Gender Differences in Defending Behavior Among Elementary School Students Trained in a Bullying Bystander Intervention

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in defending behavior and the moderating effect of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation among elementary school (N = 39) who participated in a bullying bystander intervention (STAC). During the intervention, the trainers teach students four strategies they can use to intervene in bullying situations to defend targets (i.e. “Stealing the Show,” “Turning it Over,” “Accompanying Others,” and “Coaching Compassion”). Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that with the exception of “Turning it Over” (i.e. reporting bullying to an adult), self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation moderated the relationship between gender and use of the STAC strategies. Specifically, for females, STAC strategy use was positively associated with self-esteem. In contrast, for males, strategy use was positively associated with fear of negative evaluation. Findings suggest that bystander training may be effective in reducing gender differences in defending behavior. This study also extends the literature by highlighting the important role of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation in the relationship between gender and post-training defending behavior. We discuss implications for bystander training in school-based bullying prevention programs and in other counseling settings.

KEYWORDS:

• STAC
• bullying
• bystander program
• defending behavior
• elementary school

School bullying is a significant problem for youth in the United States, with 25% of students reporting being a target of bullying (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Bullying is defined as any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths, who are not siblings or currently dating, that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance, and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated (Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020). Bullying starts as early as elementary school, with 22% of elementary school students reporting being bullied (Luxenberg et al., 2015). Among students under age 13, bullying victimization, including indirect and direct forms of bullying and cyberbullying, is associated with depressive symptoms, poor mental and general health, non-suicidal self-injury, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts (Moore et al., 2017). Further, witnessing bullying, including physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying, is associated with depressive symptoms and social anxiety in elementary students ages 8–12, even when controlling for bullying victimization (Doumas & Midgett, 2021). Thus, providing bullying programming in elementary school may be an important approach to bullying prevention.

The role of bystanders

Effective school-based bullying programs need to address the social context, including the role of peers (Farrell et al., 2015). When witnessing bullying, students may act as “assistants” (e.g., joining in), “reinforcers” (e.g., providing positive feedback), “outsiders” (e.g., walking away or observing), or “defenders” (e.g., actively intervening) (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Bullying decreases when bystanders intervene as “defenders” (Salmivalli et al., 2011); however, many students report they lack the skills to intervene (Bauman et al., 2020). Further, bystanders are more likely to defend targets if they perceive peer norms to be against bullying (Sandstrom et al., 2013) and they believe peers expect them to defend (Kollerová et al., 2018). Students may fear peer disapproval and loss of social status associated with defending (Forsberg et al., 2018). Thus, defending behaviors is related to high self-esteem (Evans et al., 2018) and low levels of fear of negative evaluation (Karakashian et al., 2006). Because defending is impacted by perceptions of attitudes toward bullying and defending, self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation may influence defending behavior, particularly when students believe they will gain peer approval from defending. Bystander training equips students with skills to act as “defenders” while reinforcing anti-bullying and pro-defending norms, which leads to a reduction in bullying (Saarento et al., 2015).

The STAC intervention

Bullying prevention can be conceptualized as a three-tier approach that includes primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention (Pugh & Chitiyo, 2012). Primary prevention interventions are designed to target all students, secondary prevention interventions are implemented with students who are at risk, and tertiary prevention interventions are implemented with students who exhibit the identified behavioral problem. STAC (Midgett et al., 2015), which stands for four bystander intervention strategies “Stealing the Show,” “Turning it Over,” “Accompanying Others,” and “Coaching Compassion,” is a brief bullying bystander intervention that provides education about bullying, emphasizes the importance of being a “defender,” and teaches students pro-social skills they can use to intervene when they witness bullying. The STAC intervention is most often implemented as a primary, or universal prevention approach, designed to equip all students with prosocial skills they can use when they witness bullying. As a school-based program, STAC was designed to be delivered by school counselors during classroom lessons (Midgett et al., 2015).

