules. Educational
Psychology, 30, 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.492348
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic
moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of
Adolescence, 36(3), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.003
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2014). School bullying and the mechanisms of moral
disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 40(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ab.21509
Thornberg, R., & Knutsen, S. (2011). Teenagers’ explanations of bullying. Child &
Youth Care Forum, 40(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9129-z
Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., Finkelhor, D., & Hamby, S. (2017). Effects of poly-
victimization on adolescent social support, self-concept, and psychologi-
cal distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5), 755–780. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260515586376
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and
contextual factors that determine “helping,” “joining in,” and “doing nothing”
when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 383–396. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ab.21534
Vonderhaar, R. L., & Carmody, D. C. (2015). There are no “innocent victims”:
The influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth accep-
tance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10), 1615–1632. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260514549196
Wang, C., & Goldberg, T. S. (2017). Using children’s literature to decrease moral
disengagement and victimization among elementary school students. Psychology
in the Schools, 54(9), 918–931. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22042
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using
Mplus. Higher Education Press.
Wilson, J., Drožđek, B., & Turkovic, S. (2006). Posttraumatic shame and guilt. Trauma,
Violence & Abuse, 7, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005285914
Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and internet
harassment among young regular internet users. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
7(2), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493104323024500
22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Author Biographies
Shuyang Jiang is a PhD candidate in Educational Psychology at Beijing Normal
University in China. Her current research interests include school bullying, adolescent
moral development, mathematics education, academic engagement, motivation and
emotion in learning.
Ru-De Liu completed his PhD and is a professor in Educational Psychology at
Beijing Normal University in China. His current research interests include learning
strategies, motivation to learn, mathematics education, information technology in
education, and adolescent moral development.
Yi Ding completed his PhD and is an associate professor in School Psychology at
Fordham University in the United States. Her research interests include reading dis-
abilities, mathematics disabilities, and special education and school psychology issues
based on a multicultural perspective.
Ronghuan Jiang is a PhD candidate in Educational Psychology at Beijing Normal
University. His current research interests are mathematical learning and thinking,
adolescent moral development, and the role of inhibitory control in learning.
Xinchen Fu is a PhD candidate in Educational Psychology at Beijing Normal
University. Her current research interests include inhibitory control, cognitive devel-
opment, motivation to learn, adolescent development, adolescent mobile phone
dependency, mathematics cognitive and education, flexibility.
Wei Hong is a PhD candidate in Educational Psychology at Beijing Normal
University. His research interests focus on academic engagement, moral develop-
ment, and online behaviors among primary and secondary school students.