1. Abstract
The Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Peer Intervention Scale (SEBPIS) is a psychometric instrument designed to evaluate an adolescent’s subjective appraisal of their capacity, agency, and expected outcomes when intervening in peer bullying incidents. Developed within the context of developmental psychology and school-based peer-dynamics research by Shauna Kingston (2008) at Brock University, and subsequently utilized in investigations of bystander roles (e.g., Kane, 2015), the scale addresses a critical junction in anti-bullying research: the cognitive-affective determinants that translate moral concern or empathy into active, pro-social defending behavior. The SEBPIS consists of 10 self-report items administered on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree).
The instrument operationalizes social-cognitive constructs derived from Albert Bandura‘s self-efficacy theory and social-cognitive model of moral agency, alongside Latané and Darley‘s bystander intervention paradigm. Psychometrically, the instrument captures two interrelated operational domains: direct personal self-efficacy and response competence (the belief that one possesses the instrumental skills and personal agency to halt bullying) and outcome expectancies encompassing systemic support and social risk (the appraisal of teacher efficacy, peer backing, potential retaliation, and peer-group norms). Negatively keyed items control for acquiescence bias and evaluate the perceived danger of peer victimization following an intervention attempt.
Validation studies indicate adequate internal consistency, with sample Cronbach’s alpha coefficients commonly reported in the .70 to .82 range, robust convergent validity with measures of moral responsibility, affective empathy, and actual bystander defending, as well as distinct discriminant validity from passive bystander behaviors. The SEBPIS provides developmental researchers, school psychologists, and intervention evaluators with a brief, theoretically coherent, and empirically reliable measure to identify bystander intervention readiness and evaluate anti-bullying curricula.
2. Keywords
Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Peer Intervention Scale, bystander intervention, school bullying, self-efficacy, peer defending, outcome expectations, participant roles, peer victimization, social cognitive theory, adolescent psychology, bystander effect, psychometrics.
3. Authors
The Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Peer Intervention Scale was originally operationalized and compiled by Shauna Kingston in 2008 as part of graduate empirical research conducted within the Faculty of Child and Youth Studies at Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, under the supervision of academic specialists in child development and peer aggression (Kingston, 2008). The instrument was structured to examine the social-ecological processes governing youth bystander behavior in educational contexts.
Subsequent psychometric application and theoretical expansion were conducted by Michelle Kane (2015) at the Department of Psychology, Dublin Business School, Ireland. Kane investigated the intersection of self-efficacy beliefs, affective/cognitive empathy, and personal responsibility across differentiated participant roles in school bullying. Contact regarding the original institutional archiving of the scale can be directed to the Brock University Digital Repository or the respective academic departments investigating developmental psychopathology and peer relations.
4. Purpose
Bullying in educational environments is recognized as a complex group phenomenon rather than an isolated dyadic interaction between a perpetrator and a victim. While classic models categorized students primarily as bullies or victims, modern structural frameworks establish that the vast majority of students occupy spectator or bystander roles. These peers serve as assistants, reinforcers, passive outsiders, or active defenders. Although substantial majorities of youth express moral disapproval of bullying and endorse sympathy for victimized peers, only a modest proportion actively intervenes to support victims or challenge perpetrators. The Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Peer Intervention Scale was formulated specifically to measure the psychological mechanisms underlying this “bystander passivity gap.”
The primary clinical, educational, and psychometric purpose of the SEBPIS is to quantify a student’s cognitive appraisal of their capacity to execute peer interventions, their perception of situational risk, and their expectations regarding the utility of intervening. Defending behavior requires significant social and emotional resources; passive bystanders often experience a profound deficit in self-efficacy, harboring anxieties that their intervention will be ineffective, socially censured, or physically and relationally dangerous. By assessing specific dimensions of peer intervention self-efficacy, the scale enables educators and researchers to differentiate between students who fail to act due to moral indifference versus those who fail to act due to low self-efficacy or anticipated negative consequences.
In applied research, the SEBPIS functions as an evaluative benchmark for school-wide anti-bullying interventions, such as the KiVa Anti-Bullying Program, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, and socio-emotional learning (SEL) curricula. Programs seeking to alter school climate must foster not merely empathy, but high self-efficacy regarding intervention skills and institutional support. The SEBPIS can be deployed in longitudinal tracking to evaluate whether pedagogical units on conflict resolution, assertiveness, and teacher reporting translate into elevated self-efficacy scores, thereby predicting downstream reductions in sustained peer victimization.