The developers of the STAC intervention developed the program for elementary and middle school students in fourth through ninth grade (Midgett & Doumas, 2016; Midgett et al., 2015). Among elementary school students in fourth through sixth grade, the STAC intervention is effective in reducing bullying victimization and perpetration (Midgett et al., 2018). Fourth through sixth grade students who are trained in the STAC intervention also report an increase in knowledge and confidence to intervene (Midgett & Doumas, 2016; Midgett et al., 2017; Midgett et al., 2018). And, among those who report witnessing bullying, 90% − 95% indicate using at least one STAC strategy post-training (Midgett et al., 2018). Additionally, the developers of the STAC intervention adapted the program to be culturally appropriate and relevant for students in ethnically-blended schools (Midgett et al., 2020). Students in ethnically-blended schools report high levels of acceptability (Midgett & Doumas, 2020) and cultural appropriateness (Midgett et al., 2020) of the adapted program. Further, students trained in the adapted program report an increase in knowledge and confidence, use of the STAC strategies (Midgett & Doumas, 2020; Moran et al., 2020), as well as decreases in bullying behavior (Midgett & Doumas, 2020), including biased-based bullying (Moran et al., 2020).

Gender differences in defending behavior

Female bystanders are more likely to defend targets of bullying compared to male bystanders (Lambe et al., 2017; Porter & Smith-Adcock, 2016). One explanation for this gender difference is that female students may be more likely to notice bullying and interpret bullying as an event that requires assistance (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017). Research indicates that compared to male students, female students may be more attuned to bullying due to higher levels of moral sensitivity (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013), empathy, and perspective-taking (Van der Graaff et al., 2014) during early adolescence. Further, male students are more likely to use maladaptive forms of defending (e.g., aggressive behavior) (Lambe et al., 2017) and to be socially rejected by peers when they defend targets (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Thus, bystander training has the potential to reduce gender differences in defending behavior. Results examining post-training defending behavior among elementary school students trained in the STAC intervention, however, indicated that female students reported using the STAC strategies more frequently than male students (Doumas et al., 2022). Thus, even after participating in a bystander intervention, males reported defending targets less frequently than females. The authors also examined self-esteem as a moderator of gender differences. Self-esteem was positively associated with STAC strategy use for females only. However, it is still unclear what factors are associated with post-training defending behavior for males.

Role of the counselor

The role of the school counselor includes providing leadership, conducting classroom guidance, implementing school-wide curriculum, and providing prosocial resources to aid school-wide bullying prevention efforts (Goodman-Scott et al., 2013). School counselors are also instrumental in selecting and implementing empirically supported bullying programming and encouraging students to intervene when they witness bullying (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2019). When school counselors teach students prosocial skills (Mariani et al., 2015) or deliver bystander interventions (Midgett & Doumas, 2020; Midgett et al., 2017; Midgett et al., 2018), bullying behavior decreases. Counselors outside of the school setting can also play an important role in bullying prevention. Counselors can foster hope in youth who are exposed to bullying and promote goals that can protect students from risks associated with bullying, including developing new friendships, building effective communication skills, reporting bullying to adults, and reducing potential contacts with bullies (Carney et al., 2019). Counselors can also have a positive impact on youth when utilizing strength-based and evidence-based practices to counteract bullying behavior (Snyder et al., 2002).

The present study

Bullying is a significant problem for elementary school students, with negative associated consequences for both targets (Moore et al., 2017) and students who witness bullying (Doumas & Midgett, 2021). The STAC program equips students with skills to intervene in bullying situations. Researchers, however, have found that female students are more likely to use the STAC strategies than male students (Doumas et al., 2022). Further, while researchers have demonstrated a positive association between self-esteem and STAC strategy use for females (Doumas et al., 2022), it is still unclear what factors may contribute to STAC strategy use among males. Because males are more likely to be socially rejected by peers when they defend targets (Salmivalli et al., 1996), it is possible that fear of negative evaluation may be an explanatory factor for STAC strategy use among males. Counselors have an instrumental role in supporting students to learn to defend targets of bullying. Thus, it is important for counselors to have an understanding of what factors may contribute to gender differences in STAC strategy use.

The purpose of the current study is to replicate and extend the extant literature by examining gender differences in defending behavior and individual factors (i.e., self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation) that may moderate the relationship between gender and post-training defending. To achieve these aims, we used a single-group longitudinal design to examine gender differences and the moderating effect of self-esteem and fear or negative evaluation on the use of STAC strategies at a 6-week follow-up. Our hypotheses were: 1) females will report using the STAC strategies more frequently than males and 2) the relationship between gender and STAC strategy use will be moderated by self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation, such that students with high levels of self-esteem and low levels of fear of negative evaluation will be most likely to use the STAC strategies.

