No abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate how basic moral sensitivity in bullying, moral disengagement in bullying and defender self‐efficacy were related to different bystander behaviors in bullying. Therefore, we examined pathways that linked students' basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement, and defender self‐efficacy to different bystander behaviors in bullying situations. Three hundred and forty‐seven teenagers completed a bullying survey. Findings indicated that compared with boys, girls expressed higher basic moral sensitivity in bullying, lower defender self‐efficacy and moral disengagement in bullying. Results from the SEM showed that basic moral sensitivity in bullying was negatively related to pro‐bully behavior and positively related to outsider and defender behavior, mediated by moral disengagement in bullying, which in turn was positively related to pro‐bully behavior and negatively related to outsider and defender behavior. What differed in the relations between outsider and defender behaviors was the degree of defender self‐efficacy.

The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping University Institutional Repository (DiVA): http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-105637 N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication. Robert Thornberg & Tomas Jungert Linköping UniversityThe aim of the present study was to examine to what degree different mechanisms of moral disengagement were related to age, gender, bullying, and defending among school children. Three hundred and seventy-two Swedish children ranging in age from 10 to 14 years completed a questionnaire. Findings revealed that boys expressed significantly higher levels of moral justification, euphemistic labeling, diffusion of responsibility, distorting consequences, and victim attribution, as compared with girls. Whereas boys bullied others significantly more often than girls, age was unrelated to bullying. Moral justification and victim attribution were the only dimensions of moral disengagement that significantly related to bullying. Furthermore, younger children and girls were more likely to defend victims. Diffusion of responsibility and victim attribution were significantly and negatively related to defending, while the other dimensions of moral disengagement were unrelated to defending. IntroductionMorality could be defined as conceptions of human welfare, justice and rights, and regulation of actions that affect others in these terms (Nucci, 2001;Turiel, 1983). Congruent with this definition, bullying is an example of immoral actions because of its repeated harmful intentions and consequences toward someone in a weaker position (Hymel, Schonert-Reichl, Bonanno, Vaillancourt, & Rocke Henderson, 2010). Even during the early preschool years, children distinguish between morality and convention, justifying their judgments of moral issues in terms of the harm or unfairness that given actions cause (for a review, see Nucci, 2001).Most children consider bullying highly immoral (Menesini et al., 1997;Thornberg, 2010a); 2 therefore, it might be seen as anomalous that bullying does take place among children, and that they seldom intervene as bystanders (Craig & Pepler, 1998;Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000;Hawkins, Pepler, &Craig, 2001;O'Connell, Pepler, &Craig, 1999). Moral DisengagementAccording to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997(Bandura, , 1999(Bandura, , 2002(Bandura, , 2004, the exercise of moral agency has two facets. The inhibitive form is manifested in the power to refrain from acting inhumanely, such as by harassing or bullying others. The proactive form of morality is expressed in the power to act humanely, such as helping or defending a victim in a bullying situation. Nevertheless, people do not always regulate their actions in accordance with moral standards. "Self-regulatory mechanisms do not come into play unless they are activated, and there are many social and psychological maneuvers by which moral self-sanction can be disengaged from inhumane conduct" (Bandura, 1999, p. 194). Moral disengagement refers to such socio-c...

IntroductionThis research sought to extend knowledge about bystanders in bullying situations with a focus on the motivations that lead them to different responses. The 2 primary goals of this study were to investigate the reasons for children's decisions to help or not to help a victim when witnessing bullying, and to generate a grounded theory (or conceptual framework) of bystander motivation in bullying situations.MethodsThirty students ranging in age from 9 to 15 years (M = 11.9; SD = 1.7) from an elementary and middle school in the southeastern United States participated in this study. Open- ended, semi-structured interviews were used, and sessions ranged from 30 to 45 minutes. We conducted qualitative methodology and analyses to gain an in-depth understanding of children's perspectives and concerns when witnessing bullying.ResultsA key finding was a conceptual framework of bystander motivation to intervene in bullying situations suggesting that deciding whether to help or not help the victim in a bullying situation depends on how bystanders define and evaluate the situation, the social context, and their own agency. Qualitative analysis revealed 5 themes related to bystander motives and included: interpretation of harm in the bullying situation, emotional reactions, social evaluating, moral evaluating, and intervention self-efficacy.ConclusionGiven the themes that emerged surrounding bystanders' motives to intervene or abstain from intervening, respondents reported 3 key elements that need to be confirmed in future research and that may have implications for future work on bullying prevention. These included: first, the potential importance of clear communication to children that adults expect bystanders to intervene when witnessing bullying; second, the potential of direct education about how bystanders can intervene to increase children's self-efficacy as defenders of those who are victims of bullying; and third, the assumption that it may be effective to encourage children's belief that bullying is morally wrong.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether various dimensions of student–teacher relationships were associated with different types of motivation to defend victims in bullying and to determine the association between these types of motivations and various bystander behaviors in bullying situations among early adolescents in Italy. Data were collected from 405 Italian adolescents who completed a survey in their classroom. Results showed that warm student–teacher relationships were positively associated with defending victims and with autonomous motivation to defend victims. In contrast, conflictual student–teacher relationships were positively associated with passive bystanding and with extrinsic motivation to defend victims. Different forms of motivation to defend were found to be mediators between student–teacher relationship qualities and bystander behaviors in school bullying. Our findings suggest that teachers should build warm and caring student–teacher relationships to enhance students' autonomous motivation to defend victims of bullying as well as their inclination to defend the victims in practice.