doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00651.

Bystanders Reactions to Bullying:

A Cross-cultural Analysis of Personal
Correlates Among Italian and
Singaporean Students
sode_651

686..703

Tiziana Pozzoli, University of Padua, Rebecca P. Ang, Nanyang

Technological University, and Gianluca Gini, University of Padua

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
individualismcollectivism 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 studentsespecially girlsbehavior, 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 correlates using a cross-cultural approach.
Keywords: participant roles in bullying; attitudes; perceived peer pressure;
cultural differences
Introduction
School bullying is recognized as a pervasive problem worldwide, with negative consequences for childrens health (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009) and psychological adjustment
(Hawker & Boulton, 2000), that merits both research and intervention efforts. Consistent 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.

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 687

bystanders and explicitly include strategies aimed at encouraging them to take sides
with the bullied classmates (Salmivalli, Krn, & Poskiparta, 2010; Twemlow, Fonagy,
& Sacco, 2010). Understanding why some children personally intervene to stop bullying (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 withdrawing 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-ofmind and moral understanding, low moral disengagement, high sense of responsibility, 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; Pyhnen,
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, & Alto, 2008) found
that defending the victim was associated with both high empathic responsiveness and
high levels of social self-efficacy (see also Pyhnen 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 associated 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 negatively associated with defending behavior. Although bullying research has contributions 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 personal 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; Pyhnen et al., 2010; Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Sainio et al., 2011), and no
studies have used a cross-cultural framework, thus leading to problems of generalization of research findings to different cultures. In order to overcome these limitations, 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, 21, 4, 2012

688

Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

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.
The Present Study
In this study, we analyzed possible personal factors that may explain defending and
passive bystanding behavior in school-age children, and tested for cultural differences
by including samples from Italy and Singapore. These two countries have been shown
to display different cultural dimensions, as reported by Hofstede (2001), who analyzed
differences in individualism in 40 non-communist countries. Based on his findings,
Italy falls into the nine most individualist countries whereas Singapore is part of the
nine least individualist countries (to delve into culture characteristics of Singapore, see
Ang et al., 2009). This evidence was confirmed by a recent meta-analysis (Oyserman,
Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Individualist societies have loose bonds between individuals, everyone is expected to look out for oneself, and independence is rewarded.
Conversely, in collectivist societies, greater emphasis is placed on integrating people in
cohesive groups. At the same time, the group provides support and security to the
individual, and requires loyalty from members (Hofstede, 1991). The different cultural
contexts of Italy and Singapore suggest that cross-cultural comparisons might enhance
our understanding of the associations under investigation, and subsequently provide
empirical groundwork for anti-bullying programs in different cultural settings.
Although Italy and Singapore differ in the individualismcollectivism dimension,
these two countries are comparable in other areas, as indicated by the Human
Development Index, that is, a comparative measure for countries worldwide measuring
well-being and, in particular, childrens welfare. Both Italy and Singapore fall within
the very high human development category, and show similar levels of quality of life
(US$ per capita gross domestic product), education indices, infant mortality, life
expectancy, and literacy rates (United Nations, 2010). Moreover, as far as bullying in
school is concerned, some studies have confirmed the existence of the problem in both
countries. In particular, in Singapore, around one in five primary school pupils and one
in four secondary school students declared having been bullied by their peers (e.g.,
Koh & Tan, 2008); similar, or even slightly higher, rates are usually found in Italy, with
2040 percent of pupils in primary school and 1530 percent of students in middle
school reporting being bullied by peers (Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Vieno, Gini, &
Santinello, 2011).
Firstly, in this study, we considered attitudes toward bullying and victims as an
individual correlate of bystanders behavior. This construct can be defined as students
moral judgment regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of bullying behavior
(Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004, p. 247). Positive attitudes toward victims have been shown
to be associated with both students approval of others who act to stop bullying (Rigby
& Slee, 1993) and expressed intention to intervene (Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Moreover, recent studies found that individual attitudes against bullying and in favor of the
victims were positively related to defending behavior (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Salmivalli
& Voeten, 2004) and negatively associated with passive bystanding behavior (Pozzoli
& Gini, 2010). Therefore, we hypothesized that such attitudes were a significant
correlate of active intervention in favor of the victim among both Italian and Singaporean students. In contrast, negative attitudes toward victims should be related to
passive bystanders lack of intervention. Specifically, children who perceive bullying
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 689

