The Relationship Between Family Functioning and Defending Behaviors Among Junior High School Students: The Mediating Effect of Empathy and Moderating Effect of Gender

Abstract

Bystanders play a role in school bullying; more specifically, the defending behaviors of bystanders play an important role in stopping bullying. This study explores the relationship between defending behaviors and family functioning in the context of school bullying from a family perspective. The role played by individual characteristics (empathy and gender) in this relationship was also focused on. The participants were 994 adolescents (average age = 13.34 ± 0.92 years) from the east of China. They completed the McMaster Family Assessment Device, the Basic Empathy Scale, and the Defending Behaviors subscale of the Participant Role Questionnaire. After controlling for residence and age, we found that family functioning significantly and positively influenced defending behaviors, and cognitive empathy rather than affective empathy mediated the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors. In addition, family functioning influenced defending behaviors in boys more strongly than in girls. This study may increase the likelihood that bystanders will engage in defending behaviors by informing interventions for school bullying.

Keywords

school bullying defending behaviors family functioning empathy gender bystanders

Introduction

School bullying is an act of persistent and repeated victimization of a weaker party by a more powerful party that occurs on school grounds (Olweus, 2013). It has many negative effects on the physical and mental health of targeted adolescents. Students who have been bullied tend to exhibit higher levels of depression and anxiety (Jacqueline et al., 2022), as well as more behavioral problems such as substance abuse and self-injury (Arcadepani et al., 2021; Laporte et al., 2017). Similarly, bullying in schools can negatively impact students’ academic performance. Research has found that middle school students who have been bullied have significantly lower academic achievement than normal students (Riffle et al., 2021). A survey involving 35 countries showed that the average prevalence of school bullying is around 30% (Due et al., 2009). In China, the prevalence of school bullying is also relatively high: 25% to 30% of students in junior high school have reported experiencing bullying in China (Zhang et al., 2018). School bullying has become a pressing global issue, receiving significant attention in many countries, including China (Li et al., 2015).

Salmivalli et al. (2021) argued that school bullying is a group phenomenon and that bystanders are often present when bullying occurs. Studies have also found that, in addition to the bully and the victim, 85% of adolescents participate in bullying as bystanders when bullying occurs (Gumpel, 2014; Pan et al., 2023). Bystanders can be categorized according to their reactions as assistants (joining or helping the bully to continue the bullying behaviors), reinforcers (encouraging the bully by watching and laughing at the victim), outsiders (pretending to be unaware of the bullying and staying away from the bullying situation), and defenders (engaging in a range of behaviors to stop the bullying and comfort the victim) (Salmivalli, 2014). Defenders make up a very small percentage of the bystander population, that is, approximately 5% to 20% (Evans & Smokowski, 2015; Pouwels et al., 2018; Trach et al., 2010). However, defending behaviors have a positive effect on stopping bullying (Wood et al., 2017) and also reduce the negative effects of bullying on the victim’s future life (Evans & Smokowski, 2015; Flaspohler et al., 2009). Therefore, an in-depth study of defending behaviors is important for school bullying interventions, and for improving the physical and mental health of adolescents.

In recent years, there have been an increasing number of studies on defending behaviors. Researchers have explored environmental factors and individual characteristics influencing defending behaviors. A series of studies have found that individuals tend to exhibit positive defending behaviors in a positive school environment, in classrooms with prosocial norms, in the context of good teacher-student relationships, and when peer status is higher (Caravita et al., 2009; Mulvey et al., 2019; Yang & Kim, 2017; Yun & Graham, 2018). However, previous studies have ignored the influence of the family environment, even though it is also an important factor influencing an individual’s development and behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Although students interact more frequently with their peers as they enter adolescence, the family continues to play a unique and important role. In China, where Confucianism and collectivism are emphasized, and parents have a strong bond with their children, although parents may exercise high levels of behavioral control and employ corporal punishment in their parenting (Raj & Raval, 2013), such authoritarian parenting styles do not necessarily lead to negative outcomes. For example, authoritarian parenting styles are not significantly associated with bullying behavior (Hokoda et al., 2006). This may be due to the fact that parents tend to care for their children even when they are strict with them, such that authoritarian and warm parenting styles promote self-control, respect for parents, and positive interpersonal relationships (Raj & Raval, 2013). In this cultural context, the following question arises: do adolescents who witness bullying reach out to help the bullied?

