Revised Pro-victim Scale

Abstract

The Revised Pro-victim Scale (RPVS; Rigby, 1997) is a concise, 10-item psychometric instrument designed to measure individual attitudes and peer group norms regarding victims of school bullying. Derived from the original 20-item Pro-Victim Scale developed by Ken Rigby and Phillip T. Slee (1991, 1993), the revised version provides a streamlined, developmentally sensitive measure of the degree to which children and adolescents express empathy, supportive attitudes, and moral concern toward targeted peers, versus attitudes characterized by victim derogation, victim blaming, and the endorsement of aggressive dominance. Administered using a three-point categorical response format (Agree, Unsure, Disagree), the RPVS captures two conceptually linked dimensions: supportive, empathic orientations toward bullied peers (manifested in items defending victims and opposing aggressive acts) and derogatory, anti-victim attitudes rooted in contempt for perceived vulnerability (manifested in items framing victims as deserving of maltreatment or as weak). Psychometric investigations across diverse international samples demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .73 to .84), robust test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals, and strong convergent validity with measures of affective empathy, prosocial bystander intervention, and anti-bullying institutional climates. Conversely, lower scores correlate significantly with moral disengagement, bullying perpetration, and passive bystander reinforcement. Factor analytic studies typically reveal either a dominant general factor reflecting an overarching pro-victim versus pro-bully continuum, or a well-fitting two-factor solution distinguishing positive support for victims from victim rejection. This paper presents an exhaustive academic review of the scale’s theoretical architecture, development history, psychometric attributes, scoring procedures, clinical and pedagogical utilities, and complete authentic administration protocol.

Keywords

Revised Pro-victim Scale, RPVS, Ken Rigby, peer victimization, school bullying, bystander intervention, victim blaming, moral disengagement, adolescent attitudes, psychometrics

Authors

The Revised Pro-victim Scale was developed by Dr. Ken Rigby, Adjunct Professor of School of Education at the University of South Australia, in collaboration with foundational psychometric contributions by Dr. Phillip T. Slee, Professor of Human Development in the College of Education, Psychology, and Social Work at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Ken Rigby, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized authority on peer relations, school-based bullying, and restorative intervention frameworks. Throughout his career spanning more than four decades, Dr. Rigby has authored over one hundred peer-reviewed journal articles, government policy reports, and authoritative books, including Bullying in Schools: And What to Do About It (2007), Children and Bullying: How Parents and Educators Can Reduce Bullying at School (2008), and Bullying in Schools: Six Methods of Intervention (2010). His research has focused on the systemic assessment of school safety climates, the developmental trajectories of victimized youth, and the formulation of non-punitive methods such as the Method of Shared Concern. Inquiries regarding Dr. Rigby’s research tools and interventions are maintained via the University of South Australia and his dedicated educational archives.

Phillip T. Slee, Ph.D., co-developed the initial 20-item scale (Rigby & Slee, 1991, 1993). Dr. Slee is a developmental psychologist whose scholarship centers on child well-being, stress coping mechanisms, and socio-emotional health in primary and secondary educational settings.

Purpose

The Revised Pro-victim Scale was formulated to address a critical empirical and operational gap in the developmental and educational psychology literature: the systematic assessment of youth attitudes toward peer victimization. While early bullying research primarily quantified behavioral frequencies—such as how often students engaged in physical, verbal, or relational aggression, or how often they experienced victimization—Rigby recognized that overt behaviors are heavily mediated by latent socio-normative attitudes, peer group expectations, and moral cognitions.

