青少年亲欺凌旁观行为的发展轨迹:界定亚群组及其影响因素

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2026.01.13

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 青少年亲欺凌旁观行为在发展过程中表现出一定的个体差异性。采用问卷法对江西省、安徽省976名初一及高一青少年进行了为期18个月的四次追踪调查(每次间隔6个月)。研究使用潜变量混合增长模型来考察青少年亲欺凌旁观行为的异质性发展轨迹,通过多元Logistic回归考察青少年亲欺凌旁观行为发展亚群组的可能预测变量(移情、道德推脱、负面同辈压力、师生关系)。结果表明:(1)青少年亲欺凌旁观行为的发展轨迹存在三种亚群组,分别为高上升组(5.54%)、中上升组(15.38%)、低下降组(79.08%);(2)高负面同辈压力的个体更可能进入高上升组,高道德推脱的个体更可能进入中上升组,高水平师生关系的个体更可能进入低下降组。本研究拓展了青少年亲欺凌旁观行为的研究视角,揭示了青少年亲欺凌旁观行为的动态变化性和个体差异性,识别出了其可能的保护、风险因子,对降低校园欺凌中青少年亲欺凌旁观行为具有一定的启示。

关键词: 亲欺凌旁观行为, 发展轨迹, 青少年, 潜变量混合增长模型

Abstract: There are individual differences in the developmental trajectories of adolescents’ pro-bullying bystander behavior. In this study, a total of 976 junior and senior high school adolescents from Jiangxi and Anhui Province were selected and tracked in an 18-month longitudinal survey, being evaluated once in six months. We aimed to investigate the developmental trajectories of adolescents’ pro-bullying bystander behavior and to identify latent subgroups. In addition, the developmental trajectories of adolescents’ pro-bullying bystander behavior were influenced by several factors (empathy, moral disengagement, peer pressure, and teacher-student relationship). The results showed that: (1) There were three types of adolescent’s pro-bullying bystander behavior trajectories, namely high increasing group (5.54%), moderate increasing group (15.38%), and low descending group (79.08%); (2) Compared with adolescents in low descending group, adolescents with high levels of negative peer pressure as well as with low levels of teacher-student relationship were more likely to be in the high increasing group; (3) Adolescents with high levels of moral disengagement as well as with low levels of teacher-student relationship were more likely to be in the moderate increasing group rather than low descending group. Thus, moral disengagement and negative peer pressure were risks factors for the development of pro-bullying bystander behavior. However, good teacher-student relationship was the protective factor of pro-bullying bystander behavior. In general, the present study revealed the dynamic changes and individual differences of adolescents’ pro-bullying bystander behavior. Besides, the present research identified the protective and risk factors associated with adolescents’ pro-bullying bystander behavior. These results provided suggestions for future pro-bullying bystander behavior intervention.

Key words: pro-bullying bystander behavior, developmental trajectories, adolescence, latent growth mixed model

鲍振宙, 杨凌青, 储怡佳, 于明申, 徐梓唯. 青少年亲欺凌旁观行为的发展轨迹:界定亚群组及其影响因素[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 131-141.

BAO Zhenzhou, YANG Lingqing, CHU Yijia, YU Mingshen, XU Ziwei. The Trajectories of Adolescents’ Pro-bullying Bystander Behavior: Identifying Latent Subgroups and Influence Factors[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 131-141.