as something funny, and who consider victims as weak people who deserve to be
bullied, are expected to be less likely to intervene actively to stop the aggression and
help the victimized peer. As far as cultural differences are concerned, past research
suggested that whereas peoples behavior in a collectivist culture is mainly regulated
by their desire to conform to group norms (Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, McCusker, &
Hui, 1990), behavior and interpersonal relationships in an individualist culture are
largely related to individual preferences and beliefs (Oyserman, Sakamoto, & Lauffer,
1998; Triandis et al., 1990). Therefore, we tested for the moderating role of country
on the associations between attitudes and bystanders response to bullying episodes,
hypothesizing a stronger effect of attitudes among Italian children compared with
Singaporean children.
As noted by Pozzoli and Gini (2010, p. 816), defenders behavior in bullying
situations is a particular type of prosocial behavior that may partly differ from more
general altruistic conduct toward needy people in every-day life. Intervening in favor
of the victim in the context of peer aggression represents a risky behavior, since the
helper confronts a powerful bully and, sometimes, even his/her supporters. Indeed,
bullying behavior is sometimes approved by social norms that do not necessarily reflect
the private attitudes of most group members but nevertheless promote compliance
within the group (e.g., Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Gini, 2006b, 2007; Juvonen &
Galvn, 2008). The analysis of how the perception of group norms and peer expectations shapes the behavior of group members can be a means to understand mechanisms
of peer influence. Even though observers do not necessarily join in bullying, the
perceived expectations of others in the peer group might be associated with students
active intervention or withdrawal.
Consistent with this idea, Rigby and Johnson (2006) found that believing that peers
expected them to support the victims was among the most important predictors of
students expressed intention to intervene. Moreover, in Pozzoli and Ginis (2010)
study, perceived peer normative pressure for intervention was positively associated
with (self- and teacher-reported) active help toward a bullied peer and negatively
related to passivity. Thus, in the current study, we tested not only for the associations
between bystanders behavior and perceived peer pressure for intervention, but also for
possible differences in this association in the two cultural settings. Consistent with
previous research (e.g., Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986; Griesler & Kandel, 1998;
Pozzoli & Gini, 2010; Rigby & Johnson, 2006), we conceptualized this variable as the
individuals perception of expectations from other classmates regarding the appropriate behavior during a bullying episode (e.g., When a child is being bullied, according
to my classmates I should intervene and help the victim), and we hypothesized that
such perception could add significantly to the explanation of students behavior in a
cross-cultural perspective. Differences in closeness of student groups between Singaporean and Western students were described by Chia, Koh, and Pragasam (2008),
who found that students in Singapore spent more time in closely knit social groups, and
as a result were more socially bonded and showed a stronger sense of affiliation to their
friendship groups than did students in Western contexts. Moreover, given the different
constructs that characterize the two cultures, such as collectivism and individualism, it
is reasonable to hypothesize that students are likely to feel different pressures to
conform to their social group. Because the concept of collectivism assumes the idea
that the group matters, it is likely that the effect of peer influence is stronger for people
who are embedded in a collectivist society. In contrast, people who are members of a
culture characterized by high individualism, although prone to be influenced by peers,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

690

Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

may be less susceptible to their peers pressure compared with members of collectivist
cultures (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008). For these reasons, we expected the impact of the
perceived peer pressure on bystanders behavior among children from Singapore to be
stronger compared with Italian children.
Finally, previous research has found that girls score higher than boys in defending
behavior (Salmivalli et al., 1996), have more positive attitudes toward victims (Rigby
& Slee, 1993), and express more readiness to support the victims (Rigby & Johnson,
2006). Moreover, gender differences in susceptibility to peer pressure have been
reported, although evidence is not always consistent (e.g., Prinstein & Dodge, 2008).
Therefore, even though we did not have specific directional hypotheses, we also tested
for the possible moderating role of gender, hypothesizing that the studied associations
may be different for boys and girls. To test for these moderations, we included two-way
and three-way interactions with country in the analyses.
In summary, we hypothesized that both attitudes against bullying and in favor of the
victims and perceived peer pressure for intervention predict bystanders behavior
(positively defending and negatively passive bystanding). Moreover, we anticipated
that participants country moderated these associations so that the relation between
attitudes and behavior is stronger among Italian participants compared with Singaporean participants whereas the opposite pattern of relation was expected regarding
the link between perceived peer pressure and bystanders behavior.
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 childrens 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 defending and passive bystanding behavior (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). The three items of each
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 691

