Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engris 2
Engris 2
Engris 2
Abstract
This study examined the role of attitudes against bullying and perceived peer pressure
for intervention in explaining defending the victim and passive bystanding behavior in
bullying. Participants were 1031 school-age children from two culturally diverse
settings, namely Italy and Singapore, which are similar on several dimensions
(e.g., quality of life, child welfare) but dramatically differ on other aspects, such as
individualism—collectivism orientation. Multilevel analyses showed that country
and participants’ gender moderated the relations between individual predictors and
behavior during bullying episodes. In particular, although individual attitudes were a
stronger predictor of Italian students’—especially girls’—behavior, perceived peer
expectations were more strongly associated with behavior of Singaporean participants.
This study contributes to the literature by being the first to provide data analyzing the
association between defending and passive bystanding behavior and different corre-
lates using a cross-cultural approach.
Introduction
School bullying is recognized as a pervasive problem worldwide, with negative con-
sequences for children’s health (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009) and psychological adjustment
(Hawker & Boulton, 2000), that merits both research and intervention efforts. Con-
sistent with a social-ecological view of bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2004), some
authors maintain that the pervasiveness of bullying might be partly explained by group
mechanisms, such as social contagion, diffusion of responsibility, peer pressure, and
group norms (e.g., Gini, Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008; Olweus, 2001; Salmivalli
& Voeten, 2004). Accordingly, by adopting the participant role approach originally
proposed by Salmivalli and colleagues (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman,
& Kaukiainen, 1996), current approaches to bullying prevention stress the role of peer
Correspondence should be addressed to Tiziana Pozzoli, Department of Developmental and Social
Psychology, University of Padua, via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy. Email: tiziana.pozzoli@unipd.it
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
2 Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini
bystanders and explicitly include strategies aimed at encouraging them to take sides
with the bullied classmates (Salmivalli, Kärnä, & Poskiparta, 2010; Twemlow, Fonagy,
& Sacco, 2010). Understanding why some children personally intervene to stop bul-
lying (i.e., defenders of the victim) whereas others look the other way (i.e., passive
bystanders) may help us better understand the group dynamics underlying bullying,
and provide fruitful insights for intervention programs.
Defending behavior is defined as prosocial actions aimed at stopping the bullying,
helping and consoling the bullied peer, or asking for adults’ intervention (Pozzoli &
Gini, 2010; Salmivalli et al., 1996). Conversely, passive bystanding includes with-
drawing from the scene, denying any bullying is going on, or silently witnessing what
is happening (Cowie, 2000; Salmivalli et al., 1996). Studies from Western countries
have reported that children who defend are rarely aggressive, have good theory-of-
mind and moral understanding, low moral disengagement, high sense of responsi-
bility, social self-efficacy and empathy, and enjoy a high status among peers (e.g.,
Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2009; Gini, 2006a;
Gini, Pozzoli, & Hauser, 2011; Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2005; Pöyhönen,
Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2010; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, &
Salmivalli, 2011). A few studies have explicitly compared defenders’ and passive
bystanders’ characteristics, reporting both similarities and differences between the
two forms of bystanders’ responses to bullying. For example, in a sample of Italian
early adolescents, Gini and colleagues (Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoè, 2008) found
that defending the victim was associated with both high empathic responsiveness and
high levels of social self-efficacy (see also Pöyhönen et al., 2010) whereas passive
bystanding was associated with high empathy but low social self-efficacy. Another
Italian study (Menesini & Camodeca, 2008) reported passive bystanders feeling less
guilty or ashamed compared with defenders in hypothetical bullying scenarios. More
recently, Pozzoli and Gini (2010) found that problem-solving coping strategies (e.g.,
strategies directed at understanding and solving the problem) were positively associ-
ated with active help toward a bullied peer and negatively related to passivity. In
contrast, distancing strategies (e.g., strategies aimed at avoiding thinking about the
problem) were positively associated with passive bystanding whereas they were nega-
tively associated with defending behavior. Although bullying research has contribu-
tions from different Asian countries (e.g., Ando, Asakura, & Simons-Morton, 2005;
Ang, Ong, Lim, & Lim, 2010; Wei, Williams, Chen, & Chang, 2010), to date, no
studies have analyzed correlates of defending and passive bystanding behaviors in
Asian samples.
