Developmental Psychology

Classroom Norms of Bullying Alter the Degree to Which

Children Defend in Response to Their Affective Empathy
and Power
Ktlin Peets, Virpi Pyhnen, Jaana Juvonen, and Christina Salmivalli
Online First Publication, May 11, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039287

CITATION
Peets, K., Pyhnen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2015, May 11). Classroom Norms of
Bullying Alter the Degree to Which Children Defend in Response to Their Affective Empathy
and Power. Developmental Psychology. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039287
 Developmental Psychology 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 51, No. 5, 000 0012-1649/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039287

Classroom Norms of Bullying Alter the Degree to Which Children Defend

in Response to Their Affective Empathy and Power

Ktlin Peets Virpi Pyhnen

Utrecht University and Tallinn University University of Turku

Jaana Juvonen Christina Salmivalli

University of California, Los Angeles University of Turku
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This study examined whether the degree to which bullying is normative in the classroom would moderate
associations between intra- (cognitive and affective empathy, self-efficacy beliefs) and interpersonal
(popularity) factors and defending behavior. Participants were 6,708 third- to fifth-grade children (49%
boys; Mage 11 years) from 383 classrooms. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed that children were
more likely to defend in response to their affective empathy in classrooms with high levels of bullying.
In addition, popular students were more likely to support victims in classrooms where bullying was
associated with social costs. These findings highlight the importance of considering interactions among
individual and contextual influences when trying to understand which factors facilitate versus inhibit
childrens inclinations to defend others.

Keywords: classroom norms, bullying, defending, empathy, popularity

Standing up for a victim of bullying is a powerful act that not
only alleviates the distress of a victim, but also helps stop bullying
behavior (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001; Sainio, Veenstra, Hu-
itsing, & Salmivalli, 2011). Although defending defined as tak-
ing a stand on behalf of the victim by directly stepping in, seeking
help, or comforting the victim (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004)is a
prosocial act, it carries social risk because students who bully
others are often perceived as popular among their classmates
(Juvonen & Galvn, 2008; Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall,
2003). Because of the negative consequences victimization brings
for individuals (Card & Hodges, 2008) as well as for others who
witness victimization (Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009), it
is critical to understand which factors spur, and which ones hinder,
bystanders to stand up for and defend victims. The purpose of this
study was to better understand how contextual factors (i.e.,
classroom-level norms) might influence the degree to which chil-
drens intra- and interpersonal characteristics are translated into
defending behavior.
Ktlin Peets, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, and Insti-
tute of Psychology, Tallinn University; Virpi Pyhnen, Department of
Psychology, University of Turku; Jaana Juvonen, Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of California, Los Angeles; Christina Salmivalli, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of Turku.
This study was supported by Academy of Finland Grant 134843 to
Christina Salmivalli. We thank Ernest V. E. Hodges for his feedback on
earlier versions of this article. Our special gratitude also goes to all the
children and teachers who made this study possible.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ktlin
Peets, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, 3508 TC Utrecht,
The Netherlands. E-mail: katlinpeets@gmail.com
In line with social information processing theories (Crick &
Dodge, 1994; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000), emotional-cognitive
factors, such as empathy and self-efficacy, increase the likelihood
of defending (Barchia & Bussey, 2011; Caravita, Di Blasio, &
Salmivalli, 2009; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Alto, 2007, 2008;
Pyhnen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2010). When making a distinc-
tion between cognitive (perspective taking skills) versus affective
(vicariously feeling another persons emotions) empathy, only the
affective component has been found to predict defending behavior
(Barchia & Bussey, 2011; Caravita et al., 2009; Pyhnen et al.,
2010). Thus, in order for bystanders to engage in defending be-
havior, their emotions should be elicited by the plight of the
victim. However, affective empathy is unlikely to be a sufficient
sole motivator for defending behavior. It is also important that
children feel confident in their ability to defend the victim. Such
self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be major drivers of behavior
and play a prominent role in both social cognitive learning (e.g.,
Bandura, 1986) and social information processing theories (e.g.,
Crick & Dodge, 1994). Indeed, children who have high self-
efficacy for defending are more likely to engage in defending
behavior (Gini et al., 2008; Pyhnen et al., 2010; Pyhnen,
Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012). Thus, children who believe in their
capabilities to defend are likely to feel more competent in facing
challenging situations, such as standing up for their victimized
peers.
In addition, interpersonal factors, such as social standing in the
peer group (popularity or power), can make a difference in terms
of whether children engage in supporting the victim against bul-
lying (Caravita et al., 2009; Pyhnen et al., 2010). Because
children who engage in aggression or bullying are often highly
popular (Caravita et al., 2009; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Cil-
lessen & Rose, 2005; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993;