Few previous studies have explored the mechanisms through which family-related factors influence defending behaviors. In terms of individual characteristics that influence defending behaviors, empathy, as the basis of prosocial behavior, has received increasing attention from researchers (Kotze & Turner, 2021; Lambe et al., 2019; Spataro et al., 2020). In China, which, as alluded to above, is influenced by Confucianism, individuals emphasize “treating others with love and benevolence,” thinking positively about others, and holding an attitude of understanding, respecting, and forgiveness toward others (Li et al., 2017). In such a cultural context, do individuals with high levels of empathy tend to engage in defending behaviors? Furthermore, there are no consistent findings regarding gender differences in defending behaviors (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017, 2019; Kim et al., 2013; Riffle et al., 2021). Equivocal literature findings may be due to the different factors considered, and cultural contexts, among studies taking account of gender differences in defending behaviors. The present study intends to explore the effects of family factors (family functioning), individual characteristics (empathy, gender), and their interactions on defending behaviors in the Chinese cultural context. Given the detrimental effects of bullying on adolescents’ physical and mental health and academic performance, examining the factors that influence defending behaviors is important and should improve our understanding of the mechanisms through which defending behaviors occur, as well as provide a theoretical foundation for school bullying interventions.

Family Functioning and Defending Behaviors

Previous research has found that family-related factors have an impact on defending behaviors. For example, parental support (Li et al., 2015) and restorative parenting (where parents guide adolescents to recognize the negative effects of aggression and encourage them to comfort the victim) (Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2018) are significantly and positively associated with defending behaviors. However, parental support and restorative discipline constitute only a small part of the family system, which is a complex structure; focusing on only a few family-related factors will not provide a complete picture of the entire family system.

McMaster’s Model of Family Functioning categorizes family functioning into several dimensions: Problem-Solving, Communication, Roles, Affective Responsiveness, Affective Involvement, Behavior Control, and General Functioning (Epstein et al., 1978). According to this theory, one part of the family system cannot be understood in isolation from the rest of the system, and higher scores of family members for family functioning imply that they are working together to accomplish basic tasks that contribute to their physical and mental development (Epstein et al., 1978). If the basic tasks of the family are not accomplished, family members will likely exhibit a range of problems. In studies of bullying, researchers found that 15 to 25-year-olds who scored lower for family functioning were more likely to engage in bullying behavior and display violent tendencies (Hisar et al., 2021). However, less research has been conducted on family functioning and defending behaviors. One study initially found a positive relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors, but family functioning did not influence defending behaviors (Mazzone & Camodeca, 2019). Thus, the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors still needs to be further explored. Especially in China, which as stated above is under the influence of collectivism and Confucianism, the family may play an important role in developing the habits and character of young people (Kwon et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018). Based on the foregoing discussion, this study hypothesized that family functioning influences defending behaviors in the Chinese cultural context (H1).

The Mediating Role of Empathy

Empathy refers to an individual’s understanding and ability to feel another person’s emotions (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). Empathy consists of two main dimensions: cognitive empathy (understanding another person’s emotions and feelings) and affective empathy (experiencing how another person is feeling). Although the two dimensions of empathy can be measured separately, Hoffman (2001) argued that a comprehensive understanding of empathy requires that the affective and cognitive dimensions of empathy be considered together. Empathy is closely related to prosocial behavior, and research has found that adolescents with high levels of empathy are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior (Spataro et al., 2020). Defending behaviors is a form of prosocial behavior that is also positively associated with empathy (Caravita et al., 2009). Research on school bullying has found that children are more likely to defend victims when they have the ability to feel the emotions of others at the time at which bullying is taking place, indicating that children have affective empathy (Peets et al., 2015). Similarly, cognitive empathy plays an important role in defending behaviors. As adolescents become more aware of the suffering of others, they are more inclined to engage in defending behaviors (Espelage et al., 2012). Thus, both affective and cognitive empathy may be positively associated with defending behaviors.

Family factors are closely related to empathy. The family environment is an important setting in which children can develop empathy; they can learn to understand and use empathy in their interactions with family members (Popliger et al., 2011). Research has found a positive correlation between a good family environment and empathy in adolescents (Wang et al., 2019). Li et al. (2018) found that college students who scored higher on family functioning better understood and empathized with the emotions of others during interpersonal interactions. Although no research has identified empathy as a direct mediator of the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors, some studies have identified empathy as a mediator of the association between parent-child relationships and defending behaviors. For example, when confronted with problems, children who experience a positive family atmosphere and parental support through good communication with their parents (Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2018) learn non-violent problem-solving methods (Lucas-Molina et al., 2018). These positive family-related factors predict empathy, and studies have also found that empathy promotes defending behaviors in adolescents (Lucas-Molina et al., 2018; Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2018). Therefore, based on these results, this study hypothesizes that empathy mediates the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors (H2).