Notwithstanding the growing number of empirical studies that analyze the per-
sonal correlates of bystanders’ behavior in bullying episodes, two main limitations
in the existing literature need to be acknowledged. Firstly, only a few studies have
explicitly compared defending and passive bystanding behavior in order to identify
individual or contextual correlates of these two behaviors (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010;
Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). Secondly, to date, research on this particular issue has
been restricted to students from Western countries, such as the USA, Canada, and
different European countries (e.g., Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Salmivalli & Voeten,
2004; Pöyhönen et al., 2010; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Sainio et al., 2011), and no
studies have used a cross-cultural framework, thus leading to problems of generali-
zation of research findings to different cultures. In order to overcome these limita-
tions, this study aims at expanding the current literature on bystanders in bullying
using a cross-cultural approach to test whether bystander behavior in bullying has
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012 Social Development, 2012
Bystanders’ Behavior in Italy and Singapore 3
similar correlates in two very different cultural contexts, namely Italy and Singapore.
Results from this analysis can also have important implication for more culturally
sensitive anti-bullying programs.
Method
Participants
The study involved 1031 participants from primary and middle schools located in
midsize cities in Italy and Singapore. Firstly, school principals and teachers were asked
for consent. Then, parental consent letters were distributed to all the families in order
to obtain their consent for their children’s participation. For both countries, parents’
agreement was greater than 90 percent. Finally, all participants gave their personal
assent to participate, and none of them refused to fill out the questionnaire.
Italian participants were 601 students (50.4 percent girls; mean age = 11 years,
9 months; SD = 1 year, 6 months) attending primary (fourth to fifth grade) and middle
school (sixth to eighth grade). In terms of racial/ethnic background, 90 percent of the
participants were Italian, 7.8 percent came from East Europe, 1.2 from Africa, and
1 percent from South America. Singaporean participants were 430 primary (fourth to
sixth grade) and middle school (seventh to eight grade) students (47.1 percent girls;
mean age = 12 years, 5 months; SD = 1 year, 10 months). In both Singapore and
Italy, this grade range falls within the ‘compulsory school age’. As far as racial/ethnic
background is concerned, 77.4 percent of the participants were Chinese, 15.3 percent
Malay, 2.7 percent Indian, and 4.6 percent came from other countries. Socioeconomic
status was not directly measured. However, as in all public schools in Italy and
Singapore, our sample included students from a wide range of social classes (low and
working class through to upper middle class).
Measures
Behaviors During Bullying Episodes. Two 3-item scales were used to measure defend-
ing and passive bystanding behavior (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). The three items of each
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012 Social Development, 2012
6 Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini
scale referred to physical (‘I defend the classmates who are hit or attacked hard’ ‘When
a classmate is hit or pushed, I stand by and I mind my own business’), verbal
(‘If someone teases or threatens a classmate, I try to stop him/her’; ‘If a classmate is
teased or threatened I do nothing and I don’t meddle’), and relational (‘I try to help or
comfort classmates who are isolated or excluded from the group’; ‘If I know that
someone is excluded or isolated from the group I act as if nothing had happened’)
bullying. Participants were asked to rate how often (during the current school year)
they had enacted the behavior described in each item on a 4-point scale from 1 (never)
to 4 (almost always). For each participant, we averaged the three items in order to
form a defending score (aItaly = .67; aSingapore = .68) and a passive bystanding score
(aItaly = .67; aSingapore = .71).
Attitudes Toward Bullying. Students’ attitudes toward bullying were measured through
Salmivalli and Voeten’s (2004) scale, which is composed of 10 statements about
bullying (e.g., One should try to help the bullied victims; Joining in bullying is a wrong
thing to do; Bullying may be fun sometimes, reverse code). Participants were asked to
evaluate the extent to which they agreed with each item on a 4-point scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). An against bullying attitude score was com-
puted by averaging the students’ answers on the 10 items. The higher a student’s score
on the scale, the more his/her attitudes are against bullying and in favor of the victim
(aItaly = .72; aSingapore = .72).
