School Bullying and Moral Reasoning Competence

Grundherr, Michael von; Geisler, Anja; Stoiber, Manuel; Schäfer, Mechthild

doi:10.1111/sode.12199

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In an initial analysis of this data, we observed that moral competence reduced the likelihood of probullying but failed to motivate defending behavior (von Grundherr et al, 2016). In an initial analysis of this data, we observed that moral competence reduced the likelihood of probullying but failed to motivate defending behavior (von Grundherr et al, 2016).…”

Section: Moral Competence As a Moderator Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 78%

“…***p < .001. on by von Grundherr et al (2016). (yes = 1, no = 0); High MC, high-competence group (N = 125); INDIV, has individual been assigned the focal role (bully or defender)?…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We tested these hypotheses using data on bullying roles, moral competence, and peer groups that were collected in three German schools in the summer of 2014 as part of a larger study on school bullying and moral competence. In an initial analysis of this data, we observed that moral competence reduced the likelihood of probullying but failed to motivate defending behavior (von Grundherr et al, 2016). To examine possible explanations for this phenomenon, we conducted a follow-up study in one of the three schools in the summer of 2015.…”

Section: Moral Competence As a Moderator Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, while moral competence apparently reduces the likelihood of engaging in bullying, it does not seem to have a correspondingly strong effect on pro-social behavior (Blasi, 1980;Stams et al, 2006), such as defending victims of bullying (von Grundherr, Geisler, Stoiber, & Schäfer, 2016). Why does moral competence diminish the likelihood of engaging in bullying but not augment defending behavior by the same measure?…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Peer influence in bullying: The autonomy‐enhancing effect of moral competence

Doehne

Grundherr²,

Schäfer

2018

Aggressive Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has found that moral competence is negatively associated with bullying behavior in schools, but the drivers of this association are not yet well understood. In this paper, we report on two studies which suggest that moral competence acts as a moderator of peer influence in the context of school bullying. Data were collected at two time points in three German higher secondary schools (grades 7-10, average age at measurement: 14.26 years). Using a cross-lagged panel design (CLPD), study 1 (N = 251) found adolescents with low moral competence to be susceptible to peer influence, while no such effect was found for adolescents with high moral competence. Study 2, a cross-sectional analysis (N = 748), found moral competence to be inversely related to the likelihood of an individual's conforming with the pro-bullying behavior of his or her peers. Neither study found corresponding effects for pro-social, defending behavior. Our findings further illuminate the associations between moral competence, peer influence, and school bullying. Some implications for bullying prevention are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Moral Competence As a Moderator Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 78%

“…***p < .001. on by von Grundherr et al (2016). (yes = 1, no = 0); High MC, high-competence group (N = 125); INDIV, has individual been assigned the focal role (bully or defender)?…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moral Competence As a Moderator Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Peer influence in bullying: The autonomy‐enhancing effect of moral competence

Doehne

Grundherr²,

Schäfer

2018

Aggressive Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even though the individual moral competency and motivation of every single group member does not allow an accurate prediction of individual bullying roles, these can slow down the social dynamic, which leads to bullying, if they are prevalent and promoted within the group [21]. There are strong reciprocity effects between environment and individual dispositions: the bullying initiator carries a defined profile, namely preference for dominance and good control over internal sanctions.…”

Section: A Moral Psychological Perspective For Prevention/ Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing Perspective is Changing the System-Bullying as “Strong Situation”

Schäfer¹,

Starch²,

Stoiber³

et al. 2017

J Addict Res Ther

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When asked individually, a majority of pupils perceive bullying as wrong, antisocial and pronounce the necessity to do something against it. However as part of their class nine out of ten are attributed a distinct role in the bullying process by peers. Moral knowledge or competence adds little to differentiate these bullying roles, but moral motivation does. Moral motivation and in special moral disengagement is linked to a context, to the class. It is argued, that bullying needs to be defined as a strong situation to overcome the effects of group-dynamics predicted by socialpsychology.

show abstract

A meta‐analysis of the relationship between moral disengagement and bullying roles in youth

Killer

Bussey

Hawes

et al. 2019

Aggressive Behavior

123

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last several years, researchers have become increasingly interested in the influence of moral factors on bullying behaviors. This is the first meta‐analytic review to exclusively examine the relationship between moral disengagement (MD) and the key bullying roles of bully, victim, defender, and bystander. Forty‐seven independent samples examining a total of 43,809 children/adolescents (aged 7–19) were included in this meta‐analysis. Results indicated a positive relationship between MD and bullying (r = 0.31; 95% CI [0.27, 0.34]), MD and victimization (r = 0.08; 95% CI [0.05, 0.12]), and a negative relationship between MD and defending (r = −0.11; 95% CI [−0.17, −0.04]). No significant relationship was found for MD and bystanding behavior. Moderators of bullying type (traditional vs. cyberbullying), reporting type (self vs. peer report), age, and gender were included in the analyses. The results are discussed in the context of relevant literature with particular emphasis on the importance of distinguishing between guilty and unconcerned bystanders, and the significant overlap between bullying and victimization in the cyber context.

show abstract

School Bullying and Moral Reasoning Competence

Cited by 22 publications

References 50 publications

Peer influence in bullying: The autonomy‐enhancing effect of moral competence

Peer influence in bullying: The autonomy‐enhancing effect of moral competence

Changing Perspective is Changing the System-Bullying as “Strong Situation”

A meta‐analysis of the relationship between moral disengagement and bullying roles in youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About