1
 2 PEETS, PYHNEN, JUVONEN, AND SALMIVALLI
Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006),
defenders might need an equally high social rank to have the
courage to stand up for the victims. In other words, high-status
classmates are likely to be in the best position to challenge those
who bully.
However, not all the children act on their inclinations to defend.
Guided by social-ecological perspectives (e.g., Bronfenbrenner,
1977; Farmer, Lines, & Hamm, 2011; Ladd, 2003; Swearer &
Espelage, 2004), we expected that the degree to which children act
on their empathy, efficacy, and power is likely to be affected by
their social environment. The focus of this study was on classroom
environment (interactions among classmates) because it provides a
major socialization context during middle childhood (see also
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Pozzoli, Gini, & Vieno, 2012). Importantly, different norms oper-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ating within a classroom context can either support or inhibit
childrens inclinations to behave in certain ways. We examined the
influence of two types of normsdescriptive and social prestige
norms. Descriptive classroom norms refer to what most students in
their classroom do (see the definition by Cialdini, Reno, & Kall-
gren, 1990). The influence of descriptive norms has been studied
more extensively on the development of aggression rather than on
other behaviors in the peer group. For example, in classrooms
where aggression is more common, children become more aggres-
sive over time (e.g., Mercer, McMillen, & DeRosier, 2009;
Thomas, Bierman, Powers, & The Conduct Problems Research
Group, 2011). Also, negative behaviors, such as bullying, are
associated with fewer negative consequences in contexts where
such behaviors are more common (Sentse, Scholte, Salmivalli, &
Voeten, 2007). Thus, childrens decisions on which actions to take
are likely to be influenced by what other classmates do in similar
situations, as well as by whether they, or their peers, have previ-
ously been rewarded or punished by engaging in similar behaviors.
In addition to descriptive norms, we envisioned that the degree
to which children act on their empathy and sense of efficacy is
influenced by social prestige norms (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, &
Veenstra, 2008). Social prestige refers to the perceived values or
social rewards attached to specific behaviors (see also Galvan,
Spatzier & Juvonen, 2011). For instance, Dijkstra, Lindenberg, and
Veenstra (2008) showed that bullying was associated with fewer
negative consequences when popular rather than unpopular chil-
dren engaged in high rates of bullying behaviors. They concluded
that children are more likely to emulate behaviors enacted by
popular bullies than by others. However, although bullies are often
considered popular (Caravita et al., 2009; Cillessen & Mayeux,
2004; Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Newcomb et al., 1993; Parkhurst &
Hopmeyer, 1998; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006), classrooms may
vary in whether bullying is socially rewarded by others or not.
Hence, childrens likelihood of acting on their inclinations to
defend a victimized peer depends also on whether they are in a
classroom in which bullying is associated with high versus low
power.
Increasing progress has been made on understanding contextual
effects on defending behavior. For instance, research shows that
children are more likely to defend in classrooms where bullying is
less frequent (Krn, Voeten, Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2010;
Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011; see also Espelage, Green,
& Polanin, 2012 on willingness to intervene), where children hold
stronger antibullying beliefs (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004) and
greater provictim attitudes, and where children collectively feel
stronger pressure by their peers to intervene (Pozzoli, Gini, &
Vieno, 2012). This progress, however, has been primarily limited
to increasing our understanding of contextual factors that predict
between-classroom differences in mean levels of defending. Much
less is known on how these contextual factors might moderate
associations between individual differences in intra- and interper-
sonal characteristics and defending. The few studies that have
examined such cross-level interactions have been limited to un-
derstanding how differences between countries (Pozzoli, Ang, &
Gini, 2012) or school levels (primary vs. secondary; Pozzoli, Gini,
& Vieno, 2012) moderate the effects of individual factors (e.g.,
