School bullying poses serious risks to the students' physical and mental health. As an important source of social support for victims, teachers can play a crucial role in stopping bullying when students reach out for help. Despite the proven effectiveness of seeking help from teachers, few students choose this option. Research has found that peer norms are a major barrier, especially the norm that peers disapprove of seeking help from teachers, which strongly affects students' willingness to ask for assistance. A large body of research focuses on static peer norms—those that reflect how common a behavior or attitude is at a specific moment in time. However, peer norms can also be dynamic, reflecting changes in behaviors and attitudes over time. Dynamic peer norms are more effective in promoting behavioral change, as they encourage individuals to anticipate future normative shifts and motivate them to adjust their actions accordingly.
In this study, we aim to investigate whether and how dynamic peer norms enhance students' willingness to seek help from teachers in bullying situations. We hypothesize that dynamic peer norms, characterized by an increasing trend in help-seeking behavior from the past to the present, will lead students to anticipate a continued upward trend in the future (i.e., preconformity). This anticipation is expected to encourage alignment with the dynamic norms, thereby increasing their willingness to seek help. To examine this hypothesis, we conducted two experiments. Experiment 1 examined whether dynamic peer norms enhance students' willingness to seek help compared to static peer norms, dynamic unrelated norms, and control conditions. Experiment 2, consisting of three sub-experiments (2a, 2b, and 2c), aimed to replicate these effects and examine the mediating role of anticipated increases in future help-seeking behavior (i.e., preconformity).
The results showed that: (1) students in the dynamic peer norms condition (M = 5.16, SD = 1.53) reported a greater willingness to seek help from teachers than those in the static peer norms condition (M = 4.29, SD = 1.54), the dynamic unrelated norms condition (M = 4.39, SD = 1.63), and the control condition (M = 4.24, SD = 1.44; Experiment 1). (2) Students in the dynamic peer norms condition (M = 5.57, SD = .97; M = 73.07%, SD = 15.59%) reported greater anticipation of future help-seeking behavior from teachers than those in the static peer norms condition (M = 4.63, SD = 1.41; M = 58.07%, SD = 21.94%), and the dynamic irrelevant norms condition (M = 4.86, SD = 1.37; M = 62.43%, SD = 22.84%; Experiment 2a). (3) Students in the future growth dynamic peer norms condition (M = 6.04, SD = 1.26) reported a higher willingness to seek help from teachers than those in the static peer norm condition (M = 4.54, SD = 2.03) and the no future-growth dynamic peer norms condition (M = 4.94, SD = 1.91; Experiment 2b). (4) Preconformity partially mediates the relationship between dynamic peer norms and students' willingness to seek help from teachers, indirect effect scores = .16, 95% CI = [.03, .34]; indirect effect percentages = .12, 95% CI = [.02, .28] (Experiment 2c).
Our findings suggest that dynamic peer norms can increase students' willingness to seek teacher intervention in bullying situations by fostering preconformity. To reduce the prevalence of school bullying, schools and educators are encouraged to implement strategies that motivate victims to seek help from teachers. For example, educators could highlight dynamic peer norms by showing the growing number of students who support seeking teacher assistance when bullied, thereby empowering victims to take action.
Key words
school bullying /
seeking help from teachers /
dynamic peer norms /
static peer norms /
preconformity
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 张文新. (2002). 中小学生欺负/受欺负的普遍性与基本特点. 心理学报, 34(4), 57-64.
[2] 曾欣然, 汪玥, 丁俊浩, 周晖. (2019). 班级欺凌规范与欺凌行为:群体害怕与同辈压力的中介作用. 心理学报, 51(8), 935-944.
[3] 中华人民共和国教育部. (2017). 《加强中小学欺凌综合治理方案》. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/s271/201712/t20171227_322965.html.
[4] Aldoh A., Sparks P., & Harris P. R. (2021). Dynamic norms and food choice: Reflections on a failure of minority norm information to influence motivation to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability, 13(15), 8315.
[5] Beckman, L., & Svensson, M. (2015). The cost-effectiveness of the Olweus bullying prevention Program: Results from a modelling study. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 127-137.
[6] Benatov J., Brunstein Klomek A., & Chen-Gal S. (2022). Bullying perpetration and victimization associations to suicide behavior: A longitudinal study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(9), 1353-1360.
[7] Biswas T., Scott J. G., Munir K., Thomas H. J., Huda M. M., Hasan M. M., David de Vries T., Baxter J., & Mamun A. A. (2020). Global variation in the prevalence of bullying victimisation amongst adolescents: Role of peer and parental supports. EClinicalMedicine, 20, 100276.
[8] Blomqvist K., Saarento-Zaprudin S., & Salmivalli C. (2020). Telling adults about one's plight as a victim of bullying: Student-and context-related factors predicting disclosure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 151-159.
[9] Boulton M. J., Boulton L., Down J., Sanders J., & Craddock H. (2017). Perceived barriers that prevent high school students seeking help from teachers for bullying and their effects on disclosure intentions. Journal of Adolescence, 56(1), 40-51.
[10] Boenke L., Panning M., Thurow A., Hörisch J., & Loschelder D. D. (2022). Who can nudge for sustainable development? How nudge source renders dynamic norms (in-) effective in eliciting sustainable behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 368, 133246.
