Bystander intervention (i.e., a third party decides to defend a victim when witnessing a conflict) has been identified as an effective strategy to resolve bullying incidents (O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999). Researchers suggest that student willingness to intervene (WTI) is a robust predictor of bystander intervention (Nickerson, Aloe, Livingston, & Feeley, 2014). Toxic masculinity has been defined as “the constellation of socially regressive [masculine] traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence” (Kupers, 2005, p. 71). Though some aspects of toxic masculinity (e.g., low empathy) have received some empirical attention regarding their role in determining prosocial behavior, many aspects of toxic masculinity have not. Little research has examined how constructs such as attitudes surrounding bullying and sexual harassment, social dominance orientation, and homophobic bullying are related to longitudinal changes in WTI across adolescence. The present study uses growth mixture modeling (GMM) to examine the heterogeneity of WTI among middle school boys in the Midwest (N = 805). Students were classified into three profiles of WTI over time: a “stable high” class (70.9%), a “decreasing” class (22%), and a “stable low” class (7.1%). When compared with the “stable high” class, students with higher levels of dominance and pro-bullying attitudes were associated with an 11% (AOR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.01–1.21] and a 55% (AOR = 1.55, 95% CI [1.05–2.31] increase in the odds of being in the “decreasing” class, respectively. Youth who reported higher rates of homophobic name calling perpetration had a 16% (AOR = 1.16, 95% CI [1.02–1.34] increase in the odds of being in the stable low class compared to the stable high class. Additionally, both homophobic name calling victimization and empathy were associated with a 17% (AOR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.70–0.98] and 18% (AOR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.69–0.98] lower odds of being in the stable low class. The findings support the theoretical framework which posits that features of toxic masculinity are associated with less WTI and thus carry implications for intervention design (Carlson, 2008; Leone et al., 2016).

旁观者的干预（即，第三方在目睹冲突时决定为受害者辩护）已被视为解决欺凌事件的有效策略（O'Connell，Pepler和Craig，1999年）。研究人员认为，学生的干预意愿（WTI）是旁观者干预的有力预测指标（Nickerson，Aloe，Livingston和Feeley，2014年）。有毒的男性气质被定义为“有助于促进统治，社会贬值的女性，同性恋恐惧症和肆意暴力的社会退缩[男性]特征群（Kupers，2005，第71页）。尽管毒性男性气质的某些方面（例如，低同理心）在决定亲社会行为方面的作用受到了一些经验性关注，但毒性男性气质的许多方面都没有。很少有研究检查诸如欺凌和性骚扰的态度，社会支配倾向以及同性恋恐惧凌辱等构想与整个青少年期WTI的纵向变化之间的关系。本研究使用生长混合模型（GMM）来检验中西部中学男孩中WTI的异质性（N  = 805）。随着时间的推移，学生被分为三类：“稳定高”班（70.9％），“下降”班（22％）和“稳定低”班（7.1％）。与“稳定的高水平”班级相比，具有较高支配地位和乐观态度的学生与11％（AOR  = 1.11，95 ％CI [1.01-1.21]和55％（AOR  = 1.55，95）相关。％CI [1.05-2.31]增加了在被胜算“下降”少年班，分别。谁报告同性恋对骂犯下的高利率有16％（AOR  = 1.16，95％CI[1.02-1.34]增加在作为比值稳定的低类相比，稳定的高类。此外，仇视同性恋者的名字被称为受害和同理心的发生率分别降低17％（AOR  = 0.83，95 ％CI [0.70-0.98]和18％（AOR  = 0.82，95 ％CI [0.69-0.98]）。稳定的低。类的发现支持它指有毒男性化，具有与以下相关联的WTI并且因此携带用于干预的设计含义理论框架（卡尔森，2008; Leone等人，2016）。