New international research is challenging a widely promoted strategy for tackling school bullying in Australia, suggesting that actively encouraging students to be 'upstanders' may not deliver the intended benefits and could even make situations worse.
The Government's Push for 'Upstanders'
Last month, the federal government released a rapid review into bullying, with Education Minister Jason Clare encouraging schools to mobilise students as 'upstanders'—people prepared to stand up and not walk past the problem. This recommendation aligns with many anti-bullying programs promoted across Australian schools, which often focus heavily on training bystanders to defend victims.
The concept gained global traction in the late 1990s through the work of leading Finnish psychologist Christina Salmivalli. She argued that because bullying is a group phenomenon, interventions must target the whole peer group, not just the individuals directly involved. The idea is that if a student witnesses bullying—like ridicule about a peer's appearance—they should step in and tell the perpetrator to stop.
What Does the Latest Evidence Reveal?
Despite its intuitive appeal, a growing body of peer-reviewed research does not support the effectiveness of this approach. Several large, longitudinal studies conducted since 2020 have failed to show that peer defence reduces bullying or improves victim outcomes.
A 2023 Dutch study of over 5,000 students found that victims who were defended by peers at the start of the school year showed no difference in self-esteem, depression, or bullying severity by year's end compared to those not defended.
Similarly, a 2025 Chinese study involving more than 1,000 students concluded that bystander defence did not make a victim less likely to be bullied six months later. A concurrent Finnish study of over 6,000 students also found no difference in bullying or psychological problems between victims who had been defended and those who had not.
These findings contradict a long-held assumption. Earlier analyses, like a 2011 meta-analysis, declared programs 'effective' simply for increasing bystander support, without examining the actual impact on bullying.
Why Might 'Upstanding' Be Counterproductive?
Meta-analyses investigating the components of effective anti-bullying programs provide further caution. A 2011 study found programs incorporating peer strategies were less effective. A 2021 analysis distinguished between 'informal' peer discussions, which helped, and actively encouraging bystander intervention, which was associated with reduced effectiveness in cutting victimisation.
Experts suggest several reasons why mobilising upstanders could backfire. Making bullying more public by involving more peers can stigmatise the victim, potentially leading to social shunning and renewed targeting. A wider audience might also inadvertently encourage some perpetrators. Furthermore, the dynamics of who intervenes, their social status, and how they intervene are critical and often unmanaged factors.
What Should Schools Do Instead?
Karyn Healy, an honorary principal research fellow in psychology at The University of Queensland, advises schools to be wary of dedicated upstander programs. The evidence points to more effective strategies for a whole-school approach.
Key evidence-backed measures include:
- Implementing a clear, whole-school anti-bullying policy.
- Maintaining consistent and fair discipline.
- Providing direct support for victims.
- Engaging and informing parents.
- Facilitating low-key, informal class discussions about supporting peers and seeking teacher help.
On average, comprehensive whole-school programs reduce bullying reports by only 15-16%, highlighting the complexity of the issue. While future research may identify specific circumstances where bystander involvement helps, current evidence suggests schools should prioritise strategies that do not inadvertently highlight victims to their peers.
