J Abnorm Child Psychol DOI 10.1007/s10802-014-9920-7
The Role of Individual and Collective Moral Disengagement in Peer Aggression and Bystanding: A Multilevel Analysis Gianluca Gini & Tiziana Pozzoli & Kay Bussey
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study investigates the relationships between individual and collective moral disengagement and aggressionrelated behaviors (peer aggression, defending, and passive bystanding) among 918 adolescents (55.8 % boys; Mage = 14.1 years, SD=1.1). Hierarchical linear modeling showed that, at the individual level, aggressive behavior was significantly explained by both individual moral disengagement and student perceived collective moral disengagement, which was also positively associated with defending. Student perceived collective moral disengagement moderated the link between individual moral disengagement and peer aggression. At the class level, classroom collective moral disengagement explained betweenclass variability in all the three aggression-related behaviors. These results extend previous research by demonstrating the role of collective moral disengagement at the individual and the class levels and have potential implications for interventions. Keywords Peer aggression . Bullying . Defending . Bystanders . Moral disengagement . Class norms Increasing research findings indicate that peer aggression, including bullying, negatively impacts children’s psychosocial adjustment (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, and Little 2008; Ttofi, Farrington, Losel, and Loeber 2011) and physical health (Gini and Pozzoli 2013; Gini et al. 2014c). To further understand
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9920-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
factors associated with peer aggression at school, researchers have begun to address the role of moral factors. Specifically, individual differences in aggressive behavior have been attributed to biases in morality, with aggressive behavior positively linked to moral disengagement, which involves distorted moral reasoning that minimizes guilt (for a meta-analysis see Gini et al. 2014b). However, one major limitation of this research has been the neglect of the complex group nature of peer aggression (Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Faris and Ennett 2012; Salmivalli 2010). This has two main consequences. First, studies on moral disengagement have rarely examined the differential association with peer bystanders who actively intervene to defend victims in aggression episodes compared with those who passively observe the episode (Salmivalli et al. 1996). Second, researchers have typically focused on individual moral cognition associated with aggressive behavior, whereas group morality has been neglected. However, peer group characteristics, such as shared moral values, diffusion of responsibility, and moral climate may partially explain the pervasiveness of peer aggression (e.g., Espelage, Holt, and Henkel 2003; Gini 2008; for a review, Hymel et al. 2010). Thus, in the moral domain, collective moral disengagement, that is, disengagement processes shared at the group level (White, Bandura, and Bero 2009), may be relevant for understanding differences in aggressive and bystander behaviors among school classes. To begin filling this gap, the aim of this study is to test, for the first time, the role of both individual and collective moral disengagement in explaining individual and between-class variation in aggression-related behaviors (i.e., peer aggression, defending, and passive bystanding) among adolescents through a multilevel approach.
G. Gini (*) : T. Pozzoli Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padova, via Venezia, 8, Padova 35131, Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Moral Disengagement, Peer Aggression and Bystander Behaviors
K. Bussey Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Within the comprehensive social cognitive theory of moral agency, Bandura (1991, 2004) has argued that moral
J Abnorm Child Psychol
reasoning is linked to (im) moral behavior through a series of self-regulatory mechanisms. Specifically, Bandura described eight mechanisms, clustered into four broad categories through which moral control can be disengaged (see Bandura 2002, for a more detailed description). The first category of mechanisms, cognitive restructuring, operates by framing the behavior itself in a positive light, by (i) portraying immoral conduct as warranted (moral justification); (ii) contrasting a negative act with a worse one (advantageous comparison); and (iii) using language which palliates the condemned act, thus diminishing its severity (euphemistic labeling). The second set of disengagement strategies operates by obscuring or minimizing one’s agentive role in the harm caused. The third set of strategies operates by minimizing, disregarding or distorting the consequences of one’s action. The final set of strategies involves stripping the recipients of detrimental acts of human qualities (dehumanization) and considering aggression as provoked by the victim (attribution of blame). These mechanisms can lead to aggressive behaviors through a process of moral disengagement, that is, a partial gap between the “abstract” personal idea of moral behavior and the individual’s actual behavior. In this way, the individual is protected from negative feelings, such as guilt or shame, that usually follow immoral conduct (Bandura 1991). The construct of moral disengagement has received progressively increasing attention in developmental psychology as it is related to a variety of youths’ antisocial behaviors. A recent meta-analysis (Gini et al., 2014b) has synthesized the results of almost two decades of research, showing that youths who typically endorse these mechanisms more frequently engage in different types of peer-directed aggressive behavior (e.g., Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Gini, Pozzoli, and Hauser 2011; Hyde, Shaw, and Moilanen 2010; Obermann 2011a; Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinet, and Caprara 2008). Importantly, the link between moral disengagement and aggressive