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 dont 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 Voetens (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 computed by averaging the students answers on the 10 items. The higher a students score
on the scale, the more his/her attitudes are against bullying and in favor of the victim
(aItaly = .72; aSingapore = .72).
Perceived Peer Pressure for Intervention. The measure evaluates perceived
peers expectations regarding how the participant should behave when he/she
witnesses bullying episodes (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). Students were asked to read a
brief introductory sentence: if in my classroom someone repeatedly bullies another
classmate, according to my classmates I should . . .. Then, they rated to what
extent peers expect them to behave in each of the following ways: (1) direct intervention (. . . intervene to help the victim); (2) disregard (. . . do nothing because
its not my business, reverse code); (3) ask for adults intervention (. . . inform
an adult of what is happening so that he/she intervenes); and (4) withdrawal for
self-protection (. . . do nothing because I could get into trouble, reverse code).
Each rating was given on a 4-point scale, from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). A
higher score represents higher perceived peer pressure for intervention (aItaly = .63;
aSingapore = .69).
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, 21, 4, 2012

692

Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

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 intervention and attitudes against bullying were positively associated with defending and
negatively related with passive bystanding behavior, both in Italian and Singaporean
samples.
Country Differences in Study Variables
Descriptive statistics and country differences are reported in Table 2. Effect sizes are
expressed as partial eta-squared. A multivariate analysis of variance was used to test for
country differences in the considered variables. The overall multivariate analysis of
variance indicated a main effect for country (Wilks lambda = .74, F(4, 969) = 84.48,
p < .001, h2p = .26). Univariate tests showed that Italian participants scored higher than
Singaporean students in defending behavior and attitudes against bullying. In contrast,

Table 1. Correlations Among the Study Variables (N = 970)

1.
2.
3.
4.

Defending
Passive bystanding
Perceived peer pressure
Anti-bullying attitudes

-.433***
.220***
.247***

-.353***

-.287***
-.343***

.277***
-.464***

.297***

.195***
-.361***
.465***

Notes: Coefficients for Singapore above the diagonal, and coefficients for Italy below the
diagonal. Cohens 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
Full
sample

Defending
Passive bystanding
Perceived peer pressure
Anti-bullying attitudes

Italy
(N > 544)

Singapore
(N > 426)