Diagnostic and Research Utility

The RPVS functions both as a population-level screening instrument and as an evaluative research metric. In primary, middle, and secondary school environments, the scale is deployed to:

• Gauge School Climate and Peer Norms: The aggregate profile of pro-victim attitudes provides educators with a quantifiable index of collective empathy and moral engagement within classroom and school-wide cohorts.
• Evaluate Anti-Bullying Interventions: Evaluators use the scale in pre-test/post-test and longitudinal designs to examine whether systemic interventions (e.g., the Friendly Schools Friendly Families program, KiVa, or restorative practice curricula) succeed in shifting peer culture away from victim blaming and toward active, supportive allyship.
• Identify At-Risk Cohorts: Classrooms or demographic sub-groups exhibiting elevated anti-victim sentiments (e.g., endorsing items that assert victims “deserve it” or are “wimps”) can be targeted for targeted socio-emotional learning, moral development workshops, and bystander mobilization initiatives.
• Model Peer Group Dynamics: In structural equation modeling and longitudinal developmental studies, the RPVS serves as a reliable mediator or moderator between individual empathy, personality dimensions (e.g., agreeableness, callous-unemotional traits), and observable bystander behaviors (defending, assisting, or passive reinforcers).

Theoretical Rationale

The fundamental theoretical proposition underlying the scale is that peer victimization persists not merely because of aggressive personalities, but because peer contexts often tacitly validate bullying by pathologizing or dehumanizing the victim. By measuring the degree to which an individual rejects victim-blaming attitudes and actively desires institutional or interpersonal intervention on behalf of victims, researchers can uncover the attitudinal substrate that either suppresses or facilitates overt bystander intervention.

Psychological Construct

The Revised Pro-victim Scale assesses an individual’s evaluative stance toward targets of peer maltreatment. This attitudinal construct exists along a continuous spectrum ranging from strong pro-victim orientation (characterized by empathy, outrage at injustice, and a desire to see targeted peers protected and supported) to an anti-victim / pro-bullying orientation (characterized by victim blaming, contempt for perceived vulnerability, and amusement at victim distress).

Dimensions of the Construct

Although typically scored as a unidimensional composite to index overall pro-victim orientation, the construct consists of two mutually reinforcing, complementary dimensions:

1. Empathic Support and Justice Valuation (Pro-Victim / Anti-Bullying Stance)

This positive dimension measures the affective and moral rejection of peer abuse. It taps into visceral emotional responses to unfair treatment, the valorization of protective bystander behavior, and the conceptualization of bullies as socially transgressing actors. Specific operational facets include:

• Moral Indignation toward Injustice: Reflected in items assessing visceral distress when peers are targeted arbitrarily (e.g., Item 9: “It makes me angry when a kid is picked on without reason”).
• Affirmation of Protective Action: Endorsement of peers who challenge bullies and protect targets (e.g., Item 10: “I like it when someone sticks up for kids who are being bullied”).
• Prescriptive Sanctioning of Aggressors: The belief that the strong have an ethical obligation to refrain from harming the weak, and that aggressors must be held accountable (e.g., Item 5: “Kids who hurt others weaker than themselves should be told off”; Item 7: “You should not pick on someone who is weaker than you”).
• De-glorification of Aggression: Stripping bullies of social status by framing them pejoratively (e.g., Item 2: “A bully is really a coward”).

2. Victim Derogation and Justification of Maltreatment (Anti-Victim Stance)

The inverse dimension operationalizes cognitive strategies used to rationalize peer aggression. Drawing directly on constructs of moral disengagement and the belief in a just world, this dimension measures:

• Attribution of Blame (Deservingness): The belief that individuals who are victimized provoke, merit, or bring about their own suffering through behavioral or social shortcomings (e.g., Item 1: “Kids who get picked on a lot usually deserve it”).
• Contempt for Emotional Vulnerability: Visceral revulsion toward peers deemed “soft” or “wimps,” which serves to strip targets of empathic protection (e.g., Item 6: “Soft kids make me sick”; Item 8: “Nobody likes a wimp”).
• Suppression of Grievances: The belief that victims should endure maltreatment silently rather than seeking help (e.g., Item 3: “Kids should not complain about being bullied”).
• Malicious Amusement (Schadenfreude): Finding interpersonal distress humorous rather than distressing (e.g., Item 4: “It’s funny to see kids get upset when they are teased”).

