Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self‐efficacy

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate how basic moral sensitivity in bullying, moral disengagement in bullying and defender self‐efficacy were related to different bystander behaviors in bullying. Therefore, we examined pathways that linked students' basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement, and defender self‐efficacy to different bystander behaviors in bullying situations. Three hundred and forty‐seven teenagers completed a bullying survey. Findings indicated that compared with boys, girls expressed higher basic moral sensitivity in bullying, lower defender self‐efficacy and moral disengagement in bullying. Results from the SEM showed that basic moral sensitivity in bullying was negatively related to pro‐bully behavior and positively related to outsider and defender behavior, mediated by moral disengagement in bullying, which in turn was positively related to pro‐bully behavior and negatively related to outsider and defender behavior. What differed in the relations between outsider and defender behaviors was the degree of defender self‐efficacy.

Unique and Interactive Effects of Moral Emotions and Moral Disengagement on Bullying and Defending among School Children

“…Specifically, we tested whether moral disengagement and moral emotions uniquely contributed to explain both behaviors and whether the two moral dimensions interacted with each other in explaining these behaviors in bullying situations. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Caravita et al, 2012;Gini, 2006;Gini et al, 2011;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013), moral disengagement was positively associated with bullying behavior and negatively associated with defending behavior. As hypothesized, these associations remained when moral emotions were included in the same model.…”

“…In the context of bullying, students with higher levels of moral disengagement are more likely to take the bullying role (Caravita, Gini, & Pozzoli, 2012;Gini, 2006;Gini et al, 2011;Hymel, Rocke-Henderson, & Bonanno, 2005;Obermann, 2011a;Thornberg & Jungert, 2014) or pro-bullying roles (Gini, 2006;Pozzoli, Gini, & Vieno, 2012;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013) and less likely to take the defender role (Caravita et al, 2012;Gini, 2006;Obermann, 2011b;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013).…”

Bystanders to bullying: fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions

“…Barchia & Bussey, 2011;Gini et al, 2007Gini et al, , 2008Obermann, 2011;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013), the current study was designed to have students discuss their experiences, thoughts, and motives in their own words, in order to arrive at a good understanding about what matters to them as students. 'Analysis of children's own understandings of the social conditions of childhood is an important pre-condition for considering what policies are appropriate to enable children to lead satisfying lives' (Mayall, 2008, p. 122).…”

Learners’ constructions of bullying in a South African school context

“…Learners' understandings of bullying drew on how dynamics of power based on social identities constructions were used and acted out in conformity with the dominant culture within the school context. The low social status (Olweus 1994) Learners' exposure to images of bullying and violence today, via the electronic media, was found to contribute to relationships of bullying in the school (Thornberg & Jongert 2013). Indeed, some learners' imitation of their TV screen heroes through bullying games at school subjected the targeted learners to the inhumane treatment of bullying in the form of violent wrestling games, which the bullies regarded as entertainment.…”