Methods

Participants

The authors recruited elementary school students from a public Northwestern school with a total enrollment of 231 students. All students in grades 4 and 5 were invited to participate in the study (N = 88). Of these students, 48 (54.5%) parents/guardians provided informed consent and 44 students (50%) assented to participate. A total of 39 of those students (88.6%) completed the follow-up assessment. Among participants, 76.9% self-identified as female and 23.1% self-identified as male. Participant age ranged from 9–12 years old (M = 9.92 and SD = 0.87), with reported race/ethnicity of 46.2% White, 10.3% Hispanic, 5.1% African-American, 33.3% more than one race, and 5.1% other. There were no differences in gender, χ²(1) = 3.05, p = .08, grade, χ²(1) = .85, p = .36, race/ethnicity, χ²(4) = 4.89, p = .30, or age, t(42) = .18, p = .86, between students who completed the follow-up assessment and those who did not.

Procedure

The research team outlined the procedures for this study in a detailed research protocol. All study procedures were approved by the University Internal Review Board. The study design was a single-arm design and did not include a control group so that all eligible students could participate in the STAC intervention. The research team worked with the school counselor to conduct study procedures. During classroom lessons, the school counselor explained the purpose of the training and study procedures, invited students to participate, and gave students an informed consent form to take home. Team members collected assent from students with signed parental consent forms. Students who provided assent completed a brief survey in their classrooms. Team members presented the training during two 45-minute modules. The training was followed by two 15-minute booster sessions that occurred over the following three weeks. Students then completed follow-up surveys six weeks after the baseline assessment. Trainers presented each module and the boosters separately to fourth and fifth graders during class time. Trainers conducted four groups (two per grade level) ranging from 20–30 students per group. Trainers followed an implementation protocol consisting of delivering a presentation and engaging students in experiential activities followed by booster sessions facilitated through guided questions. Although all students were trained, only students with consent and assent completed the surveys.

Measures

Demographic survey

Participants completed a brief demographic survey that included questions about gender, grade, age, and race/ethnicity. Participants were asked to fill in blanks for their gender, grade, and age and were given response choices for race/ethnicity.

Use of STAC Strategies

The authors measured the frequency of use of STAC strategies with the Use of STAC Strategies Questionnaire (Midgett et al., 2017). Each of the four STAC strategies were measured using a single item. Students were asked “How often would you say that you used these strategies to stop bullying in the past month?” Items are rated on a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). While this measure has been used previously with elementary school students to access STAC strategy use (Midgett et al., 2018), there are no psychometrics reported

Self-esteem

The authors measured self-esteem using the Child Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (CRSES; Wood et al., 2021). The scale consists of 10 items rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very True) to 4 (Definitely not True). Items are coded so higher scores reflect higher levels of self-esteem. Researchers have demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .79) and convergent validity for children ages 7–12 (Wood et al., 2021). For the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was high (α = .82).

Fear of negative evaluation

The authors measured fear of negative evaluation using the 8-item Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) subscale of the Social Anxiety Scale for Children-Revised (SASC–R; La Greca & Stone, 1993). Items are rated on a five-point Likert Scale from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (All the Time) and are summed to provide a total score. Researchers have demonstrated reliability and construct validity, and cross-validation of a 3-factor model for the SASC-R (La Greca & Stone, 1993). The FNE subscale has high internal consistency of α = .86 (La Greca & Stone, 1993). For the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was high (α = .93).

