Bystander intervention on behalf of victims of peer aggression is credited with reducing victimization, yet little is known about how bystanders evaluate their intervention efforts. African-, European-, Mexican-, and Native-American adolescents (N = 266) between 13 and 18 years (Mage = 15.0, 54% female) recounted vengeful and peaceful responses to a peer’s victimization. For comparison, they also described acts of personal revenge. Youth’s explanations of how they evaluated each action were coded for goals and outcomes. Befitting its moral complexity, self-evaluative rationales for third-party revenge cited more goals than the other two conditions. References to benevolence and lack thereof were more frequent after third-party revenge compared to personal revenge. Concerns that security was compromised and that actions contradicted self-direction were high after both types of revenge. Third-party resolution promoted benevolence, competence, self-direction, and security more than third-party revenge. Epistemic network analyses and thematic excerpts revealed the centrality of benevolence goals in adolescents’ self-evaluative thinking. Self-focused and identity-relevant goals were cited in concert with benevolence after third-party intervention.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Bjørgo, T. (2005). Conflict processes between youth groups in a Norwegian City: polarisation and revenge. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(1), 44–74.
Buckley, L., Chapman, R., & Sheenan, M. (2010). Protective behaviour in adolescent friendships: the influence of attitudes towards the consequences, friendship norms and perceived control. Journal of Youth Studies, 13, 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/136762610038017.
Buffone, A. E. K., & Poulin, M. J. (2014). Empathy, target distress, and neurohormone genes interaction to predict aggression for others–even without provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1406–1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549320.
Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., McKinley, M., & Hayes, R. (2011). The roles of parental inductions, moral emotions, and moral cognitions in prosocial tendancies among Mexican American and European American early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 757–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610373100.
Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137.
Do, K. T., Guassi Moreira, J. F., & Telzer, E. H. (2017). But is helping you worth the risk? Defining prosocial risk taking in adolescence. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.008.
Fontaine, R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108318112.
Frey, K. S., Higheagle Strong, Z., Onyewuenyi, A. C., Pearson, C. R., & Eagan, B. R. (2020a). Third-party intervention in peer victimization: self-evaluative emotions and appraisals of a diverse adolescent sample. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.1254
Frey, K. S., Nguyen, H. A., Kwak Tanguay, S., & Germinaro, K. (2020b). What do historical law enforcement practices in the United States have to do with peer relations? Adolescents make sense of revenge according to honor and face norms. In A. R. Ruis & S. B. Lee (Eds.), International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography 2020 (pp. 1–15). Cham: Springer.
Frey, K. S., Pearson, C. R., & Cohen, D. (2015). Revenge is seductive if not actually sweet: why friends matter in bullying prevention efforts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.08.002.
Gerlsma, C., & Lugtmeyer, V. (2018). Offense type as determinant of revenge and forgiveness after victimization: Adolescents’ responses to injustice and aggression. Journal of School Violence, 17, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2016.1193741.
Gummerum, M., Van Dillen, L., Van Dijk, E., & López-Pérez, B. (2016). Costly third-party interventions: The role of incidental anger and attention focus in punishment of the perpetrator and compensation of the victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 94–104.
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527.
Kivivuori, J., Savolainen, J., & Aaltonen, M. (2016). The revenge motive in delinquency: prevalence and predictors. Acta Sociologica, 59, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699315607969.
Ko, A., Pick, C. M., Kwon, J. Y., Barlev, M., Krems, J. A., Varnum, M. E. W., & Neel, R., et al. (2020). Family matters: rethinking the psychology of human social motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872986.
Lefebvre, J. P., & Krettenauer, T. (2019). Linking moral identity with moral emotions: a meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 23, 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880887.
Lougheed, J. P., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., Connolly, J., O’Hara, A., Granic, I., & Hollenstein, T. (2016). Maternal and peer regulation of adolescent emotion. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 963–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0084-x.
Marquart, C. L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). Epistemic network analysis (v. 1.7) [Software]. http://app.epistemicnetwork.org.
Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). The benefits of benevolence: Basic psychological needs, beneficence, and the enhancement of well-being. Journal of Personality, 84, 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12215.
McDonald, K. L., & Lochman, J. E. (2012). Predictors and outcomes associated with trajectories of revenge goals from fourth grade to seventh grade. Journal of Abnomal Child Psychology, 40, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9560-0.
McDonald, K. L., Benish-Weisman, M., O’Brien, C. T., & Ungvary, S. (2015). The social values of aggressive-prosocial youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2245–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0246-0.
McLean, K. C., Pasupathi, M., & Pals, J. L. (2007). Selves creating stories creating selves: a process model of self-development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301034.
Ojanen, T., Gronroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699–710.