perceived peer pressure) on taking actions to support the victims.
Thus, this study was undertaken to expand our understanding of
how classroom-level norms might strengthen or weaken
individual-level associations. We anticipated that when bullying
behavior is common in the classroom (average levels of
classroom-level bullying are high), it is less likely that children
would act on their empathy, especially affective empathy, and
self-efficacy. Their reluctance would be due to the lack of support
from their classmates and concern of placing themselves at a
greater risk of becoming the next victim. We also hypothesized
that social prestige norms (the degree to which bullying is asso-
ciated with popularity, a social reward valued in the peer group)
would moderate childrens likelihood of acting on their inclina-
tions to defend. Specifically, we anticipated that social prestige
norms might moderate the degree to which popular students en-
gage in defending. Popular students could be expected to withdraw
from defending in classrooms where bullying is positively associ-
ated with popularity because by challenging (or provoking) pop-
ular bullies via defending they could risk losing what they value
the mostrespect and admiration by other popular peers. Simi-
larly, children might be less likely to act on their empathy or
efficacy in classrooms where bullying is positively associated with
popularity because they are concerned of being the potential future
targets of popular bullies (who have social power and a network of
relationships to make things unbearable for them).
Our study focused on middle childhood because children in
middle to late childhood are more capable of perspective taking,
engaging in social comparison processes, as well as empathizing
with others compared with younger children (Fabes, Carlo, Ku-
panoff, & Laible, 1999; Harter, 2012). Also, the frequency of
defending behaviors declines from middle childhood to adoles-
cence (e.g., Caravita, Gini, & Pozzoli, 2012; Pozzoli et al., 2012)
which suggests that it might be more difficult to implement anti-
bullying programs in older age groups because defending and
other prosocial behaviors might be losing their prominence in
childrens behavioral repertoire. Thus, understanding which indi-
vidual and contextual factors enhance defending in middle child-
hood could potentially offer a promising window for improving
the lives of children suffering persistent bullying attacks.
Method
Participants
We used pretest data from the KiVa bullying intervention pro-
gram (see Krn et al., 2011 for a more detailed description of
sampling procedures). Data were collected in May 2007. The
initial sample included a total of 8,211 third- to fifth-grade students
 CLASSROOM NORMS OF BULLYING
(from 425 classrooms, 77 schools) of which 7,476 students (from
419 classrooms) received active parental consent to participate.
Most of the students lived with both of their parents (79%; n
5,529; 7,016 children provided information about their family
situation). Majority of participants and their parents were born in
Finland (see Strohmeier, Krn, & Salmivalli, 2011). We excluded
classrooms with fewer than six students (65 students from 24
classrooms) because they did not receive the popularity measure,
resulting in a sample of 7,411 third- to fifth-grade students from
395 classrooms. Finally, we excluded cases with missing values,
resulting in a final sample of 6,708 students from 383 classrooms
(49% boys; 32% third graders, 33% fourth graders, and 36% fifth
graders; Mage 11 years; range: 8.46 to 13.93 years).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Procedure
The data were collected through Internet-based questionnaires.
Testing sessions were held during regular school hours at com-
puter labs under the supervision of teachers. Each school had
access to computers. Teachers were given detailed instructions
concerning the procedure 2 weeks prior to the data collection. If
teachers had any questions or concerns, they could obtain support
via phone or e-mail. The order of the questionnaires as well as the
order of the items within questionnaires were randomized.
At the beginning of the testing session, the term bullying was
defined to students. The definition included three main compo-
nents of bullying: intent to harm, repeated nature, and imbalance of
power (see, e.g., Olweus, 1999). Teachers read the definition out
loud and students were then asked to read the same definition from
their computer screens. Additionally, a shortened version of the
definition (i.e., It is bullying, when a person is repeatedly made to
feel bad on purpose) always appeared on the upper part of the
computer screen when students responded to bullying related