参考文献

Andreou, E., & Metallidou, P. (2004). The relationship of academic and social cognition to behaviour in bullying situations among Greek primary school children. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 27-41.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364-374.
Bandura, A. (1978) Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12-29.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic?Social Psychology, 20, 65-122.
Bjärehed, M., Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., & Gini, G. (2020). Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their associations with indirect bullying, direct bullying, and pro-aggressive bystander behavior. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(1), 28-55.
Bjärehed, M., Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., & Gini, G. (2021). Individual moral disengagement and bullying among Swedish fifth graders: The role of collective moral disengagement and pro-bullying behavior within classrooms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17-18), NP9576-NP9600.
Cho, Y., & Chung, O.-B. (2012). A mediated moderation model of conformative peer bullying. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(3), 520-529.
Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 636-650.
Demaray, M. K., Summers, K. H., Jenkins, L. N., & Becker, L. D. (2016). Bullying participant behaviors questionnaire (BPBQ): Establishing a reliable and valid measure. Journal of School Violence, 15(2), 158-188.
Ehrenreich, S. E., Beron, K. J., Brinkley, D. Y., & Underwood, M. K. (2014). Family predictors of continuity and change in social and physical aggression from ages 9 to 18. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 421-439.
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 533-553.
Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory into Practice, 53(4), 257-264.
Ettekal, I., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). A synthesis of person-and relational-level factors that influence bullying and bystanding behaviors: Toward an integrative framework.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 75-86.
Evans, C. B., & Smokowski, P. R. (2017). Negative bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital deprivation and anti-social capital. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 48, 120-135.
Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. H. (2006). New participant role scales: Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 343-357.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311-322.
Jungert, T., Piroddi, B., & Thornberg, R. (2016). Early adolescents’ motivations to defend victims in school bullying and their perceptions of student-teacher relationships: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Adolescence, 53(1), 75-90.
Lerner, R. M, & Miller, J. R. (1993). Integrating human development research and intervention for America’s children: The Michigan State University model. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 347-364.
Loke, A. Y., Mak, Y. W., & Wu, C. S. T. (2016). The association of peer pressure and peer affiliation with the health risk behaviors of secondary school students in Hong Kong.Public Health, 137, 113-123.
Meter, D. J., & Card, N. A. (2015). Defenders of victims of peer aggression: Interdependence theory and an exploration of individual, interpersonal, and contextual effect on the defender participant role. Developmental Review, 38, 222-240.
Monks, C.P., & O’Toole, S.E. (2020). The vantage points of assistants and reinforcers. In L. H. Rosen, S. R. Scott, & S. Y. Kim (Eds.), Bullies, Victims, and Bystanders (pp. 45-77). Springer International Publishing.
Muuss, R. E. (1996).Theories of adolescence (sixth edition). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Nivette, A., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2017). Developmental predictors of violent extremist attitudes: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(6), 755-790.
Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Level and change of bullying behavior during high school: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 495-505.
Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmentaltrajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79(2), 325-338.
Pouwels, J. L., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Participant roles of bullying in adolescence: Status characteristics, social behavior, and assignment criteria. Aggressive Behavior, 42(3), 239-253.
Pouwels, J. L., van Noorden, T. H. J., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018). The participant roles of bullying in different grades: Prevalence and social status profiles. Social Development, 27, 732-747.
Saarento, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2015). The role of classroom peer ecology and bystanders’ responses in bullying. Child Development Perspectives, 9(4), 201-205.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group.Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1-15.
Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M.,& Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 205-218.
Salmivalli, C., & Poskiparta, E. (2012). Making bullying prevention a priority in Finnish schools: The KiVa antibullying program. New Directions for Youth Development, 133, 41-53.
Sjögren, B., Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., & Gini, G. (2021). Associations between students’ bystander behavior and individual and classroom collective moral disengagement. Educational Psychology, 41(3), 264-281.