Theoretical Framework

The development and interpretation of the Revised Pro-victim Scale are grounded in several major theoretical models within social, developmental, and cognitive psychology.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Disengagement

Albert Bandura’s (1986, 1999) theory of moral disengagement is central to the RPVS. Bandura posited that individuals regulate their conduct through self-sanctions rooted in internal moral standards. However, these self-regulatory mechanisms can be selectively deactivated through psychological mechanisms, two of which are measured directly by the RPVS:

1. Attribution of Blame: By viewing victims as the cause of their own torment, aggressors and passive bystanders view maltreatment as a justifiable punishment or natural consequence rather than an act of cruelty.
2. Dehumanization / Derogation: Viewing victims as contemptible (e.g., “wimps” or “soft”) lowers the threshold for aggressive behavior by neutralizing social empathy.

The Bystander Intervention Model

Adapted from the classic social psychological framework of Latané and Darley (1970) and expanded to school contexts by Christina Salmivalli (1996, 1999), the bystander model argues that effective intervention requires an observer to: (a) notice an event, (b) interpret it as an emergency or unacceptable violation, (c) accept personal responsibility to act, (d) determine the appropriate form of assistance, and (e) execute the intervention. The RPVS measures the core socio-cognitive filters that dictate Stage (b) and Stage (c). Students holding high pro-victim attitudes readily interpret peer harassment as unfair and feel a shared moral responsibility to assist, whereas students with anti-victim attitudes dismiss the event as harmless or deserved, leading to bystander passivity or reinforcer behaviors.

Lerner’s Just-World Hypothesis

Melvin Lerner’s (1980) Just-World Theory asserts that individuals possess an inherent psychological need to believe that the world is orderly, predictable, and fair—a place where people get what they deserve. When confronted with severe peer victimization that they cannot readily stop, youth often preserve their belief in a just world through defensive cognitive restructuring: deciding that the victim must have done something to merit the abuse. The RPVS explicitly captures this cognitive distortion through items measuring victim-deservingness.

Validity

The Revised Pro-victim Scale has undergone extensive empirical validation across multiple demographic groups, educational levels, and cultural settings.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Rigby (1997) demonstrated that the 10-item RPVS maintained strong factorial coherence with the original 20-item instrument (Rigby & Slee, 1991). Confirmatory factor analytic investigations consistently demonstrate that the RPVS exhibits moderate to high factor loadings on its primary dimensions, with root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values typically below .06, comparative fit index (CFI) values exceeding .92, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values below .05 when modeled either as a unidimensional continuum or as a correlated two-factor construct.

Convergent Validity

Extensive correlation analyses have validated the RPVS against established psychological metrics:

• Empathy: Scores on the RPVS correlate positively and strongly (typically r = .45 to .62, p < .001) with standardized measures of affective and cognitive empathy, such as the Basic Empathy Scale (BES) and Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI).
• Prosocial Behavior: The scale shares significant positive variance with peer-nominated and self-reported prosocial behavior (r ≈ .35 to .48).
• Anti-Bullying Social Norms: High RPVS scores correlate with student perceptions of school safety, positive teacher-student relationships, and clear anti-bullying school policies.

Discriminant Validity

The RPVS demonstrates distinct divergence from constructs measuring general academic competence, social desirability response biases, and introversion. Discriminant validity has also been documented with respect to general peer sociability: while pro-victim attitudes correlate with empathy, they do not merely mirror high peer popularity or general extraversion, demonstrating that the scale isolates specific moral and social evaluations of peer vulnerability rather than overall social functioning.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive utility of the RPVS is well-documented in observational and sociometric studies:

• Participant Role Behavior: In studies using Salmivalli’s Participant Role Questionnaire (PRQ), students with elevated RPVS scores are substantially more likely to be classified as Defenders of victims (β ≈ .38 to .52). Conversely, low RPVS scores robustly predict membership in Reinforcer or Assistant roles, as well as overt Bully status.
• Longitudinal Outcomes: In longitudinal cohort investigations conducted by Lester, Cross, and colleagues (2012), baseline pro-victim attitudes among secondary school transition cohorts served as a significant negative predictor of subsequent peer victimization escalation and internalizing symptoms, underscoring the protective role of pro-victim peer ecosystems.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Revised Pro-victim Scale has been established across primary, middle, and secondary school cohorts in diverse international contexts (e.g., Australia, the United Kingdom, Iran, and several European nations).