The Moderating Role of Gender

Gender differences in defending behaviors have been increasingly studied in recent years. Several studies have produced inconsistent results, with some finding that girls are more likely than boys to actively help the victims of bullying when witnessing bullying (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017, 2019). Other studies have found that boys are more inclined to help the victims of bullying than girls (Kim et al., 2013; Riffle et al., 2021). Therefore, the question arises as to whether there are gender differences in the effects of family functioning on defending behaviors. Studies have found that, in adolescence, girls may be more dependent on peers than boys (Simpson et al., 2020) and less inclined to communicate with their parents (Ackard et al., 2006). Moreover, family may have a greater influence on adolescent boys, and there may be gender differences in the effects of empathy on defending behaviors. In one study, girls reported higher levels of empathy and were more likely to defend victims of bullying than boys (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2019). Consequently, this study hypothesized that family functioning would have a stronger effect on defending behaviors in boys (H3) and that the effect of empathy on defending behavior may be more significant in girls (H4).

The Present Study

Based on previous studies, we explored the mechanisms through which family functioning and empathy influence adolescents’ defending behaviors. First, this study explored the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors. Second, we explored the mediating role of empathy in the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors. Finally, we explored the moderating role of gender in the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors, and in the relationship between empathy and defending behaviors. A schematic of the model is shown in Figure 1.

Methods

Participants

This study was approved by the ethics committee of our university. Written informed consent was obtained from the school principal, classroom teachers, and parents of all participating students prior to the study.

Through cluster sampling, we recruited 1,043 participants from two junior high schools in Shandong Province, China. After omitting incomplete questionnaires, those with answers indicative of inattention, and those with missing gender information, 994 valid questionnaires were included in the analysis (538 boys and 456 girls; mean age = 13.34 ± 0.92 years; 7th grade, n = 272; 8th grade, n = 357; 9th grade, n = 365).

Measures

Family Functioning

This study used the Chinese version (Wang et al., 1999) of the McMaster Family Assessment Device developed by Epstein et al. (1978) to assess family functioning. The scale consists of 60 questions (e.g., “We are reluctant to show our feelings to each other”) and is divided into seven dimensions: Problem-Solving, Communication, Roles, Affective Responsiveness, Affective Involvement, Behavior Control, and General Functioning. The responses are scored using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not at all like my family; 4 = exactly like my family). Higher scale scores indicate healthier family functioning. The Cronbach’s α in this study was .92.

Empathy

This study used the Chinese version (Li et al., 2011) of the Basic Empathy Scale developed by Jolliffe and Farrington (2006). The scale consists of 20 questions (e.g., “It’s hard for me to notice when a friend is feeling scared”). The scale is divided into two dimensions: affective empathy and cognitive empathy. Responses are scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree). Higher scale scores indicate higher levels of empathy. The Cronbach’s α in this study was .82.

Defending Behaviors

This study used the Chinese version (Zhang & Ma, 2016) of the Defending Behaviors subscale of the Participant Role Questionnaire developed by Salmivalli et al. (1996). The subscale measures students’ behavioral performance when bullying occurs and consists of six questions (e.g., “I will find ways to make the bully stop bullying”). Responses are scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never exhibits the behavior; 5 = always exhibits the behavior). Higher scale scores indicate more defending behaviors. The Cronbach’s α in this study was .83.

Procedure

The experimenters were 10 psychology undergraduate students who received specialized training. The experimenters entered one classroom at a time to collect the questionnaires. In total, there were 21 classrooms. The survey process was as follows. First, the experimenters were approved by the school director and teachers, and an informed consent form was distributed to the student’s parents. Second, the experimenters explained the purpose of the study and the principle of confidentiality to the students, who participated in the study on a voluntary basis and had the right to withdraw voluntarily from the study. Third, the experimenters distributed the questionnaires and read out the instructions. Fourth, the students completed the scale, which took about 40 minutes, and the experimenters then collected questionnaires on the spot and gave each student a notebook as a token of gratitude for taking part.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2015). The scale data were first tested for common method bias, followed by Pearson correlation analysis. In the third step, the study tested the mediating role of empathy, and the moderating role of gender, using the MODEL15 in the PROCESS macro program, which is widely used for testing models testing moderating and mediating effects (Jiatong et al., 2021; Wang & Suh, 2023). The bootstrapping method was used to test the regression coefficients by repeated sampling (5,000 times), and the standard errors and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the parameter estimates were obtained.

Results

Common Method Bias

This study addressed the issue of common method bias associated with self-report questionnaires by emphasizing the importance of truthful responses and randomizing the order of scales and items. Then, Harman’s one-way test was applied to the results, which showed that the characteristic root was greater than one for seven factors, and the first principal factor could explain 29.81% of the variance; this was below the critical criterion of 40%, indicating that there was no serious common method bias in this study.

Descriptive and Correlational Analyses

The results of the descriptive and Pearson correlation analysis are shown in Table 1. Defending behaviors were positively correlated with family functioning (r = .27, p < .001), cognitive empathy (r = 0.35, p < .01), and affective empathy (r = .16, p < .001), and family functioning was positively correlated with cognitive empathy (r = .30, p < .001) and affective empathy (r = .12, p < .001).