The STAC intervention

The STAC intervention is an evidenced-based bullying bystander intervention followed by two 15-minute booster sessions (Midgett et al., 2015). The 90-minute training includes an audiovisual presentation followed by small group exercises during which students practice the strategies through role-plays. Trainers teach students about bullying, including what is bullying (e.g., repeated, aggressive behavior, those doing the bullying have more power than the target) and what is not bullying (e.g., peers engaging in play fighting or teasing that all students involved in can stop, when a student chooses not to hang out with someone for a good reason), consequences of bullying, and bystander roles (e.g., reinforcer, assistant, outsider, and defender). Trainers also teach students the STAC strategies. “Stealing the Show” involves using humor or distraction to turn students’ attention away from the bullying situation. Trainers teach students to use their sense of humor or begin a conversation to displace attention away from the target. “Turning it Over” involves informing an adult about bullying. Trainers teach students how to identify bullying situations that require adult intervention (e.g., physical bullying and cyberbullying). “Accompany Others” involves the “defender” reaching out to the target to offer support. Trainers teach students to comfort targets either directly by asking them if they would like to talk about the incident or indirectly by spending time with them. Finally, “Coaching Compassion” involves gently confronting the student who bullied during or after the bullying incident to communicate that the behavior is unacceptable and to consider what it would feel like to be the target. Trainers teach students to use this strategy only when they are friends with the student who bullied, older, or they believe they will be respected. At the end of the program, students sign a “bullying stops with me” petition and receive completion certificates. During the booster sessions, trainers review the STAC strategies and ask students to discuss their strategy use. Trainers answer questions and help students brainstorm effective ways to use the strategies.

Training protocol, intervention fidelity, and bias statement

A doctoral student in Counselor Education and Supervision and a master’s student in Counseling conducted the training. The developer of STAC trained the students to deliver the program by providing them with program materials, a detailed video tutorial, and answering questions regarding program content and delivery. The training developer also provided students with feedback regarding their training delivery. The students had previous experience delivering the STAC intervention together in several schools and were aware of program effectiveness. The developer of the STAC intervention, and third author, attended the initial Module 1 and Module 2 trainings for each grade level and completed a dichotomous rating scale, Yes or No, to evaluate whether trainers accurately taught the definition and types of bullying, the STAC strategies, and whether they deviated from the intervention protocol. All observed trainings were conducted with high levels of fidelity.

Data analytic plan

We conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses with interaction effects used to test for moderation using SPSS version 28. We mean centered predictor variables to reduce problems of multicollinearity introduced into equations containing interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991). We created the interaction term by computing the product of gender and the moderator. We ran separate analyses for self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation. For each analysis, we entered the control variable witnessing bullying on Step 1, gender on Step 2, and the moderator and the gender x moderator interaction on Step 3. We used simple slopes to examine the direction and degree of significant interactions (Aiken & West, 1991). We calculated effect size using R² with .01 considered small, .09 medium, and .25 large (Cohen, 1969). We conducted a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1.3 (Faul et al., 2007) for linear multiple regression. Results of the power analysis indicated a sample size of 38 is needed for power of ≥ 0.80 to detect a medium to large effect size for R² increases for our model with an alpha level of .05. Thus, our sample size of 39 provides adequate power for our analyses.

Results

Descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses

We present bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations for all variables by gender in Table 1. We examined the data for missing values and found 3.3% missingness. We imputed missing data using linear interpolation. Skew and kurtosis were satisfactory and did not substantially deviate from the normal distribution for all variables. No outliers were detected. There were no gender differences in the control variable witnessing bullying, t(37) = 0.37, p = .71, or the predictor variables self-esteem, t(37) = 0.43, p = .67, and fear of negative evaluation, t(37) = 0.73, p = .47. The variance inflation factor (VIF) ranged between 1.00–1.50, with corresponding tolerance levels ranging from .65–1.00, suggesting acceptable levels of multicollinearity (Norman & Streiner, 2008). Results from the regression analyses for each STAC strategy are described below. Results for the regression models for self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation are presented in Table 2.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for Predictor and Outcome Variables

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Witnessing Bullying	–
2. Gender	−.06	–
3. Self-Esteem	.24	.09	–
4. Fear of Negative Evaluation	−.23	−.08	−.56**	–
5. Stealing the Show	−.30	.09	.15	.15	–
6. Turning it Over	−.41**	−.06	.16	.10	.47**	–
7. Accompanying Others	−.35*	−.09	.19	.11	.74**	.60**	–
8. Coaching Compassion	−.31	−.06	.12	.08	.75**	.41**	.77**	–
M	1.18	–	26.99	16.42	1.49	1.82	1.87	1.15
SD	(0.39)	–	(5.64)	(9.12)	(1.70)	(1.43)	(1.60)	(1.57)

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Self-Esteem and Fear of Negative Evaluation