Internal Consistency

In the original validation cohorts analyzed by Rigby (1997) encompassing Australian school children aged 10 to 17 years, the internal consistency of the 10-item scale yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .75 to .83:

• Primary School Samples (Ages 10–12): Alpha coefficients regularly fall between .73 and .78. Although slightly lower than adolescent cohorts due to reading comprehension differences, the scale exceeds standard psychometric thresholds for short attitude inventories.
• Secondary School Samples (Ages 13–17): Alpha coefficients consistently fall between .79 and .84, reflecting stable attitudinal schemas in older adolescents.
• Cross-Cultural Adaptations: In psychometric adaptations across different languages (such as the Persian adaptation by Akbari-balootbangan & Talepasand, 2015), Cronbach’s alpha has remained robust, generally reporting values between .74 and .81.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations demonstrate that the RPVS measures enduring attitudinal orientations rather than transient emotional states. Across intervals of 4 to 8 weeks in non-intervention control groups, test-retest reliability coefficients have been observed within the range of r = .68 to .79 (p < .001). Over longer multi-wave longitudinal periods (e.g., 6 to 12 months), stability coefficients remain moderate (r ≈ .45 to .58), reflecting expected developmental plasticity and susceptibility to systemic school climate modifications.

Gender Variations in Reliability

Internal consistency metrics show comparability across genders, though females consistently achieve slightly higher mean pro-victim scores than males across all age bands (a universal finding in school bullying literature). Despite mean differences, Cronbach’s alpha remains statistically comparable for female cohorts (α ≈ .81–.84) and male cohorts (α ≈ .77–.82), demonstrating measurement stability across groups.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the Revised Pro-victim Scale has been examined using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across various developmental stages.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

When subjected to principal component analysis or principal axis factoring with oblique (e.g., Promax or Oblimin) rotation, the 10 items typically reveal a strong first principal factor accounting for 32% to 42% of the total variance, supporting the operational use of a single composite score. Scree test analyses and parallel analyses routinely indicate an eigenvalue drop-off after the first or second factor:

• Factor 1: Support for Victims / Opposition to Bullying: Defined primarily by reversed items (Items 2, 5, 7, 9, 10). Item factor loadings on this dimension consistently range from .52 to .76.
• Factor 2: Derogation of Weakness / Victim Blaming: Defined by positively phrased (unreversed) items (Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8). Factor loadings on this dimension range from .46 to .73.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Confirmatory investigations evaluate two competing structural models:

Model 1: Single-Factor Continuum

In this model, all 10 items load directly onto an overarching latent factor representing “Pro-Victim Attitude.” While fit indices for the unidimensional model are generally acceptable (e.g., χ²/df < 3.0; CFI ≈ .90–.93; RMSEA ≈ .055–.068), slight strain is often introduced by method variance associated with the directional phrasing of reversed versus non-reversed items.

Model 2: Correlated Two-Factor Solution

The correlated two-factor model separates “Pro-Victim / Defending Sentiment” (5 items) and “Victim Derogation / Rejection of Weakness” (5 items). This structure consistently exhibits superior model fit across independent cohorts:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .95 to .98
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .94 to .97
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .038 to .049 (with 90% CI [.025, .058])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .032 to .044
• Inter-factor Correlation: The two latent factors correlate moderately to strongly in the expected negative direction (r = -.52 to -.68, p < .001).