behavior remains significant even after controlling for other predictors (e.g., aggression efficacy, rule perception, or parenting) of such behavior (Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Caravita, Gini, and Pozzoli 2012; Pelton, Gound, Forehand, and Brody 2004). Finally, results of (Gini et al. 2014b) metaanalysis showed that the link between moral disengagement and aggressive behavior is significantly stronger starting from early adolescence compared with childhood. Researchers have stressed the importance of the social context in which episodes of peer aggression occur (Salmivalli 2010). Peer victimized students are not only the targets of perpetrators’ attacks, they are often disliked, isolated, and even rejected by other students within the larger peer group, especially starting from the middle school years (Smith 2010). Peer aggression is more likely to be accepted when a victimized child is perceived by peers, even those who are not aggressive, as someone deserving of aggression, perhaps because of personal characteristics, or the belief that s/he is
partially responsible for his/her own victimization (Lahelma 2004; Teräsahjo and Salmivalli 2003; Thornberg 2013). Studies that have examined onlookers’ reactions to school aggression have shown that active intervention in favor of victims is rare (e.g., Pepler and Craig 1995; Salmivalli et al. 1996). This may be due to the fact that defending behavior in peer aggression situations differs from more general altruistic conduct towards needy people in every-day life (Pozzoli and Gini 2010) and it is likely to be the outcome of both personal and contextual characteristics (Pozzoli, Gini, and Vieno 2012; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). Therefore, it is not surprising that recent school-based interventions have included strategies specifically focused on bystanders (e.g., Kärnä et al. 2011; Pfetsch, Steffgen, Gollwitzer, and Ittel 2011; Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott 2012). However, evaluations of interventions aimed at reducing peer aggression at school have shown that, despite efforts to encourage bystanders to intervene, many children resist doing so (e.g., Evers, Prochaska, Van Marter, Johnson, and Prochaska 2007). It is therefore paramount that, beyond aggressive behavior, we increase our understanding of the factors underlying active defending and supportive behaviors toward victims compared with passive bystanding. If aggression is an immoral action because of its harmful intentions and negative consequences (Hymel et al. 2010), defending a victim of peer aggression is an example of proactive moral action because it aims to protect the welfare and rights of the victim (Tisak, Tisak, and Goldstein 2006). Indeed, active support to victims requires, among others, a sense of moral responsibility to intervene (Pozzoli and Gini 2010). Even though in recent years there has been an increasing attention to the ways youths react to a situation in which a peer is being victimized (e.g., Barchia and Bussey 2011b; Forsberg, Thornberg, and Samuelsson 2014; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, and Altoè 2008; Pöyhönen et al. 2010, 2012; Pozzoli and Gini 2013; Pozzoli et al. 2012; Sandstrom, Makover, and Bartini 2012; Thornberg and Jungert 2013), studies on the relationship between moral disengagement and bystander behaviors are scarce. There is some evidence that, similar to the findings for general prosocial behavior (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli 1996), students’ proneness to use moral disengagement mechanisms is negatively associated with active defending in bullying situations (Caravita et al. 2012; Gini et al. 2011; Thornberg and Jungert 2013; Thornberg, Pozzoli, Gini, and Jungert in press). Conversely, passive bystanding tends to be positively, though weakly, related to the activation of these mechanisms (Obermann 2011b). Specifically (Obermann 2011bb) found that a particular subgroup of bystanders, so-called “unconcerned bystanders”, showed a significantly higher level of moral disengagement than both so-called “guilty bystanders” and defenders.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
Classroom as a Socio-Moral Context in Peer Aggression As suggested by the view of peer aggression as a social process (Espelage and Swearer 2004; Salmivalli 2010), contextual variables could influence behavior in the classroom above and beyond individual characteristics. Indeed, some studies have confirmed that the context in which peer aggression takes place is likely to influence adolescents’ perceptions, attitudes, and behavior (e.g., Lenzi et al. 2014; Pellegrini and Long 2002; Pozzoli et al. 2012; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004; Salmivalli, Voeten, and Poskiparta 2011). For example, adherence to peer group norms, homophily, pluralistic ignorance, social identity concerns, and other group mechanisms might contribute to how victims are perceived and to aggressive conduct among peers (e.g., Gini 2006; Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, Kiesner, and Griffiths 2008; Sandstrom et al. 2012). These processes of social influence among classmates can be particularly pervasive, since school classes represent one of the most salient social contexts throughout childhood and adolescence (e.g., Bronfenbrenner 1979). With respect to peer aggression, there are two main reasons for considering the classroom as a relevant context. First, most episodes of peer aggression occur in school among classmates and several authors agree that classrooms represent an important context for both understanding and tackling the problem (e.g., Doll, Song, and Siemers 2004; Salmivalli et al. 2011; Troop-Gordon and Ladd 2013). Second, in Italy, like in many other countries, students remain in a single classroom with the same classmates for the full school day and for more than one school year. In the current study, for the first time, we introduce the concept of classroom collective moral disengagement, based on Bandura’s conceptualization (White et al. 2009), and examine its relationship with adolescents’ aggressive and bystander behaviors.
