Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between cognitive mechanisms applied by people to rationalize and justify harmful acts, and engagement in traditional and cyber bullying among school children. We examined the contribution of Moral Disengagement (MD), Hostile Attribution Bias, and Outcome Expectancies and we further explored the individual contribution of each MD mechanism. Our aim was to identify shared and unique cognitive factors of the two forms of bullying. Three hundred and thirty nine secondary school children completed self-report measures that assessed MD, Hostile Attribution Bias, Outcome Expectancies, and their roles and involvement in traditional and cyber bullying. We found that MD total score positively related to both forms of bullying. Furthermore, traditional bullying positively related to children's moral justification, euphemistic language, displacement of responsibility and outcome expectancies, and negatively associated with hostile attribution bias. Moral justification also related positively to cyberbullying.Cyberbullying and cybervictimization were associated with high levels of traditional bullying and victimization, respectively. The results suggest that MD is a common feature of both traditional and cyber bullying, but it seems that traditional bullying demands a higher level of rationalisation or justification. Moreover, the data suggest that the expectation of positive outcomes from harmful behavior facilitates engagement in traditional bullying. The differential contribution of specific cognitive mechanisms indicates the need for future research to elaborate on the current findings in order to advance theory and inform existing and future antibullying school interventions. Bullying is a subtype of aggression defined as an intentional and repeated aggressive behavior by a group or individual, towards a victim who cannot readily defend himself/herself (Olweus, 1999). Smith and Sharp (1994) describe it as ''a systematic abuse of power'' (p. 2). School bullying is not rare. Various studies in different countries have reported a rate of victimization between 9% -32% and a rate of bullying between 4% -27% (Berger, 2007;Smith et al., 1999). Bullying can be physical (e.g. hitting, kicking), behavioral (e.g. stealing one's lunch,), verbal (e.g. threats, insults), and relational (e.g. exclusion from a group) (Berger). It can be direct or indirect (Underwood, 2000) and it can vary in terms of intensity, duration and motives (Tattum, 1994). In general, boys engage in more physical forms of bullying and girls in more indirect/relational bullying (Rivers & Smith, 1994;Scheitauer, 2002).Bullies and victims suffer from, and are at risk of various psychosocial problems (Card, 2003;Haynie et al., 2001;Hawker & Boulton, 2000;Nansel, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004;Olweus, 1999;Picket et al., 2002).Those who are both bullies and victims, otherwise called aggressive victims, are at higher risk (Duncan, 1999;Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000), because they are prone to both ...

Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values

“…Our finding is line with a study by Bauman and Pero (2011), which also reported non-significant associations. However, other studies such as Pornari and Wood (2010) or Bauman (2010) did find significant associations between cyberbullying and moral disengagement. These inconsistencies may be related to different measures and certainly need further exploration in future research.…”

“…Several studies have shown that bullying is positively associated with self-reported moral disengagement in adolescents (Hymel, Rocke-Henderson, & Bonanno, 2005;Obermann, 2011) and in children (Gini, 2006;Gini, Pozzoli, & Hauser, 2011). A recent study by Pornari and Wood (2010) showed that moral disengagement is not only associated with traditional peer aggression but also with cyber aggression. A few studies have also used production measures to assess children's and adolescents' moral disengagement strategies and their associations with bullying.…”

Psychopathy, gang membership, and moral disengagement among juvenile offenders

“…Consistent with the first suggestion, Hymel, Rocke-Henderson, and Bonanno (2005) found that the more victimization students experienced the fewer morally disengaged strategies they endorsed. Similarly, Pornari and Wood (2010) found a greater number of peer victimization experiences was associated with lower moral disengagement, when controlling for own aggressive behaviour. By contrast, two studies found no differences between (non-aggressive) victims and non-involved children/adolescents with respect to moral reasoning (Gini, 2006;Menesini, Sanchez, & Fonzi et al, 2003).…”

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

“…Moral disengagement has been positively related to aggression (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996;Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Pastorelli, 2001;Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, & Caprara, 2008;Pelton, Gound, Forehand, & Brody, 2004;Pornari & Wood, 2010), including bullying behavior (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hauser, 2011;Hymel, Rocke-Henderson, & Bonanno, 2005;Menesini et al, 2003;Obermann, 2011b;Perren et al, 2012), and negatively related to prosocial behavior (Bandura et al, 1996(Bandura et al, , 2001). Gini (2006) found that students who were peer-nominated as bullies, assistants or reinforcers, demonstrated higher moral disengagement than defenders.…”