questions (i.e., Participant Role Questionnaire).
Measures
Defending and bullying behavior. Defending and bullying
behaviors were measured by means of the Participant Role Ques-
tionnaire (PRQ; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). The defender scale
consists of three peer nomination items describing defending and
supporting of the victims of bullying (i.e., Tries to make others
stop bullying; Comforts the victim or encourages him/her to tell
the teacher about the bullying; Tells others to stop bullying or
says that bullying is stupid). The bullying scale also includes
three peer nomination items (i.e., Starts bullying; Makes others
join in the bullying; Always finds new ways of harassing the
victim). Participants were given a class roster and asked to
nominate an unlimited number of classmates who fit the descrip-
tion in an item. For each participant the nominations received were
first tallied for each item and divided by the number of nominators.
Finally, two scale scores were created by averaging across the
three defending and three bullying items. Internal consistency of
both scales was good (defending: Cronbachs alpha .92; bully-
ing: Cronbachs alpha .91). Scores could range from 0 to 1.
Perceived popularity. To assess perceived popularity, partic-
ipants were asked to nominate three classmates they perceived as
most popular (i.e., Who are the most popular [students] in your
class?). For each student, the number of nominations was tallied
3
and divided by the number of nominators. Scores could vary from
0 to 1.
Self-efficacy beliefs for defending behavior. To assess self-
efficacy beliefs for defending behavior (Pyhnen et al., 2010,
2012), students were asked to evaluate how easy or difficult it
would be for them to defend the victim of bullying (three items;
e.g., Trying to make others stop the bullying would be 0 very
easy . . . 3 very difficult for me). The item content was parallel
to the PRQ items. Answers were reverse coded, so that higher
scores indicated greater self-efficacy for defending. Finally, scores
were averaged across the three items (Cronbachs alpha .69).
Affective and cognitive empathy. A seven-item measure was
used to assess empathy (Krn et al., 2011). Affective empathy
was measured with four items that assess the degree to which
students share the victims feelings (e.g., When the bullied stu-
dent is sad, I also feel sad). Cognitive empathy was tapped by
three items that measure the degree to which students understand
the victims feelings (e.g., I can understand how the bullied
student must feel). Responses were provided on a 4-point scale
(from 0 never true to 3 always true). Scores for both scales
were averaged across the respective items. Higher scores reflect
greater empathy. Internal consistencies were .85 and .75 for affec-
tive and cognitive empathy, respectively.
Creating contextual variables. We created two new
classroom-level variables. First, the classroom-level of bullying
(descriptive norm) was derived by averaging individual bullying
scores for each classroom. Second, the social prestige norm was
indexed by computing the bullying-popularity correlation for each
classroom (correlations varied from .89 to .91).
Results
Analysis Strategy
We used multilevel modeling (Mplus 7.3; Muthn & Muthn,
1998 2012) to take into account the interdependence of observa-
tions. Defending served as the criterion variable. Age, gender,
bullying behavior, self-efficacy, affective and cognitive empathy,
and perceived popularity served as within- (individual-) level
covariates. Age and gender were grand- rather than group-mean
centered to control for between-classroom differences in propor-
tion of boys (vs. girls) and age. Other variables were group-mean
centered. Descriptive norms (i.e., classroom level bullying) and
social prestige norms (i.e., bullying-popularity correlation) served
as classroom-level covariates. In addition, because classrooms
varied in size (from six to 35 students) and our preliminary
analyses showed that classroom size was related to our other study
constructs, this variable was also included as a classroom-level
covariate. Classroom size and classroom-level bullying were
grand-mean centered (we did not center bullying-popularity cor-
relation because the value of 0 was interpretable). Means and
standard deviations of study variables are presented in Table 1.
Correlations can be found from Tables 2 and 3.
Multilevel Analyses
Random intercept model. We first ran an empty model
(without any student- or classroom-level covariates) to explore the
degree to which defending varied between classrooms. Within-
 4 PEETS, PYHNEN, JUVONEN, AND SALMIVALLI