Collective Moral Disengagement, Peer Aggression and Bystander Behaviors In the above cited literature, moral disengagement has been always studied at the individual level. However, class group characteristics may confer varying levels of approval toward specific types of social conduct, thereby affecting the behavior of group members even when they do not reflect their private attitudes (e.g., Espelage et al. 2003; Pozzoli et al. 2012). Moral disengagement is also conceptualized as reflecting influences of the social environment and moral agency is cultivated and learned through the community in which people develop their social relationships; in other words, moral behavior is determined by a combination of personal and social influences (Bandura 2002). Group decision making can facilitate inhumane behavior by virtue of the responsibility being shifted to the collective as opposed to the individual. For example, it has
been demonstrated that people have an increased likelihood to behave more cruelly in a group as opposed to when they are alone; likewise, group members can sometimes share a negative perception of the victim or blame the victim for his/her condition (Ahmed and Braithwaite 2004; Cehajic, Brown, and González 2009; Gini 2008; Haslam 2006). Accordingly, moral disengagement can also occur at the group level (Caravita, Sijtsema, Rambaran, and Gini 2013; Sijtsema, Rambaran, Caravita, & Gini, in press). Bandura has defined the concept of collective moral disengagement as “an emergent group-level property arising from the interactive, coordinative, and synergistic group dynamics” (White et al. 2009, p.43). As for other collective constructs, such as collective efficacy (Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Caprara et al. 2004), collective moral disengagement operates through similar processes to individual moral disengagement, differing only in the unit of agency. That is, collective moral disengagement includes the same mechanisms as individual moral disengagement, but it refers to the beliefs in justifying negative actions that are—to some extent—shared within a significant social group. Importantly, the construct of collective moral disengagement can be considered from both an individual and a group perspective (Gini et al. 2014a). At the individual level, it refers to individuals’ perception of the degree to which morally disengaged justifications are shared by members of their group. That is, it measures students’ beliefs about the extent to which members of their group use such mechanisms in everyday interactions. This construct differs from individual moral disengagement as described above, because it does not refer to an individual’s own use of the mechanisms; rather it reflects an individual’s belief about the extent to which many, or few, peers in the group use such mechanisms in everyday interactions. For the sake of clarity, we refer to this concept as student perceived collective moral disengagement. At the group level, the construct refers to the collective property of a given group, that is, it does not reflect individual use of moral disengagement mechanisms but the degree to which such mechanisms are shared by members within that group. As for other collective constructs (Hoffman 2002), collective moral disengagement most likely comes about through the interactions among individuals within a group— and their socialization tactics including routines, social activities and the justificatory strategies that are modeled by others to condone immoral behavior. Importantly, it cannot be measured by simply asking individuals about their own use of these mechanisms and then computing an aggregate score at the group level. Only when the content of the measure specifically references the group does one obtain a measure of the collective construct (Hoffman 2002). As foreshadowed, in this study we considered the classroom as the relevant social grouping unit as it provides a salient proximal context (Henry
J Abnorm Child Psychol
et al. 2000). We therefore refer to the class-level construct as classroom collective moral disengagement. In view of the importance of the social context of peer aggression, the relative neglect of group-level constructs to examine the influence of group values on peer aggression is surprising (Barchia and Bussey 2011a). Although the existing constructs share some similarities with classroom collective moral disengagement, they differ from it in significant ways. One such construct involves the measurement of normative beliefs about aggression at the classroom level. In their study, (Henry et al. 2000) examined two aspects of classroom norms, descriptive and injunctive norms. Descriptive classroom norms were operationalized as children’s beliefs about the level of aggressive behavior of children in the class, whereas injunctive classroom norms were defined as classmates’ acceptability of aggressive behavior. While the injunctive classroom norm measure is closest to our notion of classroom collective moral disengagement, it differs significantly from it in terms of its conceptual basis and measurement. It relies on an aggregate of individual normative beliefs about aggressive behavior in the classroom rather than measuring children’s normative beliefs about aggressive behavior at the classroom level. Although the measure of bullying-related classroom norms devised by Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) provides a more group focused measure than the aggregated scores approach used by (Henry et al. 2000), it requires students to imagine how other students in the class would respond to an ‘ordinary student’ performing various bullying-related behaviors without taking account of the actual proportion of students likely to endorse such a response. This measure provides important information about how other students in the class are expected to respond to bullying-related behavior, however, this is different from examining the extent to which the group endorses justifications for performing