Bystander behaviour in peer victimisation: moral disengagement, defender self-efficacy and student-teacher relationship quality

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine how different bystander roles in peer victimisation situations relate to moral disengagement, defender self-efficacy, and student-teacher relationship quality. Self-reported survey data were collected from 333 middle and junior high school students (10-15 years of age) from four schools in Sweden. Random intercept model analyses of factor scores revealed that, when witnessing peer victimisation, students high in moral disengagement and low in defender self-efficacy were more inclined to act as reinforcers or outsiders, and that students high in defender self-efficacy and student-teacher relationship quality were more inclined to act as defenders. Furthermore, examining these relationships within and between classes revealed that reinforcer and outsider behaviours were more common among students who, compared to their classmates, were higher in moral disengagement and lower in defender self-efficacy, whereas defending was more common among students who, compared to their classmates, were higher in defender self-efficacy. The results enrich the knowledge of factors related to different bystander behaviours, which has potential implications for prevention and intervention work.

Standing up for the victim or supporting the bully? Bystander responses and their associations with moral disengagement, defender self-efficacy, and collective efficacy

“…Thus, our study suggests that the capacity to enact moral agency among students when they are witnessing school bullying is dependent on their beliefs in their individual capacities to successfully intervene and help the victim, which, in turn, supports the social-cognitive theory of moral agency (Bandura 2016). In accordance with our hypothesis and a few previous studies (Pöyhönen et al 2012;Sjögren et al 2020;Thornberg and Jungert 2013), defender self-efficacy was found to be linked to greater reinforcing, even though the link was weak. Thus, low defender self-efficacy does not only inhibit defending and increases the risk that students remain passive as bystanders (e.g., Thornberg and Jungert 2013;Thornberg et al 2017) but also that they laugh and cheer on the bullies.…”

“…In accordance with our hypothesis and the very few previous studies (Gini 2006;Sjögren et al 2020;Thornberg and Jungert 2013), it was found that moral disengagement was positively associated with reinforcing, suggesting that students with a stronger tendency to morally disengage in bullying situations are more inclined to laugh and cheer on the bullies when witnessing school bullying. In other words, moral disengagement is not only linked to greater bullying perpetration (Gini et al 2014) but also to a bystander behavior that previous studies have shown to be associated with a higher bullying prevalence among classmates (Kärnä et al 2010;Nocentini et al 2013;Salmivalli et al 2011;Thornberg and Wänström 2018).…”

“…Contrary to our hypothesis and previous studies (e.g., Gini 2006;Gini et al 2018b;Pozzoli et al 2016;Thornberg et al 2015;Thornberg et al, 2017), but in line with Barchia and Bussey's (2011b) and Sjögren and colleagues' studies, moral disengagement was not significantly associated with defending in the current study. This relationship tends to be significant but weak in other studies (e.g., Gini et al 2018b;Mazzone et al 2016;Thornberg et al 2017), particularly in comparison to how moral disengagement is related to bullying (Gini 2006;Thornberg et al 2015) and reinforcing (Gini 2006;Sjögren et al 2020;Thornberg and Jungert 2013). In Killer and colleagues' (2019) meta-analysis, the negative link between moral disengagement and defending was in fact weaker than the positive link between moral disengagement and bullying.…”

“…Examples of moral disengagement mechanisms are moral justification (i.e., using worthy ends or moral purposes to excuse pernicious means), diffusion of responsibility (i.e., diluting personal responsibility because other people are also involved), disregarding or distorting the negative or harmful consequences of the actions, and blaming the victim (i.e., believing that the victim deserves his or her suffering). Moral disengagement is associated with greater aggression, including bullying (for a meta-analyses, see Gini et al 2014;Killer et al 2019), assisting and reinforcing (Gini 2006;Sjögren et al 2020;Thornberg and Jungert 2013), and less defending (Doramajian and Bukowski 2015;Gini 2006;Gini et al 2018b;Mazzone et al 2016;Obermann 2011;Pozzoli et al 2016;Jungert 2013, 2014;Thornberg et al 2015Thornberg et al , 2017; for a meta-analysis, see Killer et al 2019; for exceptions, see Barchia and Bussey 2011b;Sjögren et al 2020) in bullying and peer aggression among students.…”

Associations between individual and collective efficacy beliefs and students' bystander behavior

“…Without having a strong belief in one's ability to help victims, intervention would be unlikely. In line with this tenet, previous research has found defender self‐efficacy to be associated with greater defending and less passive bystanding (e.g., Pronk et al, 2013; Sjögren, Thornberg, Wänström, & Gini, 2020; Thornberg et al, 2017).…”