IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p5552-d560131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health and Risk Behaviors of Bystanders: An Integrative Theoretical Model of Bystanders’ Reactions to Mistreatment

Author

Listed:
  • Yariv Itzkovich

    (Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, Tzemach 1410502, Israel)

  • Ella Barhon

    (Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, Tzemach 1410502, Israel)

  • Rachel Lev-Wiesel

    (School for Creative Arts Therapies, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel)

Abstract

This article constructs a comprehensive theoretical model that outlines bystanders’ emotional and behavioral responses to the mistreatment of adolescent peers. The model captures bystanders’ risk and health risk behaviors, which have been overlooked in the context of their reactions; when addressed at all in connection with bystanders of bullying among adolescents, they have been treated separately. Here, we present bystanders’ emotional and cognitive reactions and their impact on bystanders’ responses including a set of responses that demonstrate risk and health risk behaviors that are directed to the bystander as a victim by proxy. The theoretical framework is the conservation of resources theory, which posits that personal resources (i.e., potency and moral disengagement) and social resources impact the process that leads to bystanders’ reactions. Previous models have overlooked the integrative viewpoint of bystanders, and comprehensive models that explain bystanders’ behavioral and emotional responses have received little attention especially with regards to adolescents. Two recent models overlooked core features embedded in the current model, including the risk and health risk behaviors that it integrates. The proposed model presents a novel and more comprehensive view of bystanders’ reactions and the process underlying these reactions. It integrates existing knowledge embedded in other existing models. At the same time, this perspective indicates the centricity of potency as a key resource that dictates the emotional response and behaviors of bystanders. This potentially allows for new applications in the mitigation of adverse impacts that follow the witnessing of mistreatment. The article discusses these applications, which are based on previous findings, their implications for practice, and directions for future empirical research necessary to validate the model.

Suggested Citation

  • Yariv Itzkovich & Ella Barhon & Rachel Lev-Wiesel, 2021. "Health and Risk Behaviors of Bystanders: An Integrative Theoretical Model of Bystanders’ Reactions to Mistreatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5552-:d:560131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5552/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5552/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben-Sira, Zeev, 1985. "Potency: A stress-buffering link in the coping-stress-disease relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 397-406, January.
    2. Zimmerman, G.M. & Posick, C., 2016. "Risk factors for and behavioral consequences of direct versus indirect exposure to violence," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(1), pages 178-188.
    3. Limor Goldner & Rachel Lev-Weisel & Yael Schanan, 2019. "Caring about Tomorrow: the Role of Potency, Socio-Economic Status and Gender in Israeli Adolescents’ Academic Future Orientation," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 12(4), pages 1333-1349, August.
    4. Gabriele Giorgi & Jose Leon-Perez & Alicia Arenas, 2015. "Are Bullying Behaviors Tolerated in Some Cultures? Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship Between Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction Among Italian Workers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 227-237, September.
    5. Zepeng Huang & Zhenni Liu & Xiangxiang Liu & Laiwen Lv & Yan Zhang & Limin Ou & Liping Li, 2016. "Risk Factors Associated with Peer Victimization and Bystander Behaviors among Adolescent Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, July.
    6. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joséphine Pascale Ada Manga & Pascale Desrumaux & Willys N’dong Nguema, 2023. "Workplace Bullying Seen from the Perspective of Bystanders: Effects on Engagement and Burnout, Mediating Role of Positive and Negative Affects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(19), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Andrés Concha-Salgado & Angélica Ramírez & Beatriz Pérez & Ricardo Pérez-Luco & Eduardo García-Cueto, 2022. "Moral Disengagement as a Self-Regulatory Cognitive Process of Transgressions: Psychometric Evidence of the Bandura Scale in Chilean Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-25, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    2. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    3. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    4. Elena Antonacopoulou, 2018. "Energising critique in action and in learning: The GNOSIS 4R Framework," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 102-125, May.
    5. Rana Muhammad Shahid Yaqub & Aneeta Rehman & Shakeela Kausar & Zakariya Hassan Qureshi, 2022. "Insights from Theory of Reason Action to Determine the Faculty Turn-Over Intentions in HEI’s of Southern Punjab: Mediating and Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Justice and Organizational ," iRASD Journal of Management, International Research Alliance for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 4(2), pages 375-389, june.
    6. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.
    7. Martina Linnenluecke & Andrew Griffiths & Peter Mumby, 2015. "Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 321-333, July.
    8. Per Engelseth & Richard Glavee-Geo & Artur Janusz & Enoch Niboi, 2020. "The Emergent Nature of Networked Sustainable Procurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    10. Jeffery S. McMullen & Dimo Dimov, 2013. "Time and the Entrepreneurial Journey: The Problems and Promise of Studying Entrepreneurship as a Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1481-1512, December.
    11. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    12. Minkkinen, Matti, 2019. "The anatomy of plausible futures in policy processes: Comparing the cases of data protection and comprehensive security," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 172-180.
    13. Stea, Diego & Foss, Nicolai J. & Christensen, Peter Holdt, 2015. "Physical separation in the workplace: Separation cues, separation awareness, and employee motivation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 462-471.
    14. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    15. Tiina J. Peltola & Hanna Tiirinki, 2020. "More Than Numbers: Discourses of Health Care Quality in Finland," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    16. Rydén, Pernille & Ringberg, Torsten & Wilke, Ricky, 2015. "How Managers' Shared Mental Models of Business–Customer Interactions Create Different Sensemaking of Social Media," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-16.
    17. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.
    18. Joseph McManus, 2021. "Emotions and Ethical Decision Making at Work: Organizational Norms, Emotional Dogs, and the Rational Tales They Tell Themselves and Others," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 153-168, February.
    19. Hendrik Vollmer, 2013. "What kind of game is everyday interaction?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(3), pages 370-404, August.
    20. Tongyu Meng & Jamie Newth & Christine Woods, 2022. "Ethical Sensemaking in Impact Investing: Reasons and Motives in the Chinese Renewable Energy Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 1091-1117, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5552-:d:560131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.