SD

SD

SD

h2p

2.52
1.75
2.92
3.36

.75
.62
.67
.47

2.72
1.77
2.83
3.49

.74
.62
.68
.41

2.27
1.71
3.02
3.18

.68
.61
.65
.49

94.83***
2.15
18.26***
125.06***

.09
.002
.02
.11

*** p < .001.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 693

participants from Singapore reported greater perceived peer pressure for intervention
than students from Italy.
Multilevel Analyses Predicting Defending and Passive Bystanding Behavior
Because our data (students nested within classes) are multilevel in nature (Lee, 2000),
multilevel analysis, also known as hierarchical linear modeling, was performed [HLM
6.04 Software (Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL)] (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002). Given that the aim of this study was to investigate the relations between
individual characteristics and individual behavior, we focused only on within-class
variability in defending and passive bystanding behavior. In particular, two nested
models were estimated for each outcome behavior. In model 1, the influence of the
individual-level covariates on each outcome was examined. Specifically, demographic
variablesage (as continuous variable), gender (0 = girls, 1 = boys), and country (0 =
Singapore, 1 = Italy)were entered as covariates together with individual predictors,
namely attitudes against bullying and perceived peer pressure for intervention. Then, to
test for possible moderation effects of gender and country, we entered in model 2 the
two-way and three-way interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991) that were created by
mean centering continuous predictors. The improvement of fit between models was
evaluated through comparison between deviance values (based on the c2 distribution).
In order to facilitate interpretation of the results and to decrease possible problems
arising from multicollinearity, all variables (except gender and country) were centered
around their group means.
Intra-class Correlation Coefficients. As a preliminary step, for each outcome, the
unconditional model was estimated. This step yielded the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), which reveal the amount of the variability in each behavior that occurs
between or within classrooms. ICC indices showed that 86.5 percent of the total
variance of defending behavior and 91.6 percent of the variation of passive bystanding
behavior were explained by within classroom variables.
Defending Behavior. In model 1, the roles of demographic variables and individual
characteristics in predicting defending behavior were analyzed, controlling for students class membership (see Table 3). Predictors entered in model 1 explained
6.3 percent of the variance in participants defending behavior. Specifically, students
age and country emerged as significant predictors, so that defending behavior
was higher among younger and Italian students. Moreover, as hypothesized, attitudes
against bullying and perceived peer pressure emerged as significant predictors of
defending behavior. On the basis of our hypotheses regarding the potential influence of
gender and country in moderating the relations between individual correlates and
behavior, interaction terms were added in model 2. This model explained an additional
2.1 percent of the variance in defending behavior. The comparison between deviance
values showed that model 2 fitted the data better than model 1 (c2(6) = 15.69, p < .05),
in which only the main effects of individual predictors were considered. In particular,
three interaction terms were significant: peer pressure country, attitudes country,
and attitudes gender country. Given the presence of the three-way interaction, the
attitudes country interaction was not considered in subsequent analyses.
The peer pressure country interaction is depicted in Figure 1. Results derived from
the simple slope computation showed that perceived peer pressure for intervention was
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

.05

2122.64

.076
.487
189.32 (p < .001)

2.57

SE
53.10

t-ratio
40

df
<.001

Note: C = coefficient estimate from the population-average models with robust standard errors.
a
Centered around its class mean.

Intercept g00
Age
Gender
Country
Anti-bullying attitudesa
Perceived peer pressurea
Attitudes gendera
Attitudes countrya
Attitudes gender countrya
Peer pressure gendera
Peer pressure countrya
Peer pressure gender countrya
Variance components
T
s2g
c2
R2
Deviance

Unconditional model

Table 3. Multilevel Modeling Predicting Defending Behavior

.04
.004
.048
.056
.070
.039

SE

.027
.457
90.29 (p < .001)
6.3%
2052.52

2.30
.009
-.061
.449
.229
.186

C
60.39
2.003
-1.256
7.962
3.256
4.697

t-ratio

Model 1

40
965
965
965
965
965

df
<.001
<.001
.210
<.001
.002
<.001

.04
.004
.055
.057
.096
.062
.155
.184
.244
.073
.081
.107

SE

54.66
1.973
-.170
7.884
2.157
2.731
-.593
2.129
-1.947
1.925
-2.191
1.596

t-ratio

.028
.446
93.11 (p < .001)
8.4%
2036.83

2.27
.009
-.009
.450
.208
.169
-.092
.392
-.475
.141
-.178
.171

Model 2

40
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959

df

<.001
.048
.865
<.001
.031
.007
.553
.033
.050
.054
.029
.110

694
Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 695

4
Singapore

Italy

Defending behavior

1
L ow

High
Perceived peer pressure

Figure 1. The Perceived Peer Pressure Country Effect on Defending Behavior.

Defending behavior

4
Italy, boys

Italy, girls

Singapore, boys

Singapore, girls

1
Low

Attitudes against bullying

High

Figure 2. The Attitudes Gender Country Effect on Defending Behavior.

significantly related to different amount of defending behavior in the Singaporean

sample (b = .17, SE = .09, t = 1.89, p = .05) but not in the Italian sample (b = -.01,
SE = .06, t = -.16, p = .87).
The three-way interaction among attitudes, gender, and country is represented in
Figure 2. As one can see, the positive relation between anti-bullying attitudes and
defending behavior emerged only among Italian girls (b = .60, SE = .11, t = 5.24,
p < .001; Italian boys: b = .03, SE = .10, t = .28, p = .78; Singaporean girls: b = .21,
SE = .12, t = 1.69, p = .09; Singaporean boys: b = .12, SE = .10, t = 1.18, p = .24), and
significantly differed from the association between these two variables in Italian boys
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

696

Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

(t = 3.71, p < .001) and in Singaporean students, both boys (t = 3.35, p = .001) and girls
(t = 2.33, p = .02).
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 significantly 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, 21, 4, 2012

 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

.03

.034
.352
133.05 (p < .001)

1.75

SE
50.61

t-ratio
40

df
<.001

Note: C = coefficient estimate from the population-average models with robust standard errors.
a
Centered around its class mean.

