Bystanders of Cyberbullying and Bullying in Emerging Adulthood: Prosocial Moral Reasoning and Helping Strategies (WITHDRAWN)

Background and Purpose:

Three decades of bullying research has demonstrated that peer bystanders play vital roles in perpetuating, as well as preventing and stopping bullying. The effect may be similar, or even intensified, in the case of bystanders of cyberbullying, where hundreds of cyber-bystanders can witness peer aggression. Yet bystander educational programming, at least for traditional bullying, has shown variable outcomes. To examine possible reasons for these outcomes and consider new approaches, the current study examined the moral reasoning of college student bystanders in emerging adulthood who self-reported trying to help peers when they witnessed them being targeted both online and “in real life.”  The research questions for this study were: 1. How do bystanders who attempt to help peers in the context of bullying and/or cyberbullying understand their responsibilities as witnesses of peer aggression? And 2. What strategies do they use to help peers being targeted?

Methods:

Following IRB approvals, thirty-one participants from 7 campuses in 2 states in the northeastern U.S. participated in 60-90 minute, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited using theoretical sampling and the snowball method, allowing in some cases for interviews with different bystanders of the same incidents. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, then coded using grounded theory techniques.

Findings:

Four main categories were identified in coding of the qualitative data: 1. Idealization of emerging adulthood and college—the idea that bullying and cyberbullying are immature, so “should” be less common in college—which could motivate participants to help or, conversely, they could reason they should therefore not have to help; 2. Identificatory processes—reasoning that they should help because of identifications with victimized peers based on past experiences or social identities, especially based on race, sexual orientation, and gender—and that it would be inappropriate or wrong to help across social identity differences; 3. Looking out for friends—and often a sense that they should not help strangers; and finally, 4. Principles of social and community justice—abstract reasoning that they should help out of community idealism—typically found in responses only in combination with the other categories of reasoning noted above. Participants also identified a range of strategies—online and “in real life”—for helping peers one-on-one or as groups, especially as groups formed around social identity.

Conclusion and Implications:

Findings suggest that college students may be more likely to help or defend peers when they identify or have a close prior relationship with them, and may feel it is “wrong” to try to help across difference or to help a stranger. Greater programming and research attention is therefore necessary to focus on those who are socially isolated and targets of peer aggression. Bystander intervention programming may be more successful when it integrates the moral reasoning of groups in contextually and developmentally specific ways. This research must be expanded to examine peer prosocial reasoning and strategies in the context of peer aggression among emerging adults outside of traditional educational settings, especially in clinical and social service settings.