Patrick, R. B., Rote, W. M., Gibbs, J. C., & Basinger, K. S. (2019). Defend, stand by, or join in?: The relative influence of moral identity, moral judgment, and social self-efficacy on adolescents’ bystander behaviors in bullying situations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 2051–2061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01089-w.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the victim, siding with the bullying or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development, 21, 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x.
Pronk, J., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A. & Krabbendam, L. (2018). Differences in adolescents’ motivations for indirect, direct, and hybrid peer defending. Social Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12348
Recchia, H., Wainryb, C., Bourne, S., & Pasupathi, M. (2015). Children’s and adolescents’ accounts of helping and hurting others: lessons about the development of moral agency. Child Development, 86, 864–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12349.
Recchia, H., Wainryb, C., & Posada, R. (2020). The juxtaposition of revenge and forgiveness in peer conflict experiences of youth exposed to violence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12573
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford.
Ryan, R. M., & Hawley, P. H. (2016). Naturally good?: Basic psychological needs and the proximal and evolutionary bases of human benevolence. In K. W. Brown & M. R. Leary (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of hypo-egoi phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University.
Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison, WI: Cathcart Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022.
Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values theory with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2.
Strohminger, N., Knobe, J., & Newman, G. (2017). The true self: a psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616689495.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145.
Thomaes, S., Sedikides, C., van den Bos, N., Hutteman, R., & Reijntjes, A. (2017). Happy to be “me?” Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective well-being in adolescence. Child Development, 88, 1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12867.
Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231–255.
Ungvary, S., McDonald, K. L., & Benish-Wesiman, M. (2018). Identifying and distinguishing value profiles in American and Israeli adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12330.
Vaccaro, A. G., Kaplan, J. T., & Damasio, A. (2020). Bittersweet: the neuroscience of ambivalent affect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, in press, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927708
Wang, Q. (2016). Why should we all be cultural psychologists? Lessons from the study of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 583–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616645552.
Will, G.-J., Crone, E. A., van den Bos, W., & Guroglu, B. (2013). Acting on observed social exclusion: Developmental perspectives on punishment of excluders and compensations of victims. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2236–2244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032299.
We are grateful for the careful work of coders, Saejin Kwak Tanguay, Hannah A. Nguyen, and Gurdeep Gill, and very appreciative of interviewers and community members for their deep commitment to youth.
KF conceived of the study, participated in its design, hypothesis generation, planned analyses, and manuscript writing; KM participated in hypothesis generation, planned analyses, data interpretation and manuscript writing; AO participated in measurement development, study coordination, interpretation of the qualitative data, and manuscript writing; KG reviewed literature and performed statistical analyses; BE participated in the design and execution of network analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice (2015-CK-BX-0022) to the first author. Development of Epistemic Network Analysis was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Opinions or points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, other funding agencies, cooperating institutions, or other individuals.
Data Sharing and Declaration
This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Washington and the National Institute of Justice. When appropriate, a research permit was obtained from tribal authorities. This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians and informed assent was obtained from the interviewees.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A. Subsample F-values for citation goal frequencies as a function of action type, goal and outcome
|df||F||p||Partial eta 2|
|Action × ethnicity||6.00||< 1||ns||0.008|
|Within person error||374.20|
|Goal × ethnicity||12.67||2.37||0.002||0.036|
|Within person error||805.11|
|Outcome × ethnicity||4.14||2.63||0.033||0.040|
|Within person error||263.51|
|Action × goal||7.39||58.55||<0.001||0.235|
|Action × goal × ethnicity||22.16||< 1||ns||0.011|
|Within person error||473.42|
|Action × outcome||2.85||80.85||<0.001||0.297|
|Action × outcome × ethnicity||8.55||1.52||ns||0.023|
|Within person error||244.86|
|Goal × outcome||6.63||42.68||< 0.001||0.183|
|Goal × outcome × ethnicity||19.90||1.31||ns||0.020|
|Within person error||6233.30|
|Action × goal × outcome||11.21||36.12||<0.001||0.159|
|Action × goal × outcome × ethnicity||33.62||1.26||ns||0.019|
|Within person error||1047.61|
|Between person error||60.47|
Degrees of freedom have Green-Geisser adjustments due to sphericity violations. N = 195
Appendix B. Goals and outcomes cited when appraising actions
Columns show mean frequencies of citations for each action. Error bars show standard deviations
About this article
Cite this article
Frey, K.S., McDonald, K.L., Onyewuenyi, A.C. et al. “I Felt Like a Hero:” Adolescents’ Understanding of Resolution-Promoting and Vengeful Actions on Behalf of Their Peers. J Youth Adolescence 50, 521–535 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01346-3
- Third-Party revenge