Table 1
Individual-Level Correlations Among Study Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Defending
2. Bullying .426
3. Age .007 .024
4. Gender .514 .355 .014
5. Efficacy .116 .035 .043 .065
6. Affective empathy .301 .192 .071 .280 .197
7. Cognitive empathy .165 .111 .066 .137 .169 .582
8. Popularity .193 .158 .031 .070 .070 .005 .015
M 0.067 10.995 1.807 1.835 2.259 0.161
Var 0.014 0.014 0.803 0.531 0.528 0.399 0.033
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. Girl 0; Boy 1. Defending was allowed to vary between classrooms (thus, mean for defending is presented in Table 2). All the other constructs
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

were specified as within-level variables.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

and between-level variance estimates were .013 and .008, respec-
tively (both were significant at p .001). The intraclass correla-
tion (ICC) was .36, indicating that 36% of the variance in defend-
ing behavior was due to differences between the classrooms.
Random-intercept model with student-level covariates.
Next, we added individual-level covariates to our previous model
(see Table 3 for the results). In this model, the effects of
individual-level covariates on defending were treated as fixed (i.e.,
similar across classrooms). Consistent with prior research, students
who had higher efficacy beliefs for defending and who felt more
affective empathy toward the victims were more likely to engage
in defending behavior. Also, students who were considered more
popular by their classmates were more likely to stand up for their
victimized peers. Finally, bullies and boys were less likely to
engage in defending. Altogether 38% of the variance in defending
was explained by individual-level predictors [(.013.008)/.013].
Random-intercept and random-slopes model. We then built
a model with four random slopes (cognitive empathy defending,
affective empathy defending, efficacy defending, popularity
defending). In addition to estimating whether the four slopes (asso-
ciations between student-level predictors and defending) varied
significantly across classrooms, we estimated all the covariances
among the slopes and between the slopes and the intercept. We
found that the effects of empathy on defending (Var 1.83808;
p .020) and popularity on defending (Var .019, p .001)
varied significantly across the classrooms. The two other slopes
that did not show significant between-classroom variability were
specified to be fixed in the next model.
Intercept- and slopes-as-outcomes model. Finally, we in-
cluded classroom-level covariates in the model (see Table 3). Our
Table 2
Classroom-Level Correlations Among Study Variables
Variables 1 2 3 4
1. Defending
2. Class size .204
3. Descriptive norms .114 .377
4. Social prestige norms .209 .063 .080
M 0.200 20.582 0.073 0.124
Var 0.008 31.079 0.002 0.093
main research question concerned cross-level interactions
whether associations between student-level predictors and defend-
ing varied across classrooms as a function of classroom-level
norms. We found that classroom descriptive norms regarding
bullying moderated the link between affective empathy and de-
fending. Also, the social prestige norms of bullying moderated the
association between participants popularity and their defending.
To unpack these effects, we first analyzed the association between
affective empathy and defending by comparing simple slopes
(using the Model Constraint option in Mplus) at low (2 and 1 SD
below the mean), average (at the mean), and high levels (1 and 2
SD above the mean) of classroom-level bullying. As shown in
Figure 1, these links became increasingly stronger as the level of
classroom bullying increased (very low value-.089: b .010, SE
.005, p .040; low value-.045: b .015, SE .003, p .001;
average value0: b .019, SE .002, p .001; high value.045: b
.024, SE .003, p .001; very high value.089: b .029, SE
.005, p .001). A similar procedure was undertaken when fol-
lowing up the other significant cross-level interaction between
participants popularity and classroom-level prestige norms of
bullying. As shown in Figure 2, the results revealed that associa-
tions between popularity and defending became weaker as the
links between bullying and popularity moved from negative to
positive (very low value-.486: b .249, SE .022, p .001; low
value-.181: b .212, SE .014, p .001; average value.124: b
.176, SE .010, p .001; high value.429: b .139, SE .014,
p .001; very high value.734: b .103, SE .022, p .001).
Although we had not formed hypotheses about the moderating
role of classroom size, we also tested the two interactions of
Affective Empathy Class Size and Popularity Class Size.
Neither of the two interactions was significant (see Table 3).
Classroom-level predictors explained altogether 13% of the vari-
ance in defending between classrooms [(.008 .007)/.008], 49%
of the variance in the affective empathy-defending slope
[(1.83808 9.35609)/1.83808], and 5% of the variance in the
popularity-defending slope [(.019 .018)/.019], using the random
intercept and slopes model as the comparison.
Discussion
This study was designed to examine whether classroom bullying
norms influence the degree to which children defend in respond to
 CLASSROOM NORMS OF BULLYING 5

Table 3
Predicting Defending Behavior (Summary of Results From Multilevel Modeling)

Intercept- and slopes-as-

Random-coefficient model outcomes model
Coeff SE Coeff SE

Individual-level variables
Bullying .306 .011 .287 .011
Age .001 .003 .001 .003
Gender .090 .002 .091 .002
Self-efficacy .005 .002 .005 .002
Affective empathy .020 .002 .019 .002
Cognitive empathy .000a .002 .001 .002
Popularity .167 .006 .191 .010
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Classroom-level variables
.005
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Class size .001