Variable	ΔR^2	B	SE B	β	95% CI	ΔR^2	B	SE B	β	95% CI
	Self Esteem					Fear of Negative Evaluation
Stealing the Show
Step 1	.09					.09
Witness Bullying		−1.29	.69	−.30	[−2.68, .10]		−1.29	.69	−.30	[−2.68, .10]
Step 2	.01					.01
Gender		−0.14	.32	−.07	[−.78, .51]		−0.14	.32	−.07	[−.78, .51]
Step 3	.15*					.15*
Moderator		0.02	.06	.01	[−.11, .12]		0.04	.03	.21	[−.02, .10]
Gender x Moderator		−0.12	.05	−.39*	[−.23, −.01]		0.08	.03	.41*	[.02, .14]
Adjusted R^2	.16*					.15*
Turning it Over
Step 1	.17**					.17**
Witness Bullying		−1.52	.55	−.41**	[−2.64, −.41]		−1.52	.55	−.41**	[−2.64, −.41]
Step 2	.00					.00
Gender		−0.06	.26	−.04	[−.57, .46]		−0.06	.26	−.04	[−.57, .46]
Step 3	.08					.02
Moderator		0.08	.05	.33	[−.01, .18]		0.01	.03	.06	[−.04, .06]
Gender x Moderator		0.02	.05	.09	[−.07, .12]		0.03	.03	.17	[−.03, .08]
Adjusted R^2	.16					.10
Accompanying Others
Step 1	.12*					.12*
Witness Bullying		−1.42	.64	−.35*	[−2.70, −.13]		−1.42	.64	−.35*	[−2.70, −.13]
Step 2	.01					.01
Gender		0.20	.29	.11	[−.40, .79]		0.20	.29	.11	[−.40, .79]
Step 3	.18*					.19*
Moderator		0.02	.05	.09	[−.08, .13]		0.03	.03	.15	[−.03, .08]
Gender x Moderator		−0.11	.05	−.38*	[−.20, −.01]		0.08	.03	.47**	[.03, .14]
Adjusted R^2	.23*					.24**
Coaching Compassion
Step 1	.09					.09
Witness Bullying		−1.23	.63	−.31	[−2.51, .04]		−1.23	.63	−.31	[−2.51, 0.04]
Step 2	.01					.01
Gender		0.15	.29	.08	[−.44, .74]		0.15	.29	.08	[−.44, .74]
Step 3	.13*					.18*
Moderator		0.00	.05	.01	[−.10, .11]		0.02	.03	.14	[−.03, .08]
Gender x Moderator		−0.10	.05	−.36	[−.20, .00]		0.08	.03	.46**	[.02, .13]
Adjusted R^2	.14*					.19*

N = 39. SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Self-esteem

For “Stealing the Show,” although gender was not a statistically significant predictor (p = .67, 95% CI [−.78, .51]), the gender x self-esteem interaction was statistically significant (p = .04, 95% CI [−.23, −.01]), indicating self-esteem was a significant moderator. The effect size was medium to large. For “Turning it Over,” neither gender (p = .82, 95% CI [−.57, .46]) nor the gender x self-esteem interaction (p = .61, 95% CI [−.07, .12]) was statistically significant predictors. For “Accompanying Others,” although gender was not a statistically significant predictor (p = .51, 95% CI [−.40, .79]), the gender x self-esteem interaction was statistically significant (p = .04, 95% CI [−.20, −.01]), indicating self-esteem was a significant moderator. The effect size was medium to large. For “Coaching Compassion,” although gender was not a statistically significant predictor (p = .61, 95% CI [−.44, .74]), the gender x self-esteem interaction was statistically significant (p = .05, 95% CI [−.20, .00]), indicating self-esteem was a significant moderator. The effect size was medium to large.

Examination of the significant interactions revealed that among females, self-esteem was positively associated with use of “Stealing the Show” (p = .02, 95% CI [.02, .23]), “Accompanying Others” (p = .01, 95% CI [.03, .23]), and “Coaching Compassion” (p = .03, 95% CI [.01, .20]). For males, we found no significant relationship between self-esteem and “Stealing the Show” (p = .22, 95% CI [−.42, .12]), “Accompanying Others” (p = .47, 95% CI [−.33, .17]), or “Coaching Compassion” (p = .30, 95% CI [−.39, .14]). Table 3 presents the percent of female students who used the STAC strategy > 5 times in the past month for each strategy by self-esteem (i.e., high vs low). As seen in Table 3, with the exception of “Turning it Over,” approximately three to four times as many female students with high self-esteem used the STAC strategies than those with low self-esteem.