Procedure
The study was conducted in group format in the participants’ school classrooms during
one full class period. At the end of the session, participants’ questions about the study
were answered and students were thanked for their participation.
Results
We considered the questionnaire to be reliable if the participants answered at least
80 percent of the questions and if they had less than 20 percent missing data in one or
more of the scales used. Following this criteria, 61 students were excluded from the
sample and were not included in subsequent analyses.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012 Social Development, 2012
Bystanders’ Behavior in Italy and Singapore 7
Correlations
The correlations between all the study variables are presented in Table 1, separately for
Italy and Singapore. The pattern of associations among the variables was similar in
both samples. Firstly, in both countries, a negative correlation between defending and
passive bystanding behavior emerged. Secondly, perceived peer pressure for inter-
vention and attitudes against bullying were positively associated with defending and
negatively related with passive bystanding behavior, both in Italian and Singaporean
samples.
1 2 3 4
Notes: Coefficients for Singapore above the diagonal, and coefficients for Italy below the
diagonal. Cohen’s d estimates ranged from .45 to .95 for the Italian sample, and ranged from .41
to 1.06 for the Singaporean sample.
*** p < .001.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for all Measures and Comparisons between Italy
and Singapore
M SD M SD M SD F h2p
Intercept g00 2.57 .05 53.10 40 <.001 2.30 .04 60.39 40 <.001 2.27 .04 54.66 40 <.001
Age .009 .004 2.003 965 <.001 .009 .004 1.973 959 .048
Gender -.061 .048 -1.256 965 .210 -.009 .055 -.170 959 .865
Country .449 .056 7.962 965 <.001 .450 .057 7.884 959 <.001
Anti-bullying attitudesa .229 .070 3.256 965 .002 .208 .096 2.157 959 .031
Perceived peer pressurea .186 .039 4.697 965 <.001 .169 .062 2.731 959 .007
Attitudes ¥ gendera -.092 .155 -.593 959 .553
Attitudes ¥ countrya .392 .184 2.129 959 .033
Attitudes ¥ gender ¥ countrya -.475 .244 -1.947 959 .050
Peer pressure ¥ gendera .141 .073 1.925 959 .054
Peer pressure ¥ countrya -.178 .081 -2.191 959 .029
Peer pressure ¥ gender ¥ countrya .171 .107 1.596 959 .110
Variance components
T .076 .027 .028
s2g .487 .457 .446
c2 189.32 (p < .001) 90.29 (p < .001) 93.11 (p < .001)
R2 6.3% 8.4%
Deviance 2122.64 2052.52 2036.83
Note: C = coefficient estimate from the population-average models with robust standard errors.
a
Centered around its class mean.
4
Singapore Italy
3
Defending behavior
1
L ow High
Perceived peer pressure
4
Italy, boys Italy, girls
3
Defending behavior
1
Low High
Attitudes against bullying
Passive Bystanding Behavior. The model predicting passive bystanding behavior from
demographic variables and individual characteristics explained 15.5 percent of within
classroom variation in this behavior. Results, reported in Table 4, revealed that passive
bystanding behavior was higher in boys and was negatively predicted by attitudes
against bullying and perceived peer pressure, so that students who reported less
perceived peer pressure for intervention and who showed lower levels of attitudes
against bullying were more likely to behave as passive bystanders, as hypothesized.
The interaction terms entered in model 2 explained a further 2 percent of the
variance, and the comparison between deviance indices showed that this model was
better than model 1 (c2(6) = 15.85, p < .05). Two significant interactions emerged: peer
pressure ¥ country and attitudes ¥ country. The peer pressure ¥ country interaction
is plotted in Figure 3, which shows that the negative association between perceived
peer pressure and passive bystanding behavior was stronger in the Singaporean sample
(b = -.34, SE = .10, t = -4.42, p < .001) than in the Italian sample (b = -.11, SE = .09,
t = -2.55, p = .01). In contrast, the negative association between anti-bullying attitudes
and individual behavior was significant in Italy (b = -.59, SE = .13, t = -4.36, p < .001)
but not in Singapore (b = -.19, SE = .14, t = -1.37, p = .17), as depicted in Figure 4.
