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.

Contemporary research adopts an evolutionary theoretical perspective in which bullying is strategic behavior that is conducive to peer-group status enhancement. Within this view, a high social status (i.e., popularity) has been associated with bullying others, while a high affiliative status (i.e., preference) has been associated with defending others. This study investigated whether the associations between adolescents’ bullying role behavior (i.e., bully, follower, defender, outsider, and victim) and their peer-group status (i.e., popularity and preference) are cross-culturally similar. A multigroup path modeling analysis on a sample of Dutch ( n = 219; 53.4% boys; M_age = 13.8 years, SD = 9 months) and Indian ( n = 480; 60.8% boys; M_age = 13.8 years, SD = 12 months) adolescents suggested that these associations were indeed largely cross-culturally similar and consistent with previous findings, with one exception. While defending was associated with a relatively average popularity status position for Dutch adolescents, it was associated with a high popularity status position for Indian adolescents. In general, the findings are supportive of the evolutionary theoretical perspective, but the differential association between defending and popularity for Dutch and Indian adolescents seems to also require a cultural perspective.

Background: Bullying victimization may be linked to psychosis but only self-report measures of victimization have been used so far. This study aimed (a) to investigate the differential associations of peer-nominated versus self-reported victim status with non-clinical psychotic experiences in a sample of young adolescents, and (b) to examine whether different types of self-reported victimization predict non-clinical psychotic experiences in these adolescents.Method: A combination of standard self-report and peer nomination procedures was used to assess victimization. The sample (n = 724) was divided into four groups (exclusively self-reported victims, self- and peer-reported victims, exclusively peer-reported victims, and non-victims) to test for a group effect on non-clinical psychotic experiences. The relationship between types of victimization and non-clinical psychotic experiences was examined by a regression analysis.Results: Self-reported victims, along with self- and peer-reported victims, scored higher than peer-reported victims and non-victims on non-clinical psychotic experiences. Self-reports of direct relational, indirect relational and physical victimization significantly improved the prediction of non-clinical psychotic experiences whereas verbal and possession-directed victimization had no significant predictive value.Conclusions: The relationship between victimization and non-clinical psychotic experiences is only present for self-reported victimization, possibly indicative of an interpretation bias. The observed discrepancy between self-report and peer-report highlights the importance of implementing a combination of both measures for future research.

While both outsiders and defenders have antibullying attitudes, only defenders have the reputation to defend victims. However, outsiders—despite their reputation of avoiding involvement in bullying—do receive some defender nominations and thus defend victims at least occasionally. This study investigated the relationship between these behavioral reputations and social-cognitive antecedents of students’ provictim intervention decision: Is provictim intervention related to a cost-reward analysis or to an analysis based on the presence and reactions of others? A sample of 489 Dutch early adolescents ([ ]_age = 11.5 years) was presented a scenario in which they were to imagine being witness to victimization. Through a counterfactual thinking item procedure, the relationships between students’ reputations and social cognitions about antecedents of provictim intervention were investigated. Distress awareness and anticipated guilt and shame for not helping victims positively predicted defender behavior. Practical implications with regard to promoting defender behavior in outsiders are discussed.