Abstract
With reference to social–cognitive theory, the aim of the present study was to examine whether school students’ tendency to display different moral disengagement mechanisms varies according to different social cues in hypothetical events in which they are engaged in bullying behavior. A repeated within-subjects experimental design was adopted. A total of 706 Swedish students (aged 10–20) from 75 classrooms responded to four verbal bullying vignettes by filling out a self-report survey. The results showed changes in moral disengagement mechanisms across the bullying situations. For instance, moral justification, victim blaming, and dehumanization scored higher in the mean victim condition and lower in the likable victim condition than in the other two conditions. Diffusion of responsibility was higher in the group conformity condition than in the other conditions. The findings also revealed differences in the levels of moral disengagement mechanisms within the bullying conditions. For example, euphemistic labeling and displacement of responsibility scored higher than the other mechanisms in the laughing audience condition. Victim blaming scored higher than the other mechanisms in the mean victim condition. Dehumanization, victim blaming, and moral justification scored lowest while euphemistic labeling was higher than most of the other mechanisms in the likable victim condition.
Highlights
Bullying is usually defined as repeated aggressive, offensive, or inhumane behavior directed at individuals who are disadvantaged or less powerful in relation to the perpetrator(s) (Olweus, 1993; Jimerson et al, 2010) and can be categorized as “unfair and immoral behavior” (Romera et al, 2019)
We proposed the following hypotheses about the tendencies of moral disengagement mechanisms within bullying conditions: In hypothetical bullying situations in which students are acting as bullies: (1) in the group conformity condition, students score higher in displacement of responsibility and diffusion of responsibility than in other mechanisms; (2) in the laughing audience condition, students score higher in displacement of responsibility and euphemistic labeling than in other mechanisms; (3) in the mean victim condition, students score higher in moral justification and victim blaming than in other mechanisms; and (4) in the likable victim condition, students score higher in euphemistic labeling and lower in dehumanization and victim blaming than in other mechanisms
Dehumanization, victim blaming and moral justification scored lower than the other moral disengagement mechanisms in the likable victim condition. These findings suggest that students high in likability or sociometric popularity are at lower risk of being targets of dehumanization and victim blaming from their peers, and it seems more difficult for students to morally justify bullying directed toward a well-liked and friendly peer
Summary
Bullying is usually defined as repeated aggressive, offensive, or inhumane behavior directed at individuals who are disadvantaged or less powerful in relation to the perpetrator(s) (Olweus, 1993; Jimerson et al, 2010) and can be categorized as “unfair and immoral behavior” (Romera et al, 2019). Research has found that children judge bullying to be a serious transgression and wrong independently of school rules by referring to the harm it causes the victim (Thornberg, 2010; Thornberg et al, 2016, 2017). Still, it is a worldwide problem in schools (Chester et al, 2015). Situational Moral Disengagement in Bullying standards but has to include motivational and self-regulatory processes that could either translate moral standards into moral action or create barriers between standards and action These self-regulatory processes are situated cognitive processes (Bandura, 2016) that may be influenced by specific features of the social interaction that takes place. The aim of the current study was to examine whether adolescents’ tendency to display different moral disengagement mechanisms varies across different (hypothetical) social situations, where characteristics of the situations were experimentally manipulated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