Compared with the previous model, only the effect of gender on bystanding behavior
was no longer significant.
Discussion
In the current study, we investigated the association between individual correlates and
bystanders’ behavior during bullying episodes at school. In particular, we analyzed the
relations among attitudes toward bullying and perceived peer pressure for intervention
on the one hand, and defending and passive bystanding behavior on the other hand. The
main aim of this study was to examine the potential moderating role of culture on these
associations by comparing a sample of Italian and Singaporean participants.
Firstly, as far as control variables are concerned, and consistent with previous studies
(e.g., Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Salmivalli et al., 1996), younger students were signifi-
cantly more likely to defend than were older participants. With regard to country,
bystanders’ behaviors, particularly defending, were more commonly reported in Italy
than in Singapore. This result could depend on different reasons, first of all a higher
prevalence of bullying in Italy compared with Singapore (for a brief discussion about
the reasons of the generally high rates of bullying in Italian schools, see Gini, 2004);
indeed, differences in the frequency of bullying episodes between two settings, per se,
may lead to differences in students’ reports of bullying-related behaviors, such as
defending. Unfortunately, data from the present samples do not allow us to reach a
clear conclusion.
Secondly, consistent with our first hypothesis, in the Italian sample, anti-bullying
attitudes emerged as a positive correlate of girls’ active defending behavior whereas
they were negatively associated with passive bystanding behavior. This result is in line
with those of previous studies conducted both in Italy and in other Western (and
individualist) countries (e.g., Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). For
example, some authors reported a significant association between positive attitudes
toward victims and approval of students who intervened to stop bullying (Rigby &
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012 Social Development, 2012
12
Intercept g00 1.75 .03 50.61 40 <.001 1.66 .06 26.59 40 <.001 1.68 .07 25.54 40 <.001
Age -.003 .002 -1.618 965 .106 -.003 .002 -1.518 959 .129
Gender .109 .033 3.308 965 .001 .070 .038 1.850 959 .064
Country .053 .073 .719 965 .472 .051 .074 .697 959 .486
Anti-bullying attitudesa -.304 .053 -5.690 965 <.001 -.143 .054 -2.654 959 .008
Perceived peer pressurea -.231 .038 -6.138 965 <.001 -.342 .053 -6.429 959 <.001
Attitudes ¥ gendera -.066 .117 -.562 959 .574
Attitudes ¥ countrya -.402 .117 -3.442 959 .001
Attitudes ¥ gender ¥ countrya .326 .187 1.748 959 .080
Peer pressure ¥ gendera .006 .071 .083 959 .934
Peer pressure ¥ countrya .228 .078 2.907 959 .004
Peer pressure ¥ gender ¥ countrya -.111 .093 -1.187 959 .236
Variance components
Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini
Note: C = coefficient estimate from the population-average models with robust standard errors.
a
Centered around its class mean.
Singapore Italy
Passive bystanding behavior
1
L ow High
Perceived peer pressure
4
Passive bystanding behavior
Singapore Italy
1
L ow High
Perceived peer pressure
Slee, 1993; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). Similarly, Rigby and Johnson (2006) found
that positive attitudes toward the victims was one of the most important predictors of
expressed intention to intervene. On a side note, it is interesting that Italian boys’
defending behavior was independent of attitudes against bullying whereas Italian girls
showed lower levels of defending behavior than Italian boys at low levels of attitudes
against bullying. On the one hand, this result further confirms that Italian girls are more
influenced by their attitudes in bullying situations; on the other hand, further research
should explore whether different subgroups can be identified among girls depending
on personal characteristics, other than attitudes, which may help explain differences in
defending behavior.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012 Social Development, 2012
14 Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini
Moreover, as far as we know, this is the first study that explored the relation
between attitudes toward bullying and bystanders’ behavior in an Eastern country.
Significant zero-order correlations emerged between attitudes and behavior (positive
for defending and negative for passive bystanding behavior) also in the Singaporean
sample. However, when the moderating role of country and gender on these associa-
tions was considered in the multilevel analysis together with other variables, the
effect of attitudes on behavior was not confirmed in Singapore. This result is not
totally surprising because it is consistent with a large body of evidence indicating that
the association among behavior and individual preferences, attitudes, or beliefs is
stronger in individualist than in collectivist countries (Oyserman et al., 1998; Triandis
et al., 1990).