Intercept g00
Age
Gender
Country
Anti-bullying attitudesa
Perceived peer pressurea
Attitudes gendera
Attitudes countrya
Attitudes gender countrya
Peer pressure gendera
Peer pressure countrya
Peer pressure gender countrya
Variance components
T
s2g
c2
R2
Deviance

Unconditional model

.06
.002
.033
.073
.053
.038

SE
26.59
-1.618
3.308
.719
-5.690
-6.138

t ratio

Model 1

.036
.297
152.22 (p < .001)
15.5%
1646.53

1.66
-.003
.109
.053
-.304
-.231

Table 4. Multilevel Modeling Predicting Passive Bystanding Behavior

40
965
965
965
965
965

df
<.001
.106
.001
.472
<.001
<.001

p
.07
.002
.038
.074
.054
.053
.117
.117
.187
.071
.078
.093

SE

25.54
-1.518
1.850
.697
-2.654
-6.429
-.562
-3.442
1.748
.083
2.907
-1.187

t ratio

.037
.294
154.74 (p < .001)
17.5%
1630.68

1.68
-.003
.070
.051
-.143
-.342
-.066
-.402
.326
.006
.228
-.111

Model 2

40
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959
959

df

<.001
.129
.064
.486
.008
<.001
.574
.001
.080
.934
.004
.236

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 697

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

698

Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

Passive bystanding behavior

4
Singapore

Italy

1
L ow

High
Perceived peer pressure

Figure 3. The Perceived Peer Pressure Country Effect on Passive Bystanding

Behavior.

Passive bystanding behavior

4
Singapore

Italy

1
L ow

Perceived peer pressure

High

Figure 4. The Attitudes Country Effect on Passive Bystanding Behavior.

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, 21, 4, 2012

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 699

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 associations 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 particular, 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, ones behaviors reflect the emphasis on the interdependent
selfthe ability to adjust and maintain harmony with the larger social group (Triandis et al., 1990). Markus and Kitayama (1991) aptly noted this of collectivist societies: the nail that stands out gets pounded down (p. 224). Compared with an
individualist culture in Italy, a collectivist culture in Singapore stresses the significance 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 intervention, above and beyond the effects of the other individual characteristics. In contrast, 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, 21, 4, 2012

700

Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

such as collectivism and individualism, could affect pressure to conform to the social
groups 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 Smiths (1996) meta-analysis, analyzing 133 studies conducted in 17
countries, found that studies conducted in collectivist countries reported greater conformity 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 peoples 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).
Limitations and Future Directions
Some limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, we collected information about participants behavior and individual correlates only through self-report measures. Future
studies should investigate the variables through a multi-informant approach, thus
reducing problems of shared method variance and possible biases (e.g., social desirability) related to this type of measure. Secondly, we did not examine whether Italian
and Singaporean students understand the questions exactly in the same way and
whether potential cultural differences in interpreting bullying items could affect the
results. Future research using multigroup latent class analysis1 (Eid, Langeheine, &
Diener, 2003) could partly solve this issue. Thirdly, given the medium-level reliability
of some of the measures adopted in this study, future research replicating these findings
with different instruments could strengthen our results. Moreover, it would be interesting to investigate how other aspects potentially linked to the construct of attitudes
toward bullying, such as moral disengagement mechanisms, are associated with
defending or passive bystanding behavior depending on cultural context. Fourthly, we
did not control for participants bullying behavior or personal experiences of victimization. Future studies should analyze the possible relations between past experiences
of peer victimization or personal tendency to bully classmates and the type of reaction
enacted in front of another peer being bullied. Moreover, cultural membership could
affect, for example, onlookers responses to bullying in different aspects, for example
it might vary according to who is being bullied (e.g., a same vs. opposite sex peer,
a member of the in-group or of the out-group). Therefore, future research should
compare defending and passive bystanding in different countries under different
contextual conditions. Finally, we did not have a direct measure of individual
collectivismindividualism, thus losing possible individual variability within countries on this dimension. It would be interesting to investigate directly individual beliefs
about values typical of collectivism and individualism, and how these beliefs influence
the relations between individual correlates and behavior.
Within these limitations, this study significantly expands the current literature on
the bystanders to bullying issue because it is the first to provide data analyzing
the association between defending and passive bystanding behavior and different
correlates using a cross-cultural approach. Although studies in this field tend to rely
only on data collected in a single country, thus suffering from problems of generalization to different cultures, we found differences in the hypothesized relations
between the two countries, which differ in an important aspect, namely in the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 701