Descriptive norms .327 .111
Social prestige norms .050 .015
Interactions (Individual-Level Predictor Classroom-Level Moderator)
Affective Empathy Class Size .000a .000a
Affective Empathy Descriptive Norms .103 .048
Affective Empathy Social Prestige Norms .002 .006
Popularity Class Size .000a .002
Popularity Descriptive Norms .050 .238
Popularity Social Prestige Norms .120 .032
Residual variance (within) .008 .000a .007 .000
Residual variance (between): intercept .008 .001 .007 .001
Residual variance (between): slopeaffective empathy-defending .000a .000
Residual variance (between): slopepopularity-defending .018 .002
Note. Coeff coefficient. Unstandardized coefficients are presented. Gender and age were grand-mean centered. All other individual-level predictors
were group-mean centered. Classroom size and classroom-level bullying were grand-mean centered. Covariances among the slopes and intercept were
modeled (in the intercept- and slopes-as-outcomes model) but not shown in this table.
a
Mplus rounds numbers to three decimal places.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

their empathy, efficacy, and popularity. Consistent with previous
social-ecological perspectives (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Farmer
et al., 2011; Juvonen & Galvn, 2008; Swearer & Espelage, 2004),
our findings suggest that classroom norms can have a powerful
influence on whether children act on their empathy and use their
social rank to defend their peers, underscoring the importance of
moving beyond main effect models to the study of interactive
processes among individual and contextual influences.
Consistent with prior findings (e.g., Pyhnen et al., 2010), both
affective empathy and self-efficacy for defending had a unique
effect on defending behavior, whereas cognitive empathy did not
(despite the significant bivariate correlation). Thus, it is the vicar-
ious sharing of victims feelings and having confidence in standing
up for the victim, rather than cognitive perspective taking, that
matters in terms of whether children engage in supporting the
victim. In addition, children who were more popular were more
likely to defend others, suggesting that social power allows chil-
dren to take on more challenging acts. It is encouraging to know
that popularity is not only related to behaviors that bring harm to
others (e.g., aggression, bullying; Caravita et al., 2009; Cillessen &
Mayeux, 2004; Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Newcomb et al., 1993;
Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006) but
also to behaviors that are more prosocial in nature.
Importantly, we found that the degree to which affective empa-
thy predicts defending depends on the classroom descriptive norms
(i.e., aggregate levels of bullying). Contrary to what was expected,
affective empathy had stronger links with defending in classrooms
characterized by high versus low levels of bullying. Why would children
be more likely to act on their affective empathy in contexts where
the overall levels of bullying are high? In such classrooms, vic-
tims suffering might be more serious and noticeable (more dis-
tress provoking), and this might increase the likelihood of children
acting on their affective empathy. It could also be that in class-
rooms with high levels of bullying, children perceive that there is
a higher threat to close others (as well as to self) that makes
children more aroused and thus more likely to act on their em-
pathic affect. Interestingly, a recent study conducted with adults
suggests that empathy can also be actualized into aggression
toward the provocateur when the close other is perceived to be in
distress (Buffone & Poulin, 2014). Thus, future research is needed
to understand whether the relationship with the victim (e.g., a
friend vs. a more distant classmate) and perceived distress in the
victim matters in terms of which behaviors empathy activates.
Our results also showed that children were more likely to use
their social status in prosocial ways (the link between popularity
and defending was positive and stronger) in classrooms where
bullying was associated with social costs. Thus, interestingly, the
degree to which popular children engaged in defending was not
dependent on descriptive but social prestige norms. In classrooms
where bullies are popular, popular children might be less likely to
engage in defending behavior because they are afraid to lose their
position in the peer group. In contrast, in environments where
bullying is associated with social costs, defending could be one of
the strategies that helps popular students to maintain their high
 6 PEETS, PYHNEN, JUVONEN, AND SALMIVALLI

Thus, the problem might not be that children do not feel for the
victims but rather they inhibit themselves due to the existing norms
in the peer group. Also, our findings suggest that the situation
would improve for many victims if children were made aware of
how they contribute to the bullying process and how they can
provide rewards (as well as take away rewards) from bullies.
Influencing the behavior of bystanders can reduce the rewards
gained by bullies and consequently, their motivation to bully in the
first place. In addition, supporting students to verbalize their
private attitudes, that are often against bullying (Boulton, True-
man, & Flemington, 2002; Rigby & Johnson, 2006; Rigby & Slee,
1991; Whitney, Nabuzoka, & Smith, 1992), may reduce develop-
ment of false norms, a process labeled as pluralistic ignorance, that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

might only represent the attitudes of popular bullies (see, e.g.,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Juvonen & Galvn, 2008). For instance, there is evidence showing