The relation between individual attitudes and defending behavior was further
specified by a three-way interaction among country, gender, and attitudes. In particu-
lar, this finding showed that this relation is characteristic of Italian girls. The results
appear to indicate that although girls’ attitudes toward bullying are more negative
than those of boys in general, this attitudinal difference does not necessarily mean
that girls are more prone to defend the victims of bullying. In fact, country and
cultural factors seem to play a key role in determining students’ active defending
behavior. Across diverse cultures, compared with boys, girls have been found to have
more negative attitudes toward bullying and higher empathy (Ang & Goh, 2010;
Crick & Werner, 1998; Espelage, Mebane, & Adams, 2004; Pellegrini, 2002). In a
collectivist culture, one’s behaviors reflect the emphasis on the interdependent
self—the ability to adjust and maintain harmony with the larger social group (Tri-
andis et al., 1990). Markus and Kitayama (1991) aptly noted this of collectivist soci-
eties: ‘the nail that stands out gets pounded down’ (p. 224). Compared with an
individualist culture in Italy, a collectivist culture in Singapore stresses the signifi-
cance of social norms and the importance of conformity. The link between reported
attitudes and behavior was much stronger in Italian girls than in Singaporean girls.
Considered together, this three-way interaction suggests that, for Singaporean girls,
their individual attitudes toward bullying do not influence or change their bystanding
behavior by much whereas for Italian girls, if they have a stronger attitude against
bullying, that results in higher levels of active defending behavior. In sum, although
gender and attitudes affect bystander reactions to bullying, these behaviors are further
shaped and nuanced by cultural differences.
Another aim of the current study was to investigate the role of perceived peer
normative pressure in bystanders’ behavior and potential differences between Italy
and Singapore in this association. Our findings showed that defending behavior was
positively predicted by participants’ perception of classmates’ expectations for inter-
vention, above and beyond the effects of the other individual characteristics. In con-
trast, perceived peer pressure for intervention was negatively associated with passive
bystanding behavior. This result is consistent with our hypothesis and with results from
previous studies (e.g., Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Rigby & Johnson, 2006). In addition, it
expands previous findings by demonstrating this association in a non-Western country.
Interestingly, as predicted, country was a significant moderator of the relation between
perceived peer pressure and behavior, so that this relation was stronger in the
Singaporean sample than among Italian participants. This finding confirmed our
hypothesis concerning a stronger role of perceived peer pressure on behavior among
participants from Singapore compared with Italian participants. This result may be
regarded as an example of how different constructs that characterize the two cultures,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012 Social Development, 2012
Bystanders’ Behavior in Italy and Singapore 15
such as collectivism and individualism, could affect pressure to conform to the social
group’s expectations (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008). Specifically, this finding could be
related to the concept of conformity, that is, the inclination not to violate social
expectations motivated by the desire of maintaining harmony with in-group members.
Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis, analyzing 133 studies conducted in 17
countries, found that studies conducted in collectivist countries reported greater con-
formity than those conducted in individualist countries. Differences in conformity may
obviously reflect different underlying dimensions, such as a different capacity to resist
group pressure or a different urge to avoid shame that can derive from behaving in
contrast to other people’s expectations. This is an interesting result that merits further
attention because it may have important implications for anti-bullying interventions
(see Salmivalli et al., 2010).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ando, M., Asakura, T., & Simons-Morton, B. (2005). Psychosocial influences on physical,
verbal, and indirect bullying among Japanese early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence,
25, 268–297. doi: 10.1177/0272431605276933
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and
cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 387–397. doi:
10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3
Ang, R. P., Klassen, R. M., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., Yeo, L. S., et al. (2009).
Cross-cultural invariance of the academic expectations stress inventory: Adolescents samples
from Canada and Singapore. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1225–1237. doi: 10.1016/
j.adolescence.2009.01.009
Ang, R. P., Ong, E. Y. L., Lim, J. C. Y., & Lim, E. W. (2010). From narcissistic exploitativeness
to bullying behavior: The mediating role of approval-of-aggression beliefs. Social Develop-
ment, 19, 721–735. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00557.x
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Types of bullying among Italian school children.
