“I Felt Like a Hero:” Adolescents’ Understanding of Resolution-Promoting and Vengeful Actions on Behalf of Their Peers

Abstract

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.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marquart, C. L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). Epistemic network analysis (v. 1.7) [Software]. http://app.epistemicnetwork.org.

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

  29. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison, WI: Cathcart Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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

  40. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Authors’ Contributions

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.

Funding

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin S. Frey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians and informed assent was obtained from the interviewees.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Appendices

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 2.00 17.96 <0.001 0.086
Action × ethnicity 6.00 < 1 ns 0.008
Within person error 374.20    
Goal 4.22 109.59 <0.001 0.365
Goal × ethnicity 12.67 2.37 0.002 0.036
Within person error 805.11    
Outcome 1.38 240.39 <0.001 0.556
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    
Ethnicity 3 < 1 ns 0.015
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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Third-Party revenge
  • Identity
  • Adolescents
  • Benevolence
  • Competence
  • Self-direction