Table 3. Percent of Female Students Reporting Use of Strategies > 5 Times in Past Month by Self-Esteem

Strategies	Low Self-Esteem (n = 15)	High Self-Esteem (n = 15)
Stealing the Show	13.3% 20.0% 7.1% 6.7%	40.0% 20.0% 33.3% 26.7%
Turning it Over
Accompanying Others
Coaching Compassion

Fear of negative evaluation

For “Stealing the Show,” although gender was not a statistically significant predictor (p = .67, 95% CI [−.78, .51]), the gender x fear of negative evaluation interaction was statistically significant (p = .02, 95% CI [−.02, .14]), indicating fear of negative evaluation was a significant moderator. The effect size was medium to large. For “Turning it Over,” neither gender (p = .82, 95% CI [−.57, .46]) nor the gender x fear of negative evaluation interaction (p = .32, 95% CI [−.03, .08]) were statistically significant predictors. For “Accompanying Others,” although gender was not a statistically significant predictor (p = .51, 95% CI [−.40, .79]), the gender x fear of negative evaluation interaction was statistically significant (p < .01, 95% CI [−.03, .14]), indicating fear of negative evaluation was a significant moderator. The effect size was medium to large. For “Coaching Compassion,” although gender was not a statistically significant predictor (p = .61, 95% CI [−.44, .74]), the gender x fear of negative evaluation interaction was statistically significant (p < .01, 95% CI [−.02, .13]), indicating fear of negative evaluation was a significant moderator. The effect size was medium to large.

Examination of the significant interactions revealed that among males, fear of negative evaluation was positively associated with use of “Stealing the Show” (p < .02, 95% CI [.03, .21]), “Accompanying Others” (p < .01, 95% CI [.04, .17]), and “Coaching Compassion” (p < .04, 95% CI [.01, .20]). For females, we found no significant relationship between fear of negative evaluation and “Stealing the Show” (p = .31, 95% CI [−.12, .04]), “Accompanying Others” (p = .15, 95% CI [−.13, .02]), or “Coaching Compassion” (p = .10, 95% CI [−.13, .01]). Table 4 presents the percent of male students who used the STAC strategy > 5 times in the past month for each strategy by fear of negative evaluation (i.e., high vs low). As seen in Table 4, with the exception of “Turning it Over,” approximately four to six times as many male students with high fear of negative evaluation used the STAC strategies than those with low fear of negative evaluation.

Table 4. Percent of Male Students Reporting Use of Strategies > 5 Times in Past Month by Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE)

Strategies	Low FNE (n = 4)	High FNE (n = 5)
Stealing the Show	0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%	40.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0%
Turning it Over
Accompanying Others
Coaching Compassion

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in the use of STAC strategies and the moderating effect of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation. Research indicates that female students are more likely to intervene in bullying situations than male students (Lambe et al., 2017; Porter & Smith-Adcock, 2016). Among elementary school students, researchers examining defending behavior post-bystander training indicates that for females, self-esteem is positively associated with STAC strategy use post-training (Doumas et al., 2022). In the current study, we aimed to replicate these findings, while extending the counseling literature by examining an alternative moderator for males. We selected fear of negative evaluation as prior research indicates fear of negative evaluation is associated with defending behavior (Karakashian et al., 2006) and males are more likely to be socially rejected when defending targets (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

Contrary to our first hypothesis, we did not find significant gender differences in use of STAC strategies post-training. This finding is not consistent with prior research demonstrating that with the exception of “Stealing the Show,” females used the STAC strategies significantly more than males (Doumas et al., 2022). One explanation for this discrepancy may be differences in sample characteristics. Although students in both samples were enrolled in elementary schools, students in the current study were in fourth and fifth grade, 76% identified as female, and 46.2% identified as White, whereas the Doumas et al. (2022) sample included students in the third through sixth grade, with 60% identifying as female and 65.2% identifying as White. Additionally, the sample size in the current study was small relative to prior studies, potentially limiting statistical power to detect gender differences in STAC strategy use.