Journal of Adolescence, 22, 423–426. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0234
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using
Asch’s (1952, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.119.1.111
Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., & Eicher, S. A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer
conformity dispositions and self-reported behavior among adolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 4, 521–530. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.4.521
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in
bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 186–197. doi: 10.1111/
j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x
Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of
empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x
Chia, Y. M., Koh, H. C., & Pragasam, J. (2008). An international study of career drivers of
accounting students in Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong. Journal of Education and Work,
21, 41–60. doi: 10.1080/13639080801957014
Cowie, H. (2000). Bystanding or standing by: Gender issues in coping with bullying in English
schools. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 85–97. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:1<85:AID-
AB7>3.0.CO;2-5
Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in
the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 22–36. doi: 10.1177/0143034300211002
Crick, N. R., & Werner, N. E. (1998). Response decision processes in relational and overt
aggression. Child Development, 69, 1630–1639. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06181.x
Eid, M., Langeheine, R., & Diener, E. (2003). Comparing typological structures across cultures
by multigroup latent class analysis: A primer. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34,
195–210. doi: 10.1177/0022022102250427
Espelage, D., Holt, M., & Henkel, R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on
aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205–220. doi: 10.1111/1467-
8624.00531
Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S., & Adams, R. (2004). Empathy, caring, and bullying: Toward an
understanding of complex associations. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying
in American schools: A social ecological perspective on prevention and intervention
(pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012 Social Development, 2012
Bystanders’ Behavior in Italy and Singapore 17
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gini, G. (2004). Bullying in Italian schools: An overview of intervention programmes. School
Psychology International, 25, 106–116. doi: 10.1177/0143034304028042
Gini, G. (2006a). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong? Aggressive
Behavior, 32, 528–539. doi: 10.1002/ab.20153
Gini, G. (2006b). Bullying as a social process: The role of group membership in students’
perception of inter-group aggression at school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 51–65. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.002
Gini, G. (2007). Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying. School
Psychology International, 28, 77–89. doi: 10.1177/0143034307075682
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents’ active
defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93–105.
doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A
meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-12
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008). The role of bystanders in students’
perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 617–638. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2008.02.001
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hauser, M. (2011). Bullies have enhanced moral competence to judge
relative to victims, but lack moral compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 50,
603–608. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.002
Griesler, P. C., & Kandel, D. B. (1998). The impact of maternal drinking during and after
pregnancy on the drinking of adolescent offspring. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 292–
304. Retrieved 5 December 2011, from http://www.jsad.com/
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441–455. doi: 10.1111/1469-
7610.00629
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Intercultural coopera-
tion and its importance for survival. London: McGraw-Hill International, Ltd.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Juvonen, J., & Galván, A. (2008). Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Lessons from
research on bullying. In M. Prinstein, & K. Dodge (Eds.), Peer influence processes among
youth (pp. 225–244). New York: Guilford Press.
Koh, C. W., & Tan, A. (2008). Bullying in Singapore schools [Research Monograph No. 8].
Singapore: Singapore Children’s Society.
Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of
school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125–141. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3502_6
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Menesini, E., & Camodeca, M. (2008). Shame and guilt as behaviour regulators: Relationships
with bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 26, 183–196. doi: 10.1348/026151007X205281
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2005). The psychological correlates of peer
victimisation in preschool: Social cognitive skills, executive function and attachment profiles.
Aggressive Behavior, 31, 571–588. doi: 10.1002/ab.20099
Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment. A critical analysis and some important issues. In
J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and col-
lectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
128, 3–73. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3
Oyserman, D., Sakamoto, I., & Lauffer, A. (1998). Cultural accommodation: Hybridity and the
framing of social obligation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1606–1618.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1606
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying and victimization in middle school: A dominance relations
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151–163. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2
Acknowledgment
The writing of this article was partially supported by a Research Associate Grant
(CPDR090824) and by Grant CPDA085704 from the University of Padua.
Note
1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.