Table 1.

Correlations Between Variables of Interest and Defending Behaviors.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender
2. Residence	0.05
3. Age	−0.02	0.05
4. Family functioning	0.03	−0.03	−.10**
5. Defending behaviors	−0.05	−.08*	−.14***	.27***
6. Cognitive empathy	.07*	−0.05	−0.06	.30***	.35***
7. Affective empathy	.22***	.14***	−.12***	.12***	.16***	.34***
Mean	0.46	1.72	13.34	3.06	2.91	4.08	3.63
SD	0.50	0.80	0.92	0.43	0.84	0.57	0.65

Notes. N = 994. Gender and residence were dummy coded (male = 0; female = 1; urban = 1; town = 2; rural area = 3).

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Model Testing

After entering the data in PROCESS and controlling for extraneous variables, the mediating effect of empathy and moderating effect of gender were tested using MODEL15. The results are shown in Table 2, where defending behaviors were the outcome variable, family functioning was the predictor variable, empathy was the mediator variable, and gender was the moderator variable. The results indicated that family functioning significantly and positively influenced defending behaviors (β = .33, p < .001, 95% CI [0.22, 0.45]). Also, family functioning significantly positively influenced cognitive empathy (β = .39, p < .001, 95% CI [0.31, 0.47]) and affective empathy (β = .18, p < .001, 95% CI [0.08, 0.27]), and cognitive empathy significantly positively influenced defending behaviors (β = .40, p < .001, 95% CI [0.31, 0.50]). However, affective empathy did not significantly positively influence defending behaviors (β = .07, p = .08, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.15]). Finally, the interaction between family functioning and gender significantly and negatively influenced defending behaviors (β = −.27, p = .02, 95% CI [−0.51, 0.04]), whereas the interactions between cognitive empathy and gender and affective empathy and gender, did not (β = .04, p = .65, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.23], and β = .01, p = .87, 95% CI [−0.15, 0.17], respectively). The results suggested that cognitive empathy partially mediates the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors, with an indirect effect size of .16 (95% CI [0.11, 0.22]) for cognitive empathy. The interaction term also indicated a significant moderating role of gender in the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors(Figure 2), and a simple slope test controlling for residence and age showed that the effect of family functioning on defending behaviors was greater in the boys (β = .46, p < .001, 95% CI [0.30, 0.62]) than in the girls (β = .18, p = .04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.36]) (Figure 3).

Table 2.

Results of Regression Analysis Testing the Role of Empathy as a Mediator, and Gender as a Moderator, of the Relationship Between Family Functioning and Defending Behaviors.

Regression Models	Variables	β	SE	t-Value	LLCI	ULCI	R ²	F-value
Model 1							0.09	33.50***
Outcome	CE
Predictors	FF	0.39***	0.04	9.72	0.31	0.47
	Residence	−0.03	0.02	−1.37	−0.07	0.01
	Age	−0.02	0.02	−0.83	−0.05	0.02
	Constant	0.26	0.25	1.02	−0.24	0.75
Model 2
Outcome	AE						0.05	16.88***
Predictors	FF	0.18***	0.05	3.68	0.08	0.27
	Residence	0.12***	0.03	4.86	0.07	0.17
	Age	−0.08***	0.02	−3.58	−0.12	−0.04
	Constant	0.85**	0.30	2.85	0.26	1.43
Model 3
Outcome	DB						0.18	23.42***
Predictors	FF	0.33***	0.06	5.59	0.22	0.45
	CE	0.40***	0.05	8.49	0.31	0.50
	EE	0.07	0.04	1.77	−0.01	0.15
	GEN	−0.15**	0.05	−2.95	−0.24	−0.05
	FF × GEN	−0.27*	0.12	−2.30	−0.51	−0.04
	CE × GEN	0.04	0.10	0.45	−0.14	0.23
	AE × GEN	0.01	0.08	0.16	−0.15	0.17
	Residence	−0.06	0.03	−1.84	−0.12	0.00
	Age	−0.09***	0.03	−3.34	−0.14	−0.04
	Constant	4.19***	0.36	11.76	3.49	4.89

Notes. N = 994. Gender and residence were dummy coded (male = 0; female = 1; urban = 1; town = 2; rural area = 3). FF = family functioning; CE = cognitive empathy; AE = affective empathy; DB = defending behaviors; LLCI = lower limit of confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit of confidence interval; GEN = gender. The variables of interest (excluding gender and residence) were standardized in the regression models.

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

While some research has focused on the influence of certain family factors on defending behaviors, systematic examination of the impact of family functioning on defending behaviors has been lacking. Additionally, the roles of empathy and gender in the association between family functioning and defending behaviors are not fully understood. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors in more detail, including the mediating role of empathy and the moderating effect of gender. The findings provided partial support for the study hypotheses.

