Differences in adolescents' motivations for indirect, direct, and hybrid peer defending.

IF 1.6 4区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL

Social Development Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Epub Date: 2018-11-27 DOI:10.1111/sode.12348

Jeroen Pronk, Tjeert Olthof, Frits A Goossens, Lydia Krabbendam

{"title":"Differences in adolescents' motivations for indirect, direct, and hybrid peer defending.","authors":"Jeroen Pronk, Tjeert Olthof, Frits A Goossens, Lydia Krabbendam","doi":"10.1111/sode.12348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Adolescents’ defending of peers who are being bullied—or peer defending—was recently found to be a heterogeneous behavioral construct. The present study investigated individual differences in adolescents’ motivations for executing these indirect, direct, and hybrid defending behaviors. In line with the literature on bullying as goal‐directed strategic behavior, we adopted a social evolution theory framework to investigate whether these peer‐defending behaviors could qualify as goal‐directed strategic prosocial behaviors. A sample of 549 Dutch adolescents (49.4% boys; M age = 12.5 years, SD = 0.6 years) participated in this study. Their peer reported defending behaviors (including bullying behavior as a control variable) and the following behavioral motivations were assessed: (a) agentic and communal goals (self‐report), (b) prosocial and coercive social strategies (peer report), and (c) altruistic and egocentric motivations for prosocial behavior (self‐report). The outcomes of hierarchical linear regression analyses suggest that adolescents’ motivations for executing the different subtypes of peer defending partially overlap but are also different. While indirect defending was fostered by genuine concerns for victims’ well‐being, direct defending was more motivated by personal gains. Hybrid defending combined favorable aspects of both indirect and direct defending as a goal‐directed, strategic, and altruistically motivated prosocial behavior. The implications of these findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48203,"journal":{"name":"Social Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/sode.12348","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12348","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/11/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 23

Abstract

Abstract Adolescents’ defending of peers who are being bullied—or peer defending—was recently found to be a heterogeneous behavioral construct. The present study investigated individual differences in adolescents’ motivations for executing these indirect, direct, and hybrid defending behaviors. In line with the literature on bullying as goal‐directed strategic behavior, we adopted a social evolution theory framework to investigate whether these peer‐defending behaviors could qualify as goal‐directed strategic prosocial behaviors. A sample of 549 Dutch adolescents (49.4% boys; M age = 12.5 years, SD = 0.6 years) participated in this study. Their peer reported defending behaviors (including bullying behavior as a control variable) and the following behavioral motivations were assessed: (a) agentic and communal goals (self‐report), (b) prosocial and coercive social strategies (peer report), and (c) altruistic and egocentric motivations for prosocial behavior (self‐report). The outcomes of hierarchical linear regression analyses suggest that adolescents’ motivations for executing the different subtypes of peer defending partially overlap but are also different. While indirect defending was fostered by genuine concerns for victims’ well‐being, direct defending was more motivated by personal gains. Hybrid defending combined favorable aspects of both indirect and direct defending as a goal‐directed, strategic, and altruistically motivated prosocial behavior. The implications of these findings are discussed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

青少年间接、直接和混合同伴防御动机的差异。

最近发现，青少年对被欺负的同龄人的辩护或同伴辩护是一种异质的行为结构。本研究调查了青少年执行这些间接、直接和混合防御行为的动机的个体差异。根据欺凌作为目标导向的战略行为的文献，我们采用了社会进化理论框架来研究这些同伴防御行为是否符合目标导向的战略性亲社会行为。549名荷兰青少年（49.4%为男孩；M年龄=12.5岁，SD=0.6岁）参与了这项研究。他们的同伴报告的防御行为（包括作为控制变量的欺凌行为）和以下行为动机被评估：（a）代理和共同目标（自我报告），（b）亲社会和胁迫性社会策略（同伴报告），以及（c）亲社会行为的利他主义和以自我为中心的动机（自报告）。分层线性回归分析的结果表明，青少年执行不同亚型同伴防御的动机部分重叠，但也有所不同。虽然间接辩护是出于对受害者福祉的真正关心，但直接辩护更多是出于个人利益。混合防御结合了间接防御和直接防御的有利方面，作为一种目标导向、战略和利他主义动机的亲社会行为。讨论了这些发现的含义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Social Development PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Social Development is a major international journal dealing with all aspects of children"s social development as seen from a psychological stance. Coverage includes a wide range of topics such as social cognition, peer relationships, social interaction, attachment formation, emotional development and children"s theories of mind. The main emphasis is placed on development in childhood, but lifespan, cross-species and cross-cultural perspectives enhancing our understanding of human development are also featured.