Individual and Classroom Social-Cognitive Processes in Bullying: A Short-Term Longitudinal Multilevel Study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine whether individual and classroom collective social-cognitive processes (moral disengagement and self-efficacy) were associated with bullying perpetration among schoolchildren. An additional aim was to examine whether changes in these processes from grade 4 (Time 1) to grade 5 (Time 2) were associated with a change in bullying perpetration. Self-reported survey data were collected from 1,250 Swedish students from 98 classrooms. Results of multilevel analysis indicated that individual and classroom collective moral disengagement (CMD) were positively associated with bullying, and defender self-efficacy (DSE) was negatively associated with bullying. The effect of changes in individual moral disengagement on changes in bullying was positive, and the effects of changes in DSE and classroom collective efficacy on changes in bullying were negative. Thus, the findings demonstrate the changeability of moral disengagement, DSE and collective efficacy over time, and how these changes are linked to changes in bullying perpetration.

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

“…Taken together, our findings suggest that perceived efficacy to stop peer victimization, both at the individual level and at the classroom level, contribute to explaining variability in students' defending and passive bystanding. Although our results did not discern what caused what, previous research suggests that collective efficacy beliefs influence students' behavior, including peer aggression (Barchia & Bussey, 2011a; Thornberg et al, 2019; Williams & Guerra, 2011) and bystander behavior (Barchia & Bussey, 2011b). This is also in line with the social cognitive theory, which posits that human agency operates through a triadic codetermination process of causation (Bandura, 1986).…”

“…Students might refrain from defending even if they have strong defender self‐efficacy beliefs, especially those having a low social status (Pöyhönen et al, 2010), as it could result in an increased risk of becoming future targets of peer victimization (Gini et al, 2008; Huitsing et al, 2014). Promoting and maintaining a high level of collective efficacy to stop peer victimization could foster the development of a positive and supporting classroom atmosphere (Thornberg et al, 2019), in which students are encouraged to stand up for victims of peer victimization. For example, collective efficacy could be nurtured by teaching different helping behavior and training both students and teachers in effective ways to deal with peer victimization.…”

“…We used a six‐item scale to measure students' beliefs in their ability to intervene successfully in peer victimization situations (i.e., defender self‐efficacy; Thornberg et al, 2019). The students were asked to estimate how true the following statements were, starting with “I feel that I'm very good at…” which was followed by the six items (e.g., “…telling off/standing up to students who are mean toward another student” and “…stopping students from hurting others”).…”

“…In another study, Barchia and Bussey (2011a) demonstrated that individual perceived collective efficacy to stop peer aggression predicted change in peer aggression over time. To our knowledge, Thornberg, Wänström, and Hymel (2019) published the first study in which collective efficacy to stop peer aggression has been examined as a group variable, and they found that children who belonged to classrooms that decreased in collective efficacy from fourth grade to fifth grade were inclined to increase in bullying perpetration.…”

Bystander behaviors in peer victimization : Associations with moral disengagement, efficacy beliefs, and student-teacher relationship quality

“…Findings on gender differences for passive bystanding have been mixed; some studies has found passive bystanding to be more common among girls (e.g., Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), while others has found passive bystanding to be more common among boys (e.g., Pozzoli & Gini, 2012). A few studies also suggest that defending is negatively related to the number of students in the classroom (Peets et al, 2015;; but see null result in Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017), and that pro-aggression is positively related to the proportion of boys in the classroom (Pozzoli et al, 2012b;Thornberg, Wänström, & Jungert, 2018).…”