Department of Educational Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Education, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; LEARN! Research Institute for Learning and Education, Faculty of Psychology and Education, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Sch Psychol. 2013 Dec;51(6):669-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.09.002. Epub 2013 Oct 12.
This study examined the social cognitions of outsiders and defenders about intervening in situations of victimization by bullying. Do outsiders and defenders behave differently in victimization situations because of differences in competence beliefs, or because of a selectivity effect in intervening? These issues were examined in a sample of 102 outsiders and 107 defenders who were classified into these bullying roles through a peer-nomination procedure out of a total sample of 761 10- to 14-year-old Dutch children. These children were presented with imaginary victimization events. They answered questions about their cognitions and self-efficacy beliefs about intervening in victimization situations and about handling such situations. Outsiders, compared to defenders, claimed to intervene indirectly in victimization situations rather than directly. Defenders, compared to outsiders, claimed to intervene directly in victimization situations rather than indirectly. Both outsiders and defenders claimed to be more likely to intervene when a friend was being victimized than when a neutral classmate was being victimized. Outsiders and defenders did not differ in their self-efficacy for indirect intervention, but only defenders claimed a high self-efficacy for direct intervention. Both outsiders and defenders claimed to benefit from direct help when they themselves are victimized, but only outsiders also reported to need indirect help. The results suggest that outsiders and defenders behave differently in victimization situations because of differences in competence beliefs rather than because of a selectivity effect. More generally, the results suggest that not only defenders but also outsiders have the intention to help children who are being bullied. However, outsiders' anti-bullying attempts are likely to be indirect and less firm than those of defenders.
本研究考察了局外人和维护者对干预欺凌受害情境的社会认知。由于能力信念的差异，还是因为干预的选择性效应，局外人和维护者在受害情境中的行为是否有所不同？通过对 761 名 10 至 14 岁荷兰儿童的同伴提名程序，从这些儿童中确定了 102 名局外人和 107 名维护者，将他们归入这些欺凌角色，然后在这些样本中检验了这些问题。这些儿童被呈现出虚构的受害情境，他们回答了关于他们在受害情境中干预的认知和自我效能信念，以及处理此类情境的问题。与维护者相比，局外人声称在受害情境中更倾向于间接干预，而不是直接干预。与局外人相比，维护者声称在受害情境中更倾向于直接干预，而不是间接干预。与当一个中立的同学被欺负时相比，局外人和维护者都声称当他们的朋友被欺负时更有可能干预。局外人和维护者在间接干预的自我效能方面没有差异，但只有维护者声称直接干预的自我效能很高。局外人和维护者都声称在自己受害时需要直接帮助，但只有局外人还报告需要间接帮助。研究结果表明，由于能力信念的差异，而不是因为干预的选择性效应，局外人和维护者在受害情境中的行为有所不同。更一般地说，研究结果表明，不仅维护者，而且局外人都有意帮助受欺凌的儿童。然而，局外人的反欺凌尝试可能是间接的，而且不如维护者坚定。