Family Functioning and Defending Behaviors

We found that healthy family functioning promotes defending behaviors in adolescents, which supports H1. This is consistent with the results of similar studies (Lucas-Molina et al., 2018; Li et al., 2015) and with the main ideas of ecosystem theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The family environment is one of the most crucial microsystems influencing individual development. Unlike Western culture, China is strongly influenced by Confucianism and collectivism, as noted in the Introduction section (Kwon et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018). In Confucianism, the family is the most basic social unit, and there is an emphasis on close ties between family members, caring and loving behaviors of parents toward their children, and the need for children to be filial toward their parents. Moreover, Confucianism emphasizes that close and strong relationships are not limited to the family environment: external interpersonal relationships (between teachers and students and students and peers) represent an important extension of family relationships (Lee, 2015). Against this background, in China, when parents emphasize the importance of interpersonal harmony, adolescents are more likely to express concern and engage in defending behaviors to reduce the distress of victims of bullying. In addition, our findings support the McMaster Model of Family Functioning. In a healthy family system, family members are able to resolve interpersonal problems in a non-violent manner, parents communicate effectively with their children, and children receive positive feedback, etc.; such transactional behavior strongly and positively influences adolescent behavior (Epstein et al., 1978). Adolescents are also likely to imitate the behavior of family members when they encounter a victim of bullying by providing help and comfort (Bandura et al., 1999).

The Mediating Role of Empathy

Our results were not entirely consistent with H2. We only found a mediating role for cognitive empathy in the relationship between family functioning and defending behaviors; affective empathy did not play a mediating role and did not predict defending behaviors. Similar results have been reported in previous studies. Zhang et al. (2021) found that positive parenting styles influenced adolescents’ prosocial behavior through cognitive empathy, while the mediating role of affective empathy was not significant. In addition, Kim et al. (2013) found no significant effect of affective empathy on defending behaviors. According to the theoretical model of the lifelong development of empathy, individuals’ cognitive and affective empathy develop differently at different stages (Yan & Su, 2021). The development of cognitive empathy is accelerated during adolescence, while the level of affective empathy is relatively low. Therefore, during adolescence, the role of cognitive empathy may be more pronounced, which could explain our findings related to H2. Furthermore, fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) studies found that activation levels of the medial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with cognitive empathy, correlated with prosocial behavior, while activation levels of the amygdala, which is associated with affective empathy, were unrelated to prosocial behavior (Masten et al., 2011). Thus, the relationship between cognitive empathy and defending behaviors may be stronger than the relationship between affective empathy and defending behaviors. However, this finding may be limited to the adolescent population.

The mediating role of cognitive empathy in family functioning and defending behaviors also suggests that family functioning may not only directly influence defending behaviors but also indirectly influence defending behaviors through cognitive empathy. As noted above, the family system is an important microsystem directly influencing adolescent behavior (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Moreover, empathy, as a driver of prosocial behavior, plays an important role in the relationship between the family system and defending behaviors. Perspective-taking theory suggests that individuals evaluate and react to the emotional states of others (Jackson et al., 2006). When bystanders recognize that someone being bullied is in great distress, they are more likely to treat the incident as an emergency and thus engage in defending behaviors (Espelage et al., 2012). Bystanders may also feel guilty if they do not help the victim (Silfver & Helkama, 2007). Moreover, empathy is derived from the family, and Hoffman’s (2001) theory of empathy development states that a positive family environment (e.g., positive parenting styles) can facilitate the development of empathy in children. When family members respond consistently and positively to a child’s distress, the children tend to be more sensitive to others’ emotions in their external social relationships and form secure attachments (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Healthy family functioning involves positive feedback from family members that improves adolescents’ problem-solving, affective responses, communication, and development of empathy. Such adolescents are likely to transfer the empathy developed in the family to external social relationships. In particular, adolescents are more likely to defend a victim of bullying experiencing pain.

The Moderating Role of Gender

Our results support H3, that is, that family functioning has a stronger effect on defending behaviors in boys. This is consistent with the results of existing studies (Simpson et al., 2020). One study found that adolescent girls have more difficulty communicating with their parents and are more inclined to express their feelings to their close peers. Boys, on the contrary, are more willing to communicate with their parents and tend to use positive coping methods when faced with problems (Ackard et al., 2006). At the same time, the McMaster Model of Family Functioning suggests that problems in parts of the family system affect the functioning of the whole system (Epstein et al., 1978) and that girls' limited communication with family members may affect family functioning as a whole. Conversely, positive communication between boys and family members facilitates proper functioning of the entire family system. Therefore, it is intuitive that family functioning would have a greater impact on boys’ defending behaviors.

