Empathy and Involvement in Bullying in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
- 5.3k Downloads
Based on the premise that bullies are deficient in empathy or even lack it completely, bullying prevention and intervention programs often include empathy training. These programs are not always as effective as they aim to be, which may be caused by a failure to acknowledge the multidimensional nature of empathy as well as its complex association with involvement in bullying. To provide a clear overview of the research on the association between empathy and involvement in bullying, this article systematically reviews 40 studies on the association of cognitive empathy (24 studies) and affective empathy (38 studies) with four categories of involvement in bullying: bullying, victimization, defending, and bystanding. The results showed that bullying was negatively associated with cognitive and—in particular—affective empathy. Victimization was negatively associated with cognitive empathy but not with affective empathy. Defending was consistently positively associated with both types of empathy. Contradictory findings were observed in bystanding, with studies reporting both negative and positive associations with cognitive empathy, and studies reporting negative and no associations with affective empathy. Together, the findings stress the importance of the distinction between cognitive and affective empathy in involvement in bullying and suggest different intervention strategies for the four types of involvement in bullying.
KeywordsSystematic review Cognitive empathy Affective empathy Involvement in bullying Children Adolescents
This work was funded by the National Initiative Brain and Cognition (NIBC) research program Youth and Family of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
TvN designed and coordinated the study, conducted the literature search and selection, interpretated results, and drafted the manuscript. GH also conducted the literature search and selection, participated in the design and interpretations, and helped to draft the manuscript. AC and WB participated in the design and interpretations, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
- Almeida, A., Correia, I., Marinho, S., & Garcia, D. (2012). Virtual but not less real: A study of cyberbullying and its relations to moral disengagement and empathy. In Q. Li, D. Cross, & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from international perspectives (pp. 223–244). Oxoford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bonino, S., Lo Coco, A., & Tani, F. (1998). Empatia: Processi di condivisione delle emozioni [Empathy: Processes of emotional sharing]. Florence: Giunti.Google Scholar
- Cappadocia, M. C., Pepler, D., Cummings, J. G., & Craig, W. (2012). Individual motivations and characteristics associated with bystander intervention during bullying episodes among children and youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(3), 201–216. doi: 10.1177/0829573512450567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chaux, E., Castro, L., Daza, J., Díaz, C., & Hurtado, N. (2004). Empatía: Instrumento de autoreporte. Bogota Universidad de los Andes.Google Scholar
- Damon, W., Lerner, R. M., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
- Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2001). Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationship to bullying. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive & destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, & society (pp. 147–165). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Adams, R. S. (2004). Empathy, caring, and bullying: Toward an understanding of complex associations. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
- Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, doi: 10.4073/csr.2009.6.
- Garton, A. F., & Gringart, E. (2005). The development of a scale to measure empathy in 8-and 9-year old children. Australian Journal of Education and Developmental Psychology, 5, 17–25.Google Scholar
- Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
- Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2001). Self-views versus peer perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105–124). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 195–217). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. New York: Routhledge.Google Scholar
- Park, J. H. (2013). Differential correlates of bully/victim status and bystander roles of school violence with school adjustment in Korea. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, Special Issue, 119–133.Google Scholar
- Poteat, V. P., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Scheer, J. R. (2013). Predicting homophobic behavior among heterosexual youth: Domain general and sexual orientation-specific factors at the individual and contextual level. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 351–362. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9813-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., 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. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1:aid-ab1>3.0.co;2-t.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2009). Bullies, victims, and bully-victim relationships in middle childhood and early adolescence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 322–340). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, D., Proctor, L., & Chien, D. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147–174). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A., Johnsen-Frerichs, L., & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimization: The problem of comparability across studies and across methods. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 305–327). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Vezzali, L., Capozza, D., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2012). Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 437–440. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar