No abstract

Acting as disciplinary committee members, participants listened to a school bullying case that varied in terms of type (relational or verbal), degree of harm (low or high), and academic level of the victim and defendant (high school or university). Participants' judgments (e.g., verdict, recommended sentence, seriousness, perceptions of both students) generally favored the victim when he experienced more rather than less harm, regardless of bullying type, and when the incident took place in a high school rather than a university. Additionally, women's judgments supported the victim more than men's. We propose that previous results suggesting that observers downgrade relational bullying occurred because no harm was specified. Moreover, we contend that observers relied on a "bullying schema" that includes the component that bullying occurs in primary and secondary schools, which led them to make less punitive judgments in the university case.

No abstract

No abstract

We investigated how people determine whether a specific occurrence of aggression between students constitutes bullying and how they think perpetrators should be treated. In two experiments, we examined perceptions of relational bullying at a university involving a victim who admits to engaging in socially inappropriate behavior. Participants were assigned to one of three victim disability conditions: autism spectrum disorder (ASD), dyslexia, or no disability. They listened to a recording of a disciplinary hearing and made several evaluations (e.g., verdict). Participants' judgments were more likely to favor the victim if they learned that he had ASD rather than dyslexia or no disability. Observers may view an ASD diagnosis as a reasonable explanation for behaving inappropriately and therefore excuse the victim's conduct.