Our results do not support H4, that is, that the effect of empathy on defending behaviors is independent of gender. This is inconsistent with the results of existing studies (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2019). The reason for this may be that other environmental variables influence gender differences in empathy and defending behaviors. Research has found that boys’ peer relationships influence the association between empathy and defending behaviors; specifically, the relationship between empathy and defending behaviors is stronger among boys with high peer status (Caravita et al., 2009). It is likely that both the boys and girls in this study had good peer relationships, such that no gender differences in empathy or defending behaviors were found. We also collected data regarding subjects’ peer status. We used peer rejection as a measure of peer status, an indicator that is widely employed in the assessment of peer relationships (Clark et al., 2023; Riffle et al., 2021). Each subject was asked to nominate three disliked classmates in their class, with more nominations for a given subject taken to indicate poorer peer relationships. The results showed that 85% of the subjects were nominated less than three times, and the mean peer rejection score was 1.80 ± 3.76. These results indicate that the majority of the subjects in this study had good peer relationships.

Limitations and Future Research

Although our study provides a new perspective on positive bystander behaviors, some limitations should be noted. First, this study used a cross-sectional design such that causal relationships between family factors (i.e., family functioning) and individual characteristics (empathy) could not be established in the context of defending behaviors. Future research should use a longitudinal or experimental design to explore the factors influencing defending behaviors. Second, because school bullying is a sensitive topic, adolescents may conceal the true nature of their situation. Future studies could enroll different actors or use observation and interview methods to record actual defending behaviors and thus improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. Third, only a single family factor was addressed in this study; environmental factors such as peer relationships and school climate were not considered. It is unclear whether these factors would have a similar impact on defending behaviors to that of family factors. Future research should take into account the influence of various interacting environmental factors to provide a more solid theoretical basis for school bullying interventions.

Implications

Given the high incidence of bullying and the negative physical and psychological effects thereof on middle school students, the results of the present study could inform antibullying interventions in schools. First, given that the family system exerts an important influence on youths’ development, antibullying interventions should take account of the family system; schools could implement regular family education seminars and home visits, etc., to help parents get along with their children and resolve problems. A collaborative effort between the family and school of this nature could reduce the prevalence of bullying and promote defending behaviors. Second, the gender differences suggest that more patience, positive communication, and effective feedback from family members are needed in the case of adolescent girls. In this manner, the family system could exert a positive influence on girls and increase the likelihood that they will engage in defending behaviors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to EditSprings () for the expert linguistic services provided.

Data Availability

Materials and analysis code for this study are available by emailing the corresponding author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Foundation Program: Humanities and Social Sciences Research Planning Youth Fund, Ministry of Education (17YJC880129).

ORCID iDs

Kai Tang

Author Biographies

Kai Tang is a graduate student at the School of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University. He is dedicated to the study of bystander behaviors in school bullying, mainly providing theoretical support for school bullying intervention.

Weijian Li is a doctoral supervisor at the School of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University, whose research areas include metacognition, adolescent suicide intervention, and teachers’ empathy.

Wenjuan Zhang is a professor in the School of Education at Linyi University, where she works on the theory and intervention of bullying in schools.

Yuanyuan Fang is a graduate student at the School of Psychology at Zhejiang Normal University, where she works in the field of children’s language development.

Kaiyan Jiang is an associate professor in the School of Education at Linyi University, where his main area of research is student psychometrics and assessment.

References

Ackard

D. M.

Neumark-Sztainer

Story

Perry

(2006). Parent-child connectedness and behavioral and emotional health among adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.013

Arcadepani

F. B.

Eskenazi

D. Y.

Fidalgo

T. M.

Hong

J. S.

(2021). An exploration of the link between bullying perpetration and substance use: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019837593

Bandura

Freeman

W. H.

Lightsey

(1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Lerner

R. M.

Damon

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). Wiley.

Caravita

S. C.

Di Blasio

Salmivalli

(2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18(1), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x

Clark

K. A.

Pachankis

J. E.

Dougherty

L. R.

Katz

B. A.

Hill

K. E.

Klein

D. N.

Kujawa

(2023). Adolescents’ sexual orientation and behavioral and neural reactivity to peer acceptance and rejection: The moderating role of family support. Clinical Psychological Science, 12(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026231158574.

Due

Merlo

Harel-Fisch

Damsgaard

M. T.

Holstein

B. E.

Hetland

Currie

Gabhainn

S. N.

de Matos

M. G.

Lynch

(2009). Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public Health, 99(5), 907–914. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.139303

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Knafo-Noam

(2015). Prosocial development. In Lerner

R. M.

Liben

L. S.

Mueller

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, cognitive processes (pp. 1–47). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy315

10.

Epstein

N. B.

Bishop

D. S.

Levin

(1978). The McMaster model of family functioning. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 4(4), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1978.tb00537.x

11.

