Promoting Upstanding Behavior in Youth: A Proposed Model

Abstract

Despite what we have learned about the causes and consequences of bullying, efforts to reduce bullying through interventions to date have yielded modest results. Most bullying prevention efforts have targeted perpetrators and victims, ignoring the powerful role that observers play in maintaining cycles of bullying. This article presents literature from the fields of bystander behavior, empathy training, multicultural education, and ally/social justice orientation development; integrates relevant findings; and proposes a comprehensive model of upstanding behavior to inform prevention efforts. Through helping youth understand the value of being upstanders, there is a greater propensity for our schools and communities to become safer, more compassionate places that value the contributions of all members.

Cyberbullying Among Tweens in the United States: Prevalence, Impact, and Helping Behaviors

“…The challenge is that those adults are often viewed as being in positions of power and are the ones who bring disciplinary sanctions or other unwanted consequences (such as confiscating devices or prohibiting social media use) (Madden et al, 2012). This also points to an area where greater education (e.g., through role-playing, modeling, social justice storytelling, empathy training, and clear direction to students and families) can make a difference (Finkelhor et al, 2014;Vera et al, 2019).…”

Bystander interventions for promotion and prevention: Applying promotion science, motivation science, and behavioral science to upstanding

“…To advance the conceptualization of bystanders and their decision-making from BIM, we proposed the upstanding for promotion-prevention (UPP) model. The UPP model stands atop a rich theoretical foundation of promotion and prevention science (Catalano et al, 2002;Kia-Keating et al, 2011), regulatory focus and fit theories from motivation science (Higgins, 1997;Scholer et al, 2019), reinforcement theory from applied behavioral science (Biglan, 2003;Biglan et al, 2012;Geller, 2001;McCarty et al, 2021), and previous bystander intervention research encouraging various forms of prevention upstanding (e.g., Banyard et al, 2019Banyard et al, , 2021Hamby et al, 2016;Hart & Miethe, 2008;Moschella & Banyard, 2020;Vera et al, 2019). Additionally, the UPP model answers prior calls by researchers to address multiple risks and forms of harm, while also broadening efforts to attend to multiple assets and forms of benefit (i.e., extending across prevention/promotion opportunities and health-depreciating and health-promoting settings; Hamby & Grych, 2013;McMahon et al, 2022;McMahon & Banyard, 2012).…”

“…Historically, research studies on bystander behaviors focus on the elements and interplay of situational (e.g., possible costs to the self), interpersonal (e.g., relationship with others involved), and dispositional factors (e.g., motivation, personality traits, self-efficacy, victimization history) that influence bystander behavior (e.g., Mainwaring et al, 2022;Vera et al, 2019;Woods et al, 2020). For example, studies have found U.S. students are more likely to endorse or be observed upstanding when they are at lower risk of personal costs or setbacks (Spadafora et al, 2020), when there are fewer perceived barriers to intervention (e.g., friends arguing not to become involved; Bennett et al, 2014), and when they have more social capital and perceived support (Evans & Smokowski, 2015).…”

Staying in their own lane: Ethical reasoning among college students witnessing cyberbullying.

“…Supporting or defending targeted peers is often referred to in research on bullying and cyberbullying as “upstanding” (Casey, Lindhorst, & Storer, 2017; Vera et al, 2018). There has been little focus on how to promote upstanding in response to bullying or cyberbullying among college students, but among children and adolescents it is associated with higher rates of empathy, stronger antibullying feelings, and past experiences of being bullied or upstanding (Vera et al, 2018). Situational factors and group norms may be at least as predictive, however (Barhight, Hubbard, Grassetti, & Morrow, 2017).…”