Although we did not find significant gender differences in STAC strategy use, results supported our second hypothesis concerning the moderating role of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation. With the exception of “Turning it Over,” self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation moderated the relationship between gender and STAC strategy use. Specifically, STAC strategy use was positively associated with self-esteem for females and fear of negative evaluation for males. These findings are consistent with prior research indicating that among females, high self-esteem was associated with STAC strategy use (Doumas et al., 2022). Findings also extend the literature by identifying fear of negative evaluation as an explanatory factor for defending behavior among males post-bystander training. One explanation for the moderating effects of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation on STAC strategy use is that “Stealing the Show,” “Accompanying Others,” and “Coaching Compassion” all require intervening in ways that involve peers, either by intervening indirectly to break up the incident or by talking to the perpetrator or target directly. Because students may fear the disapproval of peers when defending targets (Forsberg et al., 2018), bystanders are more likely to defend when they believe their peers expect them to defend (Kollerová et al., 2018). For females, high self-esteem may buffer the expectation of peer disapproval when considering defending a target. Females with lower self-esteem, however, may be reluctant to become the center of attention or may feel they are inadequately prepared to support the target or approach the student who bullied. In contrast, males are more likely than females to be socially rejected by peers when they act as “defenders” (Salmivalli et al., 1996). For males, fear of negative evaluation is inversely related to defending behavior (Karakashian et al., 2006). Thus, because bystander training may create new normative perceptions (e.g., it is good for students to defend targets), defending behavior may increase among male students with high levels of fear of negative evaluation.

In contrast, we did not find a significant relationship between “Turning it Over” and self-esteem or fear of negative evaluation. “Turning it Over” involves reaching out to a trusted adult after the incident, rather than directly interacting with peers. Although there is some evidence that bystanders are concerned about how their peers will react to them reporting bullying to adults, this concern is largely among older students (Johnston et al., 2018). In fact, prior research indicates the majority of elementary school students use “Turning it Over” (78.0%; Midgett et al., 2018), with this rate declining to 42.9% by high school (Johnston et al., 2018). This finding is consistent with developmental research suggesting that the influence of peers becomes more primary as children transition into adolescence, as youth in early adolescence begin to place greater importance on peer approval, views, and advice compared to children (Ray, 2016).

Limitations and directions for future research

While this study adds to our understanding of factors that contribute to gender differences in defending behavior, certain limitations should be noted. First, generalizability of the results is limited as the sample was small (n = 39) and comprised of fourth and fifth grade students who self-identified as female (76.9%) and male (23.1%). Further, although other demographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity and grade, may be important to consider when examining the use of STAC strategies, inclusion of other demographic characteristics was limited by our sample size and was beyond the scope of the current study. In the future, using larger and more diverse samples, researchers could examine differences between elementary and middle school students, among students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, and among students who report other identifications of gender. Next, information was obtained through self-report, potentially leading to biased or distorted reporting. Researchers, however, suggests that children are able to provide useful information about their experience when asked Likert-type questions (Christensen & James, 2008). Finally, we did not measure perceptions of peer attitudes toward bullying or defending behavior. Future research should examine how student perceptions of peer norms influence the moderating effects of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation on gender differences in the use of STAC strategies.

Implications for practice

Findings from this study provide important implications for school counselors. First, we found no gender differences in the frequency of STAC strategy use post-training. Thus, implementing the STAC intervention may reduce gender differences in defending behavior by providing knowledge to help male students appropriately identify bullying, interpret bullying as a situation that requires action, and pro-social skills for intervening. Because nearly a quarter of elementary school students report being bullied (Luxenberg et al., 2015), bullying victimization (Moore et al., 2017) and witnessing bullying (Doumas & Midgett, 2021) are associated with significant mental health risks, it is imperative that students are equipped with skills they can use to act as “defenders.” STAC can be delivered as a brief, school-wide intervention through core curriculum classroom lessons as part of a school counseling curriculum (Midgett et al., 2018). Among elementary school students, the STAC intervention increases bystander knowledge and confidence to intervene, as well as reduces bullying victimization and perpetration (Midgett et al., 2018). Thus, implementing STAC as a counselor-delivered program can establish school counselors as leaders in bullying prevention.