Espelage

D. L.

Green

Polanin

(2012). Willingness to intervene in bullying episodes among middle school students: Individual and peer-group influences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(6), 776–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431611423017

12.

Evans

C. B.

Smokowski

P. R.

(2015). Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2289–2307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0338-5

13.

Flaspohler

P. D.

Elfstrom

J. L.

Vanderzee

K. L.

Sink

H. E.

Birchmeier

(2009). Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46(7), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20404

14.

Gumpel

T. P.

(2014). Linking psychopathy and school aggression in a nonclinical sample of adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 13(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.889605

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22.

16.

Hisar

Kızılkurt

Ö. K.

Dilbaz

(2021). The effect of anger and family functions on bullying behavior in individuals with substance use disorder between the ages of 15 and 25. Alpha Psychiatry, 22(1), 61-–66. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.96949

17.

Hokoda

H. H. A.

Angeles

(2006). School bullying in Taiwanese adolescents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6(4), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v06n04_04

18.

Hoffman

M. L.

(2001). Toward a comprehensive empathy-based theory of prosocial moral development. In Bohart

A. C.

Stipek

D. J.

(Eds.), Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and society (pp. 61–86). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10433-003

19.

Jackson

P. L.

Brunet

Meltzoff

A. N.

Decety

(2006). Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia, 44(5), 752–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.015

20.

Jacqueline

R. A.

Taryn

L. M.

Anne

Jennifer

L. H.

Abu

Madhukar

H. T.

(2022). Experiencing bullying’s impact on adolescent depression and anxiety: Mediating role of adolescent resilience. Journal of Affective Disorders, 310, 477–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.003

21.

Jenkins

L. N.

Nickerson

A. B.

(2017). Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21688

22.

Jenkins

L. N.

Nickerson

A. B.

(2019). Bystander intervention in bullying: Role of social skills and gender. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(2), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431617735652

23.

Jiatong

Murad

Gill

S. A.

Ashraf

S. F.

(2021). Linking cognitive flexibility to entrepreneurial alertness and entrepreneurial intention among medical students with the moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A second-order moderated mediation model. PLoS One, 16(9), e0256420. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256420

24.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20154

25.

Kim

M. J.

Lee

J. W.

Kim

D. M.

(2013). The effects of affective empathy, self-efficacy and social responsibility on defending behaviors in bullying: Focused on the moderating effects of perceived popularity. Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling, 3(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.18401/2013.3.2.3

26.

Kotze

J. L.

Turner

L. A.

(2021). Parental warmth and interpersonal empathy as predictors of sexual assault bystander intervention efficacy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), 8317–8332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519842170

27.

Kwon

Lee

Wang

Kim

S. J.

(2018). The role of confucianism in the formation of psychological contracts: Evidence from China. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 46(9), 1499–1512. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7070

28.

Lambe

L. J.

Della Cioppa

Hong

I. K.

Craig

W. M.

(2019). Standing up to bullying: A social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.007

29.

Laporte

Ozolins

Westling

Westrin

Billstedt

Hofvander

Wallinius

(2017). Deliberate self-harm behavior among young violent offenders. PLoS One, 12(8), e0182258. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182258

30.

Lee

S. C.

(2015). Intimacy and family consent: A confucian ideal. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 40(4), 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhv015

31.

Zhang

X. F.

Feng

Han

(2018). Family functioning and peer relationship: Multiple mediating roles of empathy and emotional regulation. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(1), 158–161. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2018.01.035

32.

C. F.

Liu

Zhong

(2011). The adaptation of basic empathy scale among chinese adolescents. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2011.02.003

33.

Wang

Z. D.

Cai

B. H.

Yang

X. F.

Shen

H. Y.

(2017). The empathy concept in the view of confucianism theory. Psychological Exploration, 37(6), 483–488.

34.

Chen

P. Y.

Chen

F.-L.

W.-C.

(2015). Roles of fatalism and parental support in the relationship between bullying victimization and bystander behaviors. School Psychology International, 36(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315569566

35.

Lucas-Molina

Giménez-Dasí

Fonseca-Pedrero

Pérez-Albéniz

(2018). What makes a defender? A multilevel study of individual correlates and classroom norms in explaining defending behaviors. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0011.V47-1

36.

Masten

C. L.

Morelli

S. A.

Eisenberger

N. I.

(2011). An fMRI investigation of empathy for “social pain” and subsequent prosocial behavior. Neuroimage, 55(1), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.060

37.

Mazzone

Camodeca

(2019). Bullying and moral disengagement in early adolescence: Do personality and family functioning matter? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(8), 2120–2130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01431-7

38.

Mulvey

K. L.

Gönültaş

Goff

Irdam

Carlson

DiStefano

Irvin

M. J.

(2019). School and family factors predicting adolescent cognition regarding bystander intervention in response to bullying and victim retaliation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0941-3

39.