Representative Item Factor Loadings

Across validation studies (e.g., Rigby, 1997; Akbari-balootbangan & Talepasand, 2015), standardized factor loadings (λ) for the items on their designated latent factors are consistently moderate to high:

• Item 1 (Deserve it): λ = .58 to .67
• Item 2 (Bully is a coward): λ = .48 to .62
• Item 3 (Should not complain): λ = .54 to .66
• Item 4 (Funny to see kids upset): λ = .61 to .72
• Item 5 (Should be told off): λ = .59 to .74
• Item 6 (Soft kids make me sick): λ = .63 to .75
• Item 7 (Should not pick on weaker): λ = .56 to .71
• Item 8 (Nobody likes a wimp): λ = .52 to .68
• Item 9 (Makes me angry): λ = .60 to .75
• Item 10 (Sticks up for kids): λ = .64 to .78

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Revised Pro-victim Scale (RPVS)
• Original Authors: Dr. Ken Rigby (1997); derived from the Rigby & Slee (1991, 1993) Pro-Victim Scale
• Target Respondent Population: Children and adolescents (approximate age range: 10 to 18 years; Grade 4 through Grade 12)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or computer-administered self-report questionnaire
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 10 items
• Response Format: 3-point categorical rating scale:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
• Scoring Protocol and Directionality:
  • The instrument can be scored such that higher scores reflect more positive, supportive (pro-victim) attitudes.
  • Standard (Unreversed) Items (Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8): These statements reflect anti-victim / pro-bullying sentiments. When scoring for a Pro-Victim composite:
    • Agree = 1
    • Unsure = 2
    • Disagree = 3
  • Reversed Items (Items 2, 5, 7, 9, 10): These statements reflect supportive, pro-victim sentiments. They are reverse scored relative to the anti-victim items:
    • Agree = 3
    • Unsure = 2
    • Disagree = 1
  • Composite Score Calculation: Sum the points across all 10 items. Total scores range from 10 to 30.
  • Score Interpretation:
    • Scores 10–17: Low pro-victim orientation (high acceptance of bullying, frequent victim blaming, elevated risk of passive bystander reinforcement or aggressive participation).
    • Scores 18–23: Moderate / ambivalent pro-victim orientation (mixed attitudes, potential hesitation to defend victims, uncertainty regarding peer norms).
    • Scores 24–30: High pro-victim orientation (strong empathy for targets, rejection of victim blaming, high propensity for active bystander defense).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 1997 (initial 10-item revision published in the Irish Journal of Psychology; original 20-item scale published in 1991/1993).
• Copyright and Intellectual Property: Copyright © Ken Rigby (1997). The scale and its associated assessment questionnaires are documented on Ken Rigby’s official research portal.
• Permissions and Accessibility: The Revised Pro-victim Scale is an open-access psychometric instrument made freely available by the author for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scholarly research purposes. Schools, universities, and registered researchers may reproduce and administer the scale without paying royalty fees, provided full bibliographic citation is given to the original publications (Rigby, 1997; Rigby & Slee, 1993).
• Commercial Use: Any commercial reproduction, integration into proprietary digital platforms, or use within fee-for-service consulting packages requires formal written permission from the copyright holder.

References

• Akbari-balootbangan, A., & Talepasand, S. (2015). The factorial structure and psychometric properties of Bullying Prevalence Questionnaire in secondary schools. Journal of Education and Community Health, 2(2), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.21859/jech-02022
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
• Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3602-0
• Lester, L., Cross, D., Dooley, J., & Shaw, T. (2012). Developmental trajectories of adolescent victimization: Predictors and outcomes. Social Influence, 8(2-3), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.711711
• Lester, L., Cross, D., Shaw, T., & Dooley, J. (2012). Adolescent bully-victims: Social health and the transition to secondary school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2012.676630
• Lester, L., Dooley, J., Cross, D., & Shaw, T. (2012). Internalising symptoms: An antecedent or precedent in adolescent peer victimization. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.21
• Rigby, K. (1997). Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.1997.10558143
• Rigby, K. (2007). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it (Updated and rev. ed.). Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
• Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying: How parents and educators can reduce bullying at school. Blackwell Publishing.
• Rigby, K. (2010). Bullying in schools: Six methods of intervention. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
• Rigby, K. (2011). What can schools do about cases of bullying?. Pastoral Care in Education, 29(4), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2011.626068
• Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behaviour and attitudes towards victims. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(5), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9924646
• Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian school children and their implications for psychological wellbeing. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116
• Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status in 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

Items of the Scale