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

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to examine whether moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy at individual level and collective efficacy to stop peer aggression at classroom level were associated with defending and reinforcing in school bullying situations in late childhood. Self-reported survey data were collected from 1060 Swedish students from 70 classrooms in 29 schools. Multilevel analysis found that greater defender self-efficacy at individual level and collective efficacy to stop peer aggression at classroom level were associated with greater defending. We also found that greater moral disengagement and less (but very weakly) defender selfefficacy at individual level and less collective efficacy to stop peer aggression at classroom level were associated with greater reinforcing. The positive relationship between moral disengagement and reinforcing and the negative relationship between defender self-efficacy and reinforcing were less strong in classroom high in collective efficacy to stop aggression.

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

“…During the last decade, researchers have started to pay attention to defender self-efficacy in relation to students' bystander behaviors. In line with social cognitive theory, defender self-efficacy has been positively associated with defending (Barchia & Bussey, 2011b;Peets et al, 2015;Pronk et al, 2013;Pöyhönen et al, 2010Pöyhönen et al, , 2012Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013;van der Ploeg et al, 2017;, and negatively associated with passive bystanding (Pronk et al, 2013;Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013). In a similar manner, social self-efficacya more general self-perception of being competent in social situationshas been positively linked to defender behavior (Cappadocia et al, 2012;Gini, Albiero, et al, 2008) and negatively linked to passive bystanding (Gini, Albiero, et al, 2008).…”

“…Furthermore, this thesis extended the current limited body of knowledge on how defender self-efficacy is associated with pro-aggressive and passive bystanding. Findings of two studies conducted in Sweden with participants in the same age group as in this thesis suggest negative associations with both pro-aggressive and passive bystanding (Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017). Moreover, this thesis added to the limited knowledge of how collective efficacy conceptualized as a group characteristic is associated with students' bystander behaviors.…”

“…As proposed in the social cognitive framework (Bandura 2016), moral disengagement makes it easier for people not only to personally do harm, but also to refrain from helping and protecting a person in need as it becomes easier for them to interfere with their moral judgement and deactivate their moral selfsanctions. Indeed, findings indicate that students high in moral disengagement are less likely to defend victims of peer victimization (Doramajian & Bukowski, 2015;Gini, 2006;Gini et al, 2011;Obermann, 2011;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013;Thornberg et al, 2015;Thornberg, Wänström, Hong & Espelage, 2017). Regarding passive bystanding, findings are mixed (for a meta-analysis, see Killer et al, 2019), with both positive associations (Doramajian & Bukowski, 2015;Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017), negative associations (Gini, 2006;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013), and null results (Gini et al, 2015).…”

“…Indeed, findings indicate that students high in moral disengagement are less likely to defend victims of peer victimization (Doramajian & Bukowski, 2015;Gini, 2006;Gini et al, 2011;Obermann, 2011;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013;Thornberg et al, 2015;Thornberg, Wänström, Hong & Espelage, 2017). Regarding passive bystanding, findings are mixed (for a meta-analysis, see Killer et al, 2019), with both positive associations (Doramajian & Bukowski, 2015;Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017), negative associations (Gini, 2006;Thornberg & Jungert, 2013), and null results (Gini et al, 2015). Nevertheless, research suggests that passive bystanders have higher levels of moral disengagement than defenders (Gini, 2006;Levasseur et al, 2017;Obermann, 2011).…”

“…Despite this, research on peer victimization and aggressive behavior has primarily investigated moral factors at the individual level (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel, 2014;Hymel et al, 2010). A few studies have investigated how students' behaviors are associated with the classroom mean of individual moral disengagement, labeled as class moral disengagement (Pozzoli et al, 2012b;Thornberg, Wänström, Hong, & Espelage, 2017). Pozzoli et al (2012b) did not study class moral disengagement as one aggregated unit but split it into the four loci upon which the disengagement can be centered.…”