Third‐Party Intervention in Peer Victimization: Self‐Evaluative Emotions and Appraisals of a Diverse Adolescent Sample

Abstract

African American, European American, Mexican American, and Native American adolescents (N = 270) described how they felt and appraised their own actions in response to a peer's victimization. Analyses compared times they had calmed victim emotions, amplified anger, avenged, and resolved conflicts peacefully. Adolescents felt prouder, more helpful, more like a good friend, and expected more peer approval after calming and resolving than after amplifying anger or avenging peers. They also felt less guilt and shame after calming and resolving. Avenging elicited more positive self‐evaluation than amplifying. Epistemic network analyses explored links between self‐evaluative and other emotions. Pride was linked to relief after efforts to calm or resolve. Third‐party revenge reflected its antisocial and prosocial nature with connections between pride, relief, anger, and guilt.

Honor, face, and dignity norm endorsement among diverse North American adolescents: Development of a Social Norms Survey

“…Consistent with theory and past adult research, we predicted that perceived helpfulness, adequacy as a friend, and pride would be elevated following retaliation when participants strongly endorsed honor norms. Although prior work indicates that adolescents generally report moderate levels of shame following retaliation (Frey et al, 2020), we predicted that strong honor endorsers would experience relatively low levels. Given that honor norms identify failure to retaliate as shameful (Leung & Cohen, 2011), strong honor endorsers might experience shame for an action that usually generates pride—calming a victimized peer.…”

“…Further, if chronic vigilance promotes retaliation, youth may experience increased victimization (Frey & Higheagle Strong, 2018). Unlike revenge, conciliatory overtures appear to foster positive self-concepts and social connections in most youth (Frey et al, 2020). Thus, it is concerning that honor-endorsing adolescents experienced guilt and shame after conciliatory acts, emotions that may inhibit peaceful responses to conflict.…”

“…Using a repeated-measures design, the study examined autobiographical memory with respect to the previous school year. Participants were asked to recall and describe three aggressive events, times when they (1) calmed a victimized peer, (2) retaliated on a victimized peer’s behalf, and (3) retaliated after they had personally been the target of peer aggression (see Frey et al, 2020, for more details). The aggressive events that stimulated participant actions varied in severity, ranging from demeaning comments to physical assault, and often occurred in the context of emotionally arousing sports competitions.…”

“…Normative systems also designate appropriate emotional responses to worthy actions (Boiger et al, 2014), particularly with regard to self-evaluative emotions. After rendering assistance to a victimized peer, teens generally report feeling proud (Frey et al, 2020). Pride is appropriate in honor systems (Smith et al, 2016), but inconsistent with the humility expected of persons in face systems (Furukawa et al, 2012).…”

Role of honor, dignity, and face values in transitional justice in postconflict cyprus.

“…Honor, face, and dignity have been distinguished as different ways of thinking and relating (i.e., cultural logics) that can help us make sense of the cross-societal variation in tackling social order (e.g., cooperation) and valuation (e.g., source of self-worth) and how this variation gives rise to cultural variation in core social psychological processes such as morality, punishment, and reciprocity (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Honor, face, and dignity values have been studied to distinguish between cultural groups (e.g., Smith et al, 2016; Yao et al, 2017), as well as individual differences distinguishing between individuals who endorse these values at different degrees (e.g., Frey et al, 2020). In the current research, we focus on these constructs in this latter form and assess the extent to which participants endorse them.…”