Olweus

(2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516

40.

Pan

Garandeau

C. F.

Salmivalli

Zhang

(2023). The dynamic associations between social dominance goals and bullying from middle to late childhood: The moderating role of classroom bystander behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(2), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000776

41.

Peets

Pöyhönen

Juvonen

Salmivalli

(2015). Classroom norms of bullying alter the degree to which children defend in response to their affective empathy and power. Developmental Psychology, 51(7), 913–920. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039287

42.

Popliger

Talwar

Crossman

(2011). Predictors of children’s prosocial lie-telling: Motivation, socialization variables, and moral understanding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(3), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.05.003

43.

Pouwels

J. L.

Salmivalli

Saarento

van den Berg

Y. H. M.

Lansu

T. A. M.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2018). Predicting adolescents’ bullying participation from developmental trajectories of social status and behavior. Child Development, 89(4), 1157–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12794

44.

Raj

S. P.

Raval

V. V.

(2013). Parenting and family socialization with a cultural context. Journal of Communications Research, 5(2), 57–78.

45.

Riffle

L. N.

Kelly

K. M.

Demaray

M. L.

Malecki

C. E.

Santuzzi

A. M.

Rodriguez-Harris

D. J.

Emmons

J. D.

(2021). Associations among bullying role behaviors and academic performance over the course of an academic year for boys and girls. Journal of Psychology, 86(2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.03.002

46.

Salmivalli

(2014) Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947222

47.

Salmivalli

Lagerspetz

Björkqvist

Österman

Kaukiainen

(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T

48.

Salmivalli

Laninga

W. L.

Malamut

S. T.

Garandeau

C. F.

(2021). Bullying prevention in adolescence: Solutions and new challenges from the past decade. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1023–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.126882

49.

Silfver

Helkama

(2007). Empathy, guilt, and gender: A comparison of two measures of guilt. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00578.x

50.

Simpson

E. G.

Lincoln

C. R.

Ohannessian

C. M.

(2020). Does adolescent anxiety moderate the relationship between adolescent–parent communication and adolescent coping? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(1), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01572-9.

51.

Spataro

Calabrò

Longobardi

(2020). Prosocial behaviour mediates the relation between empathy and aggression in primary school children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(5), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1731467

52.

Trach

Hymel

Waterhouse

Neale

(2010). Bystander responses to school bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509357553

53.

Valdés-Cuervo

Á. A.

Alcántar-Nieblas

Martínez-Ferrer

Parra-Pérez

(2018). Relations between restorative parental discipline, family climate, parental support, empathy, shame, and defenders in bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.015

54.

Wang

Song

Wei

Y. Q.

Xie

H. Y.

Peng

Zhang

J. D.

(2019). A study of relationship between family environment and aggressiveness for middle school students—mediating effect of empathy. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 17(2), 216–222.

55.

Wang

Suh

K. H.

(2023). Music and subjective well-being in older chinese adults: Perceived stress moderates the mediating effects of emotional adaptability. Current Psychology, 43, 7275–7283 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04928-z

56.

Wang

X. D.

Wang

X. L.

(1999). Handbook of mental health assessment scale. China Mental Health Journal Press.

57.

Wood

Smith

Varjas

Meyers

(2017). School personnel social support and nonsupport for bystanders of bullying: Exploring student perspectives. Journal of Psychology, 61, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.12.003

58.

M. S.

Zhou

Chen

Cai

Sundararajan

(2018). Cultural value mismatch in urbanizing China: A large-scale analysis of collectivism and happiness based on social media and nationwide survey. International Journal of Psychology, 53, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12523

59.

Yan

Z. Q.

Y. J.

(2021). Difference between cognitive empathy and affective empathy in development: Meta-analysis preliminary exploration. Psychological Development and Education, 37(1), 1–9. https://doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2021.01.01

60.

Yang

S. A.

Kim

D. H.

(2017). Factors associated with bystander behaviors of Korean youth in school bullying situations: A cross-sectional study. Medicine, 96(32), e7757. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007757

61.

Yun

H. Y.

Graham

(2018). Defending victims of bullying in early adolescence: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(9), 1926–1937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0869-7

62.

Zhang

W. X.

Chen

G. H.

Cao

Y. M.

(2021). The relationship between positive parenting and adolescent prosocial behaviour: The mediating role of empathy and the moderating role of the oxytocin receptor gene. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(9), 976–991. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00976

63.

Zhang

Zhou

Tao

(2018). Bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment among school-aged children in China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(11), 2363–2375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518780777

64.

Zhang

W. J.

X. C.

(2016). The basic features of participant roles in bullying and its relation to peer network during early adolescence. Educational Science Research, 2016(2), 38–43.