5. Psychological Construct
The psychological construct assessed by the SEBPIS is peer intervention self-efficacy in bullying contexts. Grounded in psychological measurement, this construct does not merely reflect general self-esteem or generalized self-efficacy; rather, it represents a domain-specific, context-dependent constellation of agency perceptions, instrumental knowledge, social-support expectations, and threat appraisals. The scale encompasses several operational facets:
Perceived Behavioral and Instrumental Competence
This facet assesses an individual’s confidence in their strategic and practical repertoire when confronted with an active bullying episode. Item 3 (“I would know what to do to help someone being bullied”) operationalizes whether the student possesses concrete, accessible action plans. Self-efficacy in this dimension reflects procedural knowledge (e.g., knowing how to de-escalate verbal hostility, safely distract a perpetrator, escort a target to safety, or report an incident appropriately). Without actionable procedural schemas, general moral distress fails to translate into constructive behavioral intervention.
Perceived Personal Agency and Locus of Control
Personal agency measures the extent to which the bystander believes their presence and actions hold systemic weight within the classroom ecology. Item 2 (“I can affect whether there is bullying in my class”) and Item 1 (“It is not my business to do anything about bullying”) examine internal versus external locus of control and moral responsibility. A student exhibiting low personal agency perceives bullying as an immutable environmental condition outside their control, precipitating moral disengagement and diffusion of responsibility.
Outcome Expectancies: Efficacy of Intervention Efforts
Bandura distinguished between efficacy expectations (the belief that one can produce a behavior) and outcome expectations (the belief that the executed behavior will produce a desired result). The SEBPIS heavily samples outcome expectancies. Item 6 (“Students who try to stop bullying are usually successful”) and Item 10 (“It makes no difference whether students intervene in bullying”) measure whether the respondent views peer intervention as fundamentally functional or futile. If youth believe peer resistance inevitably fails to alter perpetrator behavior, motivation to intervene plummets.
Perceived Institutional and Adult Efficacy
Children navigate a structural hierarchy in school settings. When peer-level interventions are inadequate or dangerous, reporting to adult authorities represents a primary intervening strategy. Item 5 (“If I tell my teacher about bullying s/he will be able to help”) captures institutional trust and teacher-intervention efficacy. If students anticipate that educators will dismiss reports, mishandle disclosures, or exacerbate peer retaliation, bystander reporting behaviors drop precipitously.
Anticipated Retaliation and Social Risk
Intervening in peer conflict carries intrinsic social and physical hazards. Items 4 (“If I try to help a classmate being bullied, the bully will turn on me”) and 9 (“Students who try to stop bullying are usually bullied next”) assess the perceived risk of victim substitution and social retribution. When fear of personal victimization is pronounced, self-preservation instincts override pro-social motivations, reinforcing bystander neutrality or collusion.
Normative Climate and Peer Social Capital
Defending behaviors are profoundly influenced by micro-systemic peer norms. Item 7 (“My friends support me when I try to stop bullying”) measures social capital and perceived peer reinforcement, while Item 8 (“Bullying has been discussed in my class”) operationalizes normative institutional salience. A bystander who anticipates peer solidarity experiences lower subjective threat, amplifying self-efficacy.
6. Theoretical Framework
The SEBPIS is grounded in two primary theoretical paradigms: Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and Latané and Darley’s Bystander Intervention Model, integrated with Christina Salmivalli’s Participant Role Approach to School Bullying.
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Efficacy
Social Cognitive Theory posits that human functioning is governed by triadic reciprocal causation involving cognitive, affective, and biological personal factors, environmental influences, and behavioral patterns. Bandura (1997) emphasized that self-efficacy beliefs constitute the core foundational mechanism of human agency. Individuals rarely execute tasks unless they believe their actions will yield successful outcomes.
In bullying scenarios, an adolescent must orchestrate emotional regulation, assertiveness, communication, and risk management under severe time constraints and peer surveillance. Bandura differentiated between:
- Self-Efficacy Expectations: The subjective assessment of one’s capability to organize and execute required actions (e.g., confronting an aggressor or consoling a victim).
- Outcome Expectations: Judgments of the probable consequences of such behaviors (e.g., successful cessation vs. personal retaliation).
The SEBPIS integrates both expectations: if a student possesses high behavioral capability beliefs (Item 3) but negative outcome expectancies (Item 4 and Item 9), passive bystander behavior remains dominant.
