Evidence Hub

Defending behavior of peer victimization in school and cyber context during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of individual and peer-relational characteristics

Ma TL, Meter DJ, Chen WT, Lee Y

Psychological bulletin, 2019

150,978 participants

Abstract

Adolescent defending of peer victimization in the school and cyber context has received increased attention in developmental science and is an important component of antibullying interventions. However, the overall prevalence, and individual characteristics that correlate with defending in adolescence, have not been systematically and statistically reviewed. Framed in Bronfenbrenner's social-ecological theory, this meta-analytic review included 172 reports out of 155 studies of defending including 150,978 children and adolescent participants from 4 continents (i.e., North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia) to analyze two aspects: (1) the average proportion of defenders in the population and (2) associations between defending and individual and peer-relational correlates of defending in school and cyber contexts. Using mixed-effects modeling, our results confirmed prior findings of gender differences (favoring girls) and age differences (favoring younger children) in defending. We found positive correlations between defending and affective empathy, cognitive empathy, experiences of peer victimization, self-efficacy, popularity, and acceptance, and a negative correlation between defending and moral disengagement. We also found substantial heterogeneity in these effect sizes. The reporter of defending consistently moderated all mean effect sizes. Implications for prevention efforts and future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 150,978 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free