collectivismindividualism dimension. Future studies should explore more extensively the cross-cultural similarities and differences in the relations between individual
correlates and bystanders behavior in different countries to enhance our understanding
of this topic and provide empirical groundwork for anti-bullying programs in different
cultural settings.
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, 268297. 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, 387397. 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, 12251237. 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 Development, 19, 721735. 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, 423426. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0234
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using
Aschs (1952, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111137. 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, 521530. 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, 186197. 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, 140163. 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, 4160. doi: 10.1080/13639080801957014
Cowie, H. (2000). Bystanding or standing by: Gender issues in coping with bullying in English
schools. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 8597. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:1<85:AIDAB7>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, 2236. doi: 10.1177/0143034300211002
Crick, N. R., & Werner, N. E. (1998). Response decision processes in relational and overt
aggression. Child Development, 69, 16301639. 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,
195210. 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, 205220. doi: 10.1111/14678624.00531
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. 3761). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

702

Tiziana Pozzoli, Rebecca P. Ang and Gianluca Gini

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, 106116. doi: 10.1177/0143034304028042
Gini, G. (2006a). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: Whats wrong? Aggressive
Behavior, 32, 528539. 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, 5165. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.002
Gini, G. (2007). Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying. School
Psychology International, 28, 7789. doi: 10.1177/0143034307075682
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Alto, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents active
defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93105.
doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A
meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 10591065. 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, 617638. 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,
603608. 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, 441455. doi: 10.1111/14697610.00629
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: McGraw-Hill International, Ltd.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Juvonen, J., & Galvn, 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. 225244). New York: Guilford Press.
Koh, C. W., & Tan, A. (2008). Bullying in Singapore schools [Research Monograph No. 8].
Singapore: Singapore Childrens Society.
Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of
school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125141. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3502_6
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224253. 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, 183196. 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, 571588. 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. 320). New York: Guilford.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
128, 373. 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, 16061618.
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, 151163. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012

Bystanders Behavior in Italy and Singapore 703

Pyhnen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to defend the victimized
peer? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56,
143163. doi: 10.1353/mpq.0.0046
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying:
The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 38, 815827. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9
Prinstein, M. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of Australian schoolchildren to act as
bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educational Psychology, 26, 425
440. doi: 10.1080/01443410500342047
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children
and implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 3342. doi:
10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116
Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Victims and their defenders: A
dyadic approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 144151. doi:
10.1177/0165025410378068
Salmivalli, C., Krn, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2010). From peer putdowns to peer support: A
theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In S. R.
Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An
international perspective (pp. 441454). New York: Routledge.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying
as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group.
Aggressive Behavior, 22, 115. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.
CO;2-T
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246258.
doi: 10.1080/01650250344000488
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and
collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 10061020. doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.59.5.1006
Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2010). The etiological cast to the role of the
bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities.
In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools:
An international perspective (pp. 7386). New York: Routledge.
United Nations. (2010). Human development report 201020th anniversary edition. Retrieved
5 December 2011, from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/summary/
Vieno, A., Gini, G., & Santinello, M. (2011). Different forms of bullying and their association
to smoking and drinking behavior in Italian adolescents. Journal of School Health, 81,
393399. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00607.x
Wei, H., Williams, J. H., Chen, J., & Chang, H. (2010). The effects of individual characteristics,
teacher practice, and school organizational factors on students bullying: A multilevel analysis
of public middle schools in Taiwan. Children and Services Review, 32, 137143. doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.004

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.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012

Social Development, 21, 4, 2012