Interactive effects of guilt and moral disengagement on bullying, defending and outsider behavior

Abstract

We examined the moderating effect of guilt on the associations between moral disengagement and bullying, defending, and outsider behaviors in a sample of 404 students (203 boys; Mage = 11.09 years; SD = 1.48). Bullying, defending, and outsider behavior were assessed through peer nominations, whereas guilt and moral disengagement were assessed by self-reports. Results showed that moral disengagement was associated with high levels of bullying and low levels of defending. Guilt was negatively associated with bullying and positively with defending. A moderating effect for guilt was also found: Increasing levels of moral disengagement contributed to more bullying and outsider behavior, and to less defending, among students with low levels of guilt. The current research broadens the extant literature, showing the combined effects of guilt and moral disengagement on bullying-related behaviors.

Theatrical Activities in Primary School: Effects on Children’s Emotion Regulation and Bullying

“…We realize that the reliability of outsider behavior at T1 was low, which has been found also in previous studies (Mazzone et al 2016;Sutton and Smith 1999). This may be due to the small sample size or to the short length of the scale.…”

“…Reliabilities values at T1/ T2 were as follows: bullying (α = 0.57/0.75), victimization (α = 0.80/0.67), defending behavior (α = 0.79/0.73), and outsider behavior (α = 0.44/0.64). A low reliability in the outsider scale is quite common in the literature (Mazzone et al 2016;Sutton and Smith 1999); item-total correlations at T1 ranged from 0.26 to 0.28 (p's < 0.05), which could be considered acceptable, given the low number of items and the small sample size.…”

“…This may be due to the small sample size or to the short length of the scale. It is also likely that the items grouped in the outsider scale measure different aspects of the construct, which are less easy to detect because they do not indicate clear actions, but may be perceived as "non-behaviors" (e.g., standing by, doing nothing, minding one's own business) (Mazzone et al 2016;Sutton and Smith 1999;Tavakol and Dennick 2011). It is therefore possible that children provided incoherent responses, in particular at T1, when they saw the items for the first time and had never thought about them, or roles were not defined yet, as it could be at the beginning of the year.…”

“…According to this model, peers are implicated not only as bullies or victims but also as passive bystanders (or outsiders), who shy away without taking sides, defenders of the victims, who help or comfort the victimized peers, or followers of the bully, who support the bully by laughing or assisting more actively in harassing others. Whereas defending behavior has been associated with popularity, empathy, and other aspects of adaptive social and emotional competence, the pattern of outsider behavior seems to be characterized by low morality, personal distress, and low self-efficacy (Gini et al 2008;Mazzone et al 2016;Rieffe and Camodeca 2016;Salmivalli et al 1996).…”

Styles of Bystander Intervention in Cyberbullying Incidents

“…In contrast, moral disengagement is not expected to be related to bullyand victim-focused constructive interventions, which are consistent with the prototypical view of bystander intervention as a prosocial activity. Studies have demonstrated that lower moral disengagement predicts prosocial behaviour (Bandura et al 1996;Barchia and Bussey 2011;Caravita et al 2012;Gini 2006;Gini et al 2011;Haddock and Jimerson 2017;Mazzone et al 2016;Thornberg et al 2015). That is, it is expected that moral disengagement will be differentially related to aggressive and constructive intervention styles.…”