Additionally, school counselors can match the STAC strategies to student characteristics. For example, results suggest that for females, with the exception of “Turning it Over,” strategy use was associated with higher self-esteem. Thus, it may be beneficial to encourage female students with lower self-esteem to use “Turning it Over.” Although the STAC program has been shown to increase student self-esteem among elementary school students (Midgett, Doumas, & Trull, 2017), school counselors may consider other strategies to improve self-esteem. For example, research indicates peer mentoring programs are effective in increasing self-esteem among elementary school students (Birdsall et al., 2016). In contrast, school counselors need to be aware of dynamics that may make defending behavior challenging for males. It may be important to provide information to male students that defending actually increases popularity among peers (van der Ploeg et al., 2017). The STAC intervention may be particularly useful for males with high levels of fear of negative evaluation by promoting pro-defending norms. School counselors can be instrumental in reinforcing pro-defending norms by promoting a positive school climate by taking action when they witness bullying and supporting students who intervene. School counselors can also develop policies promoting a school climate in which bullying is perceived as unacceptable and results in disciplinary action for students who bully (Midgett et al., 2021). When students perceive the school climate as supportive, pro-bullying attitudes decrease (Low & VanRyzin, 2014) and students are more likely to ask for help with bullying (Eliot et al., 2010).

Further, school counselors can educate school personnel on the importance of intervening in bullying situations and supporting bystanders. When students perceive adults at school as supportive, they are more willing to seek help when bullying occurs (Klein et al., 2012). Further, when intervening is perceived as a normative behavior, students report more defending behavior (Pozzoli et al., 2012) and defending may be associated with fewer difficulties when students feel supported by their peers (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Teachers play a vital role in reducing bullying by supporting students’ efforts to counteract bullying (Saarento et al., 2013). Bullying decreases when students’ perception of teacher knowledge, skills, and confidence in responding to bullying increases (Veenstra et al., 2014). Teachers can contribute to a school climate that does not condone or promote bullying by being willing to communicate that bullying behaviors are unacceptable and providing consequences to students who bully (Hektner & Swenson, 2012), while also reinforcing students who act as “defenders” (Saarento et al., 2013). School counselors can also implement teacher training using the STAC Teacher Module (Midgett et al., 2022; Midgett et al., 2022), which includes education about bullying and strategies for teachers to support students to intervene when they witness bullying situations.

Researchers have also demonstrated the importance of parental involvement in bullying prevention strategies. Parents recognize bullying as one of the most significant challenges faced by their children (van Vulpen et al., 2018). Parental knowledge of bullying, beliefs about victimization, including blame attributions, and perceived self-efficacy in managing bullying are related to bullying behavior (Nocentini et al., 2019). Further, involving parents in bullying programming decreases bullying (Chen et al., 2021). As part of a primary intervention strategy, schools can provide parents with concurrent training to reinforce the importance of parent-school communication and collaboration. School counselors can include parents in bullying prevention by implementing the STAC Parent Module, which provides parents with education and skills to address bullying and support their children to intervene (Midgett et al., in press).

Counselors outside of the school setting can also play an important role in bullying prevention by being aware of and reinforcing appropriate ways for youth to intervene when they witness bullying behaviors. Reinforcing prosocial norms that promote helping peers may be particularly important to positively influence the social context and the role of peers in bullying behaviors (Farrell et al., 2015). Counselors can screen for bystander role by fostering ongoing, open communication with youth, asking clients if they have witnessed bullying, and how they respond to bullying situations (Watts et al., 2019). Counselors can also provide youth with opportunities to practice defending skills, as skill practice reinforces learning (Bennett-Levy et al., 2009). Researchers indicate that when bystanders tell the bully to stop or report bullying to an adult, bullying behavior is stopped more than 50% of the time (Bauman et al., 2020). Thus, education should include providing information about the importance of intervening in bullying situations, including how defending behavior can stop bullying, thereby reducing the negative consequences associated with bullying for both targets and bystanders.

Conclusion

This study examined the role of gender in post-bystander training defending behavior and the moderating effect of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation. Findings indicate that for females, defending behavior is positively associated with self-esteem, whereas for males, defending behavior is positively associated with fear of negative evaluation. Results underscore the importance of interventions that promote self-esteem and reinforce pro-defending norms.

Citation diversity statement

Citations in this article came from multiple contributors regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or background. We thank them for having laid the groundwork for this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).