Smokowski, P. R., & Evans, C. B. R. (2019). To intervene or not intervene? That is the question: Bystanders in the bullying dynamic. In P. R. Smokowski & C. B. R. Evans (Eds.), Bullying and victimization across the lifespan: Playground politics and power (pp. 87-106). Springer, Cham.
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efcacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 457-483.
Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). Classroom relationship qualities and social-cognitive correlates of defending and passive bystanding in school bullying in Sweden: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 49-62.
Troop-Gordon, W., Frosch, C. A., Wienke Totura, C. M., Bailey, A. N., Jackson, J. D., & Dvorak, R. D. (2019). Predicting the development of pro-bullying bystander behavior: A short-term longitudinal analysis.Journal of School Psychology, 77, 77-89.
Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036(1), 215-232.
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine “helping”, “joining in”, and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying.Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 383-396.
Winter, K., Spengler, S., Bermpohl, F., Singer, T., & Kanske, P. (2017). Social cognition in aggressive offenders: Impaired empathy, but intact theory of mind. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 670.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00745-0
Wood, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., & Meyers, J. (2017). School personnel social support and nonsupport for bystanders of bullying: Exploring student perspectives. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.12.003
Yun, H. Y. (2019). New approaches to defender and outsider roles in school bullying.Child Development, 91(4), 814-832.
Zhang, J., Li, D., Ahemaitijiang, N., Peng, W., Zhai, B., & Wang, Y. (2020). Perceived school climate and delinquency among Chinese adolescents: A moderated mediation analysis of moral disengagement and effortful control. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105253
Zhang, M. C., Wang, L., Dou, K., & Liang, Y. (2021). Why victimized by peers promote cyberbullying in college students? Testing a moderated mediation model in a three-wave longitudinal study. Current Psychology, (3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-021-02047-1
鲍振宙, 储怡佳, 王帆, 柳希希. (2023). 校园欺凌中的“袖手旁观”:校园氛围、学校联结和道德推脱的作用. 心理发展与教育, 39(4), 580-589.
丁凤琴, 陆朝晖. (2016). 共情与亲社会行为关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 24(8), 1159-1174.
杜建军. (2018). 论新型师生关系的构建——基于哈贝马斯交往行为理论的研究. 河南大学学报, 58(4), 129-135.
郭素然, 吕少博. (2022). 学校氛围与青少年欺凌行为的关系. 中国健康心理学杂志, 30(10), 1590-1594.
李小青, 刘银章, 汪玥, 蒋索. (2023). 暴力暴露对不同性别青少年早期校园欺凌的影响:基于潜在剖面分析. 心理发展与教育, 39(2), 255-265.
马坤. (2015). 特拉华州校园氛围量表中文版用于高中生的信效度研究 (硕士学位论文). 湖南师范大学, 长沙.
宋仕婕, 佐斌, 温芳芳, 谭潇. (2020). 群体认同对群际敏感效应及其行为表现的影响. 心理学报, 52(8), 993-1003.
王小凤, 丁道群, 龙耀华, 龚小梅, 邱小艳. (2022). 中学生校园欺凌道德推脱特点及其与欺凌参与行为的关系. 中国临床心理学杂志, 30(02), 360-365.
夏丹. (2011). 基于移情量表(BES)中文版的信效度及初步应用研究 (硕士学位论文). 郑州大学.
叶婷. (2020). 不同欺凌受害反应情境下共情、道德敏感性对初中生旁观行为的影响 (硕士学位论文). 云南师范大学, 昆明.
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.
张荣荣, 董莉. (2019). 校园欺凌中旁观者行为的作用机制. 心理技术与应用, 7(2), 118-128.
张文新. (2023). 欺凌的界定:文化和发展的视角. 心理发展与教育, 39(4), 590-598.
张莹瑞, 佐斌. (2006). 社会认同理论及其发展. 心理科学进展, 14(3), 475-480.
张云运, 牛丽丽, 任萍, 秦幸娜. (2018). 同伴地位对青少年早期不同类型攻击行为发展的影响:性别与班级规范的调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 34(1), 38-48.
周浩, 龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 22(12), 942-950.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	李丹, 陈佳宇, 刘思格, 吴德华, 尹华站. 青少年特质感恩与主观幸福感:生命意义的纵向解释作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 28-38.
[2]	向燕辉, 马丽平, 胡芸绮, 李晓军. 青少年心理适应与内外攻击的关联:基于追踪和周记法的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 85-97.
[3]	边昊天, 庄瑞雪, 王嘉宝, 边玉芳, 梁丽婵. 养育倦怠与青少年网络游戏成瘾:基本心理需要满足、意志控制及性别的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 110-120.
[4]	杨淑芸, 李紫涵, 任萍. 欺凌受害对早期青少年自伤的影响:孤独感与情绪调节策略的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 121-130.
[5]	王玉龙, 王丹云, 蔺秀云. 早期青少年自伤与自杀意念的关系:亲子沟通的纵向调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 142-152.
[6]	陈子循, 白荣, 李金文, 徐程睿. 父母冲突与青少年手机成瘾的纵向关系:冲动性和朋友支持的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 892-902.
[7]	汤佳怡, 付成妤, 徐慰. 青少年家庭功能对抑郁和社交焦虑的影响:公正世界信念的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(5): 701-709.
[8]	张凤, 黄四林, 梅刻寒, 张嘉恬, 邓祎祎. 脱贫地区乡村青少年社会流动信念与其学业坚持性:学业应对策略的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 510-517.
[9]	彭大炬, 程诚, 郭培杨, 许洋. 青少年冷酷无情特质和边缘人格特质的共同风险因素模型:一项交叉滞后研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 528-538.
[10]	王凌飞, 张明明, 袁柯曼, 边玉芳. 父母教养效能感与青少年焦虑的关系:过度教养与亲子冲突的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 539-549.
[11]	胡义秋, 何震, 曾子豪, 刘双金, 杨琴, 方晓义. 亲子关系对青少年攻击行为的影响:正念的中介作用和NR3C1基因rs41423247多态性的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 561-570.
[12]	罗玉晗, 徐梓婧, 周晴, 杨政乾, 柯李, 王耘, 陈福美. COVID-19疫情压力对青少年生命史策略的影响及其行为表现[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 398-409.
[13]	谭德琴, 丁菀, 宋省成, 吴伟, 蔺秀云. 代际间的暴力传递——父母虐待对儿童欺负行为的影响:基于潜变量增长模型的分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 410-419.
[14]	曾子豪, 胡义秋, 刘双金, 彭丽仪, 杨琴, 王宏才, 何震, 姚星星. 学校人际关系与血清素系统多基因累积遗传风险对青少年抑郁的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 436-447.
[15]	杨玲, 李娜, 张炀, 石林平, 张铭飞, 武江坤. 留守青少年对他人消极评价的敏感性及注意回避[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(2): 185-195.