Figure 1. Associations between participants affective empathy and de-
fending as a function of descriptive norms of bullying (classroom-level
bullying).
that children are less likely to defend others when they underesti-
mate their fellow students antibullying (prosocial) attitudes
(Sandstrom, Makover, & Bartini, 2013). Interestingly, our results
suggest that high levels of bullying have a positive effect in the
sense that children are more likely to act on their empathy to
defend someone in distress. However, this is not to suggest that
high levels of bullying should be encouraged (the levels of de-
fending were actually lower in high-bullying classrooms; see Fig-
ure 1) but rather that in high-bullying classrooms, childrens af-
fective empathy might matter more in terms of eliciting defending
behavior than in low-bullying classrooms where defending is more
normative anyway.

status in the peer group. Hence, popular individuals might be

especially attuned to and consequently model behaviors that are
rewarded versus punished by similar others. This suggests that
popular students do not equally observe the behavior of all class-
mates but are primarily influenced by the behavior of their popular
peers (Dijkstra et al., 2008). Thus, when examining the behavioral
correlates of popularity, it is vital to understand the classroom
social reward structure.
Some limitations of this study will need to be addressed in
future research. First, our hypotheses will need to be retested with
longitudinal data as our cross-sectional design does not allow us to
make inferences about the direction of the effects. For example, it
is possible that defending arouses affective empathy and increases
efficacy for defending over time, and this might be further depen-
dent on classroom-level norms. Similarly, defending might be used
to attain, or make gains in, popularity in classrooms where bully-
ing is not considered cool. Also, future research is needed to find
out whether affective empathy is more strongly associated with
defending in classrooms where bullying is normative because
children feel personal distress and want to eliminate such aversive
feelings, or because they feel sympathy toward the victim and thus
want to truly improve the victims plight (Eisenberg, 2000). Fi-
nally, this study focused on two types of norms. More insight is
needed into how other contextual factors (e.g., interpersonal cli-
mate, injunctive norms; see, for instance, Henry, Farrell, Schoeny,
Tolan, & Dymnicki, 2011) might influence the degree to which
children act on their inclinations to defend.
Our findings suggest that classroom norms can have a powerful Figure 2. Associations between participants popularity and defending as
influence on the degree to which children act on their affective a function of social prestige norms of bullying (bullying-popularity corre-
empathy and use their popularity to defend victims of bullying. lation).
 CLASSROOM NORMS OF BULLYING
Conclusions
The findings of this study demonstrate the power of classroom
norms. Our results support the idea that antibullying interventions
should, indeed, include universal actions (i.e., activities that target
the whole school class). Also, although our study did not evaluate
teacher-effects, it is important to consider teachers beliefs about
bullying and their actions in bullying situations (e.g., Kochenderfer-
Ladd & Pelletier, 2008), inasmuch as teachers are likely to affect
student views of and actions against bullying. By studying how
multiple individual and contextual factors operate together we can
become better equipped to improve existing antibullying interven-
tions and thereby improve the plight of children who suffer from
negative actions by their classmates.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011). Predictors of student defenders of peer
aggression victims: Empathy and social cognitive factors. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 289 297. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0165025410396746
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., & Flemington, I. (2002). Associations
between secondary school pupils definitions of bullying, attitudes to-
wards bullying, and tendencies to engage in bullying: Age and sex
differences. Educational Studies, 28, 353370. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0305569022000042390
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513531. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Buffone, A. E., & Poulin, M. J. (2014). Empathy, target distress, and
neurohormone genes interact to predict aggression for others-even with-
out provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1406
1422.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-9507.2008.00465.x
Caravita, S. C. S., Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2012). Main and moderated
effects of moral cognition and status on bullying and defending. Aggres-
sive Behavior, 38, 456 468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21447
Card, N., & Hodges, E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren:
Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment
and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 451 461. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0012769
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of
normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in
public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015
1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement:
Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social
status. Child Development, 75, 147163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-8624.2004.00660.x
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the
peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social
information-processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.115.1.74
Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2008). Beyond the class
norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer
7
acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36,
1289 1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9251-7
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 51, 665 697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev
.psych.51.1.665
Espelage, D., Green, H., & Polanin, J. (2012). Willingness to intervene in
bullying episodes among middle school students: Individual and peer-
group influences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 776 801.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431611423017
Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early adoles-
cence and prosocial/ moral behavior I: The role of individual processes.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0272431699019001001
Farmer, T. W., Lines, M. M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the
invisible hand: The role of teachers in childrens peer experiences.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 247256. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006
Galvn, A., Spatzier, A., & Juvonen, J. (2011). Perceived norms and social
values to capture school culture in elementary and middle school.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 346 353. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.08.005
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Alto, G. (2007). Does empathy predict
adolescents bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33,
467 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Alto, G. (2008). Determinants of