[11] Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bullying/victim problems among middle school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(1), 73-87.
[12] Brank E. M., Woolard J. L., Brown V. E., Fondacaro M., Luescher J. L., Chinn R. G., & Miller S. A. (2007). Will they tell? Weapons reporting by middle-school youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(2), 125-146.
[13] Card N. A., Stucky B. D., Sawalani G. M., & Little T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79(5), 1185-1229.
[14] Cho, S., & Lee, J. M. (2018). Explaining physical, verbal, and social bullying among bullies, victims of bullying, and bully-victims: Assessing the integrated approach between social control and lifestyles-routine activities theories. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 372-382.
[15] Cialdini R. B., Demaine L. J., Sagarin B. J., Barrett D. W., Rhoads K., & Winter P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3-15.
[16] Cialdini R. B., Kallgren C. A., & Reno R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234.
[17] De Martino B., Kumaran D., Seymour B., & Dolan R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684-687.
[18] Dietze, P., & Craig, M. A. (2021). Framing economic inequality and policy as group disadvantages (versus group advantages) spurs support for action. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(3), 349-360.
[19] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
[20] Gizzarelli E., Burns S., & Francis J. (2023). School staff responses to student reports of bullying: A scoping review. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 34(2), 508-517.
[21] Han, D. E., & Laurent, S. M. (2023). Beautiful seems good, but perhaps not in every way: Linking attractiveness to moral evaluation through perceived vanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(2), 264-286.
[22] Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
[23] Lee, S. J., & Liu, J. (2023). Leveraging dynamic norm messages to promote counter-normative health behaviors: The moderating role of current and future injunctive norms, attitude and self-efficacy. Health Communication, 38(6), 1071-1079.
[24] Loschelder D. D., Siepelmeyer H., Fischer D., & Rubel J. A. (2019). Dynamic norms drive sustainable consumption: Norm-based nudging helps café customers to avoid disposable to-go-cups. Journal of Economic Psychology, 75, 102146.
[25] MacEvoy, J. P., & Leff, S. S. (2012). Children' s sympathy for peers who are the targets of peer aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(7), 1137-1148.
[26] Maglio, S. J., & Polman, E. (2016). Revising probability estimates: Why increasing likelihood means increasing impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 141-158.
[27] Markman, K. D., & Guenther, C. L. (2007). Psychological momentum: Intuitive physics and naive beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 800-812.
[28] Meleady, R. (2021). "Nudging" intergroup contact: Normative social influences on intergroup contact engagement. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 24(7), 1180-1199.
[29] Mortensen C. R., Neel R., Cialdini R. B., Jaeger C. M., Jacobson R. P., & Ringel M. M. (2019). Trending norms: A lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 201-210
[30] Oc B., Netchaeva E., & Kouchaki M. (2021). It' s a man' s world! The role of political ideology in the early stages of leader recruitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 162, 24-41.
[31] Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing.
[32] Pirlott, A. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29-38.
[33] Reynolds-Tylus T., Martinez Gonzalez A., & Skurka C. (2024). Leveraging dynamic norms to reduce college student alcohol use: A test of four mediators. Health Communication, 39(7), 1371-1382.
[34] Schneider, B. (2016). Childhood friendships and peer relations: Friends and enemies. Routledge.
[35] Segovia-González M. M., Ramírez-Hurtado J. M., & Contreras I. (2023). Analyzing the risk of being a victim of school bullying. The relevance of students' self-perceptions. Child Indicators Research, 16, 2141-2163.
[36] Shaw T., Campbell M. A., Eastham J., Runions K. C., Salmivalli C., & Cross D. (2019). Telling an adult at school about bullying: Subsequent victimization and internalizing problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 2594-2605.
[37] Slocum L. A., Esbensen F. A., & Taylor T. J. (2017). The code of silence in schools: An assessment of a socio-ecological model of youth' s willingness to report school misbehavior. Youth and Society, 49(2), 123-149.
[38] Sparkman G., Macdonald B. N. J., Caldwell K. D., Kateman B., & Boese G. D. (2021). Cut back or give it up? The effectiveness of reduce and eliminate appeals and dynamic norm messaging to curb meat consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, 1015921.
[39] Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic peer norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counter normative. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1663-1674.
[40] Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2019). Witnessing change: Dynamic norms help resolve diverse barriers to personal change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 238-252.
[41] Sparkman G., Weitz E., Robinson T. N., Malhotra N., & Walton G. M. (2020). Developing a scalable dynamic norm menu-based intervention to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability, 12(6), 2453.
[42] Syvertsen A. K., Flanagan C. A., & Stout M. D. (2009). Code of silence: Students' perceptions of school climate and willingness to intervene in a peer' s dangerous plan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 219-232.
[43] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[44] Wei C., Dang J., Liu L., Li C., Tan X., & Gu Z. (2023). Economic inequality breeds corrupt behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(2), 949-971.
[45] Wójcik, M., & Flak, W. (2021). Frenemy: A new addition to the bullying circle. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19-20), NP11131-NP11154.
[46] Wójcik, M., & Rzeńca, K. (2021). Disclosing or hiding bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from former victims' point of view. School Mental Health, 13(4), 808-818.
PDF(1026 KB)