Latané and Darley’s Cognitive Model of Bystander Intervention
The classic five-stage decision-making model of bystander intervention by Bibb Latané and John Darley (1970) provides direct structural architecture for the SEBPIS. The model stipulates that an individual must navigate five successive sequential steps before prosocial assistance occurs:
- Notice that an event is occurring: Captured in part by classroom awareness and discourse (Item 8).
- Interpret the event as an emergency/transgression: Recognizing bullying as unacceptable rather than harmless peer play.
- Assume personal responsibility: Overcoming the diffusion of responsibility (Item 1: “It is not my business…” and Item 2: “I can affect…”).
- Determine that one has the skills to help: Deciding on the appropriate form of assistance (Item 3: “I would know what to do…”).
- Implement the intervention: Weighing costs versus benefits, where fear of retaliation (Items 4, 9) and anticipated futility (Item 10) threaten behavioral execution.
Salmivalli’s Participant Role Framework
The theoretical framing is completed by Salmivalli et al. (1996), who demonstrated that bullying cannot be analyzed solely in terms of individual psychopathology, but rather as an emergent property of classroom social architectures. Bystanders reinforce bullying through passive attention or direct cheering, or diminish it through defending. The SEBPIS provides a psychometric bridge explaining why individuals who hold pro-victim attitudes either mobilize into active Defenders or retreat into passive Outsiders based on their perceived social intervention self-efficacy.
7. Validity
Empirical evaluations of the SEBPIS demonstrate sound psychometric validity across distinct adolescent and young-adult cohorts.
Construct and Convergent Validity
Construct validity has been substantiated through predicted associations with established measures of bystander intervention, empathy, moral responsibility, and participant roles. In Kingston’s (2008) foundational investigation, scores on the SEBPIS correlated positively and significantly with active defending behavior (measured via peer nominations and self-report scales) and showed robust positive associations with pro-victim attitudes and personal responsibility. Conversely, self-efficacy scores were inversely correlated with passive outsider behaviors and reinforcement of the bully.
Kane (2015) examined the convergence between the SEBPIS and operational measures of empathy (the Basic Empathy Scale) and personal responsibility. Bivariate correlations demonstrated statistically significant positive correlations between the SEBPIS composite score and affective/cognitive empathy (r ≈ .31 to .42, p < .01) as well as personal responsibility for intervention (r ≈ .48, p < .001). Students who scored higher on the SEBPIS were significantly more likely to be classified into the “Defender” participant role than into “Outsider” or “Reinforcer” categories, providing robust construct validation.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is supported by weak or non-significant correlations with generalized academic self-efficacy and socially desirable responding. This confirms that the SEBPIS does not simply reflect an adolescent’s general confidence or a generalized positivity bias, but instead isolates domain-specific efficacy within peer-victimization contexts. Furthermore, multi-trait analyses indicate that fear-of-retaliation items (Items 4 and 9) correlate moderately with measures of social anxiety and peer rejection sensitivity, while personal competence items (Items 2 and 3) correlate selectively with assertiveness and social competence measures.
Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity
In predictive modeling, higher SEBPIS total scores reliably predict past and intention-to-intervene behaviors in simulated bystander vignettes. Regression analyses conducted across bystander literature indicate that intervention self-efficacy functions as a critical mediator between moral disengagement and actual intervention: even when moral disengagement is low, individuals will not defend peers unless self-efficacy beliefs regarding peer intervention are high.
8. Reliability
The reliability of the SEBPIS has been evaluated through multiple indices of internal consistency, item-total correlations, and measurement stability across diverse adolescent samples.
Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)
In the original validation study by Kingston (2008), the scale demonstrated acceptable to good internal consistency, with a reported global Cronbach’s alpha of α = .73. Subsequent independent psychometric testing by Kane (2015) yielded an alpha coefficient of α = .70 across an adolescent cohort. In related research utilizing adapted bystander efficacy indices based on this structural framework, Cronbach’s alpha values typically fall between .70 and .82, satisfying standard psychometric criteria for brief screening instruments.
Item-Total Correlations and Sub-Domain Coherence
Corrected item-total correlations across the scale generally exceed the recommended threshold of .30, ranging from .32 to .56. Items 2, 3, 6, and 10 consistently display strong positive correlations with the overall scale score. Items capturing fear of retaliation (Items 4 and 9) exhibit adequate negative correlations with unreversed total scores, confirming their utility when reverse-scored.
| Metric | Observed Range / Value | Psychometric Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| Cronbach’s Alpha (α) | .70 – .74 (Composite) | ≥ .70 (Acceptable for short scales) |
| Item-Total Correlations | .32 – .56 | ≥ .30 (Acceptable discrimination) |
| Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) | Approx. 2.1 – 2.5 points | Low relative to total score range (10-40) |
Test-Retest Stability
While intervention studies document significant changes in SEBPIS scores following targeted bystander training, longitudinal observational control groups demonstrate moderate test-retest reliability across 4- to 8-week intervals (r = .68 to .75). This demonstrates that while the construct has sufficient trait-like stability to serve as a reliable baseline measurement, it remains sensitive to environmental and educational interventions.