adolescents active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bul-
lying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.adolescence.2007.05.002
Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and socio-
cultural foundations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic obser-
vations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512
527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00178
Henry, D. B., Farrell, A. D., Schoeny, M. E., Tolan, P. H., & Dymnicki,
A. B. (2011). Influence of school-level variables on aggression and
associated attitudes of middle school students. Journal of School Psy-
chology, 49, 481503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.007
Juvonen, J., & Galvn, A. (2008). Peer contagion in involuntary social
groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A.
Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents
(pp. 225244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Krn, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., &
Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying
program: Grades 4 6. Child Development, 82, 311330. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x
Krn, A., Voeten, M., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). Vulnerable
children in varying classroom contexts: Bystanders behaviors moderate
the effects of risk factors on victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
56, 261282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0052
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. E. (2008). Teachers views and
beliefs about bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies
and students coping with peer victimization. Journal of School Psy-
chology, 46, 431 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.005
Ladd, G. W. (2003). Probing the adaptive significance of childrens be-
havior and relationships in the school context: A child by environment
perspective. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and
behavior (Vol. 31, pp. 43104). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion
processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Devel-
opment, 71, 107118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00124
Mercer, S. H., McMillen, J. S., & DeRosier, M. E. (2009). Predicting
change in childrens aggression and victimization using classroom-level
descriptive norms of aggression and pro-social behavior. Journal of
 8 PEETS, PYHNEN, JUVONEN, AND SALMIVALLI
School Psychology, 47, 267289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04
.001
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998 2012). Mplus users guide, 6th
edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Childrens peer
relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, con-
troversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113,
99 128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99
Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D.
Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A
cross-national perspective (pp. 727). London, UK: Routledge.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and
peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
0272431698018002001
Pyhnen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
stand up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and
social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 143163. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1353/mpq.0.0046
Pyhnen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the
victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in
bullying situations. Social Development, 21, 722741. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x
Pozzoli, T., Ang, R. P., & Gini, G. (2012). Bystanders reactions to
bullying: A cross-cultural analysis of personal correlates among Italian
and Singaporean students. Social Development, 21, 686 703. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00651.x
Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Vieno, A. (2012). The role of individual correlates
and class norms in defending and passive bystanding behavior in bul-
lying: A multilevel analysis. Child Development, 83, 19171931. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01831.x
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. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01443410500342047
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school chil-
dren: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 131, 615 627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545
.1991.9924646
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing
bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status.
School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 211223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0018164
Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Victims
and their defenders: A dyadic approach. International Journal of Be-
havioral Development, 35, 144 151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0165025410378068
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group
norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 28, 246 258. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01650250344000488
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter:
Associations between defending, reinforcing, and the frequency of bul-
lying in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol-
ogy, 40, 668 676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular:
Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 30, 305314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0165025406072789
Sandstrom, M., Makover, H., & Bartini, M. (2013). Social context of
bullying: Do misperceptions of group norms influence childrens re-
sponses to witnessed episodes? Social Influence, 8, 196 215. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2011.651302
Sentse, M., Scholte, R., Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2007). Person-group
dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social
status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009 1019. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9150-3
Strohmeier, D., Krn, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Intrapersonal and
interpersonal risk factors for peer victimization in immigrant youth in
Finland. Developmental Psychology, 47, 248 258. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0020785
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A social-
ecological framework of bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage &
S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 112). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Thomas, D. E., Bierman, K. L., Powers, C. J., & The Conduct Problems
Research Group. (2011). The impact of peer aggression and classroom
climate on the development of aggressive behavior problems. Child
Development, 82, 751757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011
.01586.x
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is
power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal
of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157176. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J008v19n02_10
Whitney, I., Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1992). Bullying in schools:
Mainstream and special needs. Support for Learning, 7, 37. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.1992.tb00445.x
Received June 14, 2012
Revision received February 23, 2015
Accepted March 14, 2015