Beyond Intervention: A Mixed-Methods Study of How Victims Perceive and Respond to Bystander Actions in Peer Aggression Contexts

Abstract

This dissertation examines how adolescents who experience victimization in aggressive scenarios evaluate different forms of bystander action, as well as how these evaluations are related to fundamental human values. In contrast to existing research that focus on the bystander’s perspective, this dissertation centers victims’ perspectives. The dissertation integrates theoretical perspectives from appraisal theory, Schwartz’s circumplex model of values, and self-determination theory. Using a mixed-methods design that reanalyzes interview data on 267 adolescents, the dissertation examines victims’ evaluations of three appraisal values: security, competence, and self-direction. Specifically, the quantitative analyses used multilevel logistic regression to examine associations between three bystander action forms (i.e., calming emotions, amplifying anger, and third-party revenge) and whether victims felt that their values of security, competence, and self-direction were promoted or threatened. Qualitative thematic analyses then delved into how adolescents conceptualize security. Results indicate that bystander actions were most consistently linked to security appraisals. Calming appeared to be more beneficial to victims, as it was associated with positive outcomes for security and self-direction, while amplifying anger was associated with negative outcomes. Third-party revenge revealed mixed patterns, as it was linked to better outcomes regarding security, but also diminishing victims’ self-direction. Qualitative findings further revealed that adolescents understand security in multidimensional terms, including physical safety, social relationships, emotional regulation, and subsequent consequences. Together, these findings underscore the importance of differentiating bystander actions and highlighting victims’ perceptions when evaluating peer intervention strategies.