9. Factor Analysis
The structural dimensionality of the SEBPIS has been investigated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with oblique rotation (Promax or Direct Oblimin) typically reveal a multi-dimensional structure that coalesces into a primary higher-order factor of General Peer Intervention Efficacy alongside two to three interpretable sub-dimensions:
- Factor 1: Personal Competence & Direct Agency (Items 1, 2, 3, 10). High positive factor loadings (e.g., .55 to .78) appear on items addressing individual capability, agency, and responsibility.
- Factor 2: Perceived Retaliation & Personal Risk (Items 4, 9). Items reflecting fear of becoming the next victim load distinctly on this factor (loadings > .65), highlighting that risk calculation functions as a distinct cognitive dimension from procedural skill.
- Factor 3: Systemic / Contextual Support (Items 5, 6, 7, 8). These items capture adult reliability, peer solidarity, and classroom discourse, loading between .45 and .70.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices
When subjected to CFA, empirical evaluations comparing a unidimensional model against a correlated multidimensional model consistently favor the multidimensional or bifactor representation. For a correlated two-factor model (Personal Agency/Outcome Efficacy vs. Perceived Retaliation/Risk), typical goodness-of-fit indices satisfy conventional psychometric standards:
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92 – .95
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 – .93
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 – .065 (90% CI [.035, .078])
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042 – .055
These indices confirm that although researchers commonly compute a single composite score across all 10 items (following appropriate reverse scoring), the underlying construct integrates both proactive intervention beliefs and perceived social-ecological risks.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Instrument Name: Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Peer Intervention Scale (SEBPIS)
- Test Type: Psychometric self-report survey / Rating scale
- Target Population: Upper elementary, middle school, secondary school students, and emerging adults (ages approximately 10 to 19 years).
- Item Count: 10 items
- Response Scale: 4-point Likert scale:
- 1 = Strongly Disagree
- 2 = Disagree
- 3 = Agree
- 4 = Strongly Agree
- Scoring Rules:
- Direct Scoring: Positively phrased items are scored directly: Item 2, Item 3, Item 5, Item 6, Item 7, Item 8 (1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4).
- Reverse Scoring: Negatively phrased items must be reverse-scored prior to calculating sum or mean scores: Item 1, Item 4, Item 9, and Item 10 (1 → 4, 2 → 3, 3 → 2, 4 → 1).
- Total Score Calculation: Sum of all 10 items (range: 10 to 40) or mean composite score (range: 1.0 to 4.0).
- Score Interpretation: Higher composite scores reflect greater perceived self-efficacy, instrumental readiness, and confidence to intervene against peer bullying, alongside lower perceived danger of peer retaliation.
- Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 7 minutes.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Peer Intervention Scale was originally formulated in 2008 by Shauna Kingston at Brock University. As an instrument developed within an institutional master’s thesis and academic research setting, the scale is generally available for non-commercial, scholarly, and educational research purposes under standard academic fair-use guidelines.
Researchers intending to employ the SEBPIS in published research, school evaluations, or clinical programs should properly cite the primary development work (Kingston, 2008) and relevant validation studies (e.g., Kane, 2015). No licensing fees or purchase costs are required for non-commercial educational use. Modification of items or adaptation into non-English languages requires standard back-translation protocols and appropriate acknowledgment of the original author.
12. References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-08589-000
Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011). Individual and collective social cognitive influences on peer aggression: Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20375
Kane, M. (2015). The relationship between self-efficacy, empathy and personal responsibility on bullying participant roles (BA Hons Thesis, Dublin Business School). Dublin Business School eSource Repository. http://esource.dbs.ie/handle/10788/2810
Kingston, S. (2008). Bullying as a social process: Factors influencing bystander behaviours (Master’s thesis, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario). Brock University Digital Repository. https://dr.library.brocku.ca/handle/10464/1413
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-19253-000
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and felt peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(6), 815–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9412-2
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T
Thornberg, R., Tenenbaum, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., & Alm, S. (2012). Bystander motivation in bullying situations: To intervene or not to intervene? Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2012.3.11792