aggressive behaviors which is the focus of the collective moral disengagement measure. In another approach to investigating the influence of group level norms on bullying intentions, group norms have been operationalized from the perspective of in-group and out-group members based on the principles of social identity development theory. From this perspective, the desire to belong to the in-group contributes to the adoption of ingroup norms. Using the minimal group paradigm, (Nesdale et al. 2008) showed that when the group norm involved dislike and rejection of the out-group, in-group members were more inclined to bully the out-group than when the group norm involved liking and inclusion of the out-group. Although this study considered norms at the group level, these norms were imposed experimentally and it is unclear whether children in a classroom would form an in-group by uniformly adopting the same values. In contrast, the measure of collective moral disengagement takes account of the variability in students’ moral justificatory beliefs within different classrooms. Although collective moral disengagement is assessed for each
individual student, it measures students’ perceptions of the extent to which classroom members employ moral disengagement mechanisms. Further, the concept of classroom collective moral disengagement is embedded within the conceptual framework of social cognitive theory that includes not only personal agency but collective agency as a key feature of the self-regulatory process (Bandura 2002). As the classroom is a social system that exerts a significant influence over students’ behavior, it is important to measure its influence through a collective measure that is independent of the personal measure, yet operates through the same set of mechanisms as the personal one. Surprisingly, so far, no studies have empirically analyzed the role of collective moral disengagement in aggression among classmates.
The Present Study In sum, we aimed to investigate whether individual and collective moral disengagement each contribute to the explanation of different levels of aggressive behavior, defending and passive bystanding among adolescent students, as well as between-class variations of these behaviors. First, consistent with previous studies (Gini et al. 2014b), it was hypothesized that individual moral disengagement would be positively associated with aggression and passive bystanding behavior and negatively with defending after controlling for age, gender and the other individual behaviors. Similar hypotheses were made about the role of student perceived collective moral disengagement, even though no previous studies have used this construct to predict aggression-related behaviors and thus these hypotheses are more speculative. Believing that moral disengagement is quite common in the class group may lead youths to think that aggressive behavior is more likely to be tolerated by peers. Consequently, this perception should be related to higher levels of individual aggression and passive bystanding, and lower levels of active intervention in favor of peer victimized classmates (Sandstrom et al. 2012). Beyond the hypothesized main effects, we may also expect that student perceived collective moral disengagement would moderate the association between individual moral disengagement and aggression and bystander behaviors. Whereas we know that higher levels of individual moral disengagement increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior and, to some extent, the withholding of help toward victimized peers, and decreases the likelihood of active intervention in favor of victims, we know less about what factors may buffer these links (Gini et al. 2014b). One of these factors could be the perception that the majority of peers within the group actually use moral disengagement mechanisms to justify their negative behaviors, diffuse/displace responsibility of such behaviors, or blame victims. Hence, higher levels of perceived collective moral disengagement may strengthen the positive link
J Abnorm Child Psychol
between moral disengagement and both aggression and passive bystanding by making it more acceptable and ‘normal’ from the perspective of the individual student. Similarly, they could make the negative association between individual moral disengagement and defending stronger. This hypothesis was tested by adding the interaction term between these two variables at the individual level of the model. Second, previous research on class characteristics, such as class normative beliefs on bullying, class attitudes and class injunctive and descriptive norms (Pozzoli et al. 2012; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004), indicates that class norms can help explain bullying-related behaviors over and above individual characteristics. Therefore, this study hypothesized that, at the class level, classroom collective moral disengagement would significantly explain between-class variation in aggression-related behaviors. Specifically, it was anticipated that there is a greater likelihood of aggressive behavior and passive bystanding in school classes with higher levels of collective moral disengagement. Conversely, higher levels of collective moral disengagement should be related to less defending. Indeed, in the classroom context, high collective moral disengagement was expected to contribute to a negative climate, including shared attitudes favoring aggression, more justification and redefinition of aggression in terms of both causes and consequences, more diffused/displaced responsibility, and victim blame/dehumanization, thus enhancing acceptance of aggressive acts (either enacted or just witnessed) and decreasing the likelihood of students defending victimized peers.
Method Participants and Procedure Participants were recruited from 49 Italian public school classes (6th to 10th grade) from middle and high schools located in urban and suburban areas. The average class size was 19 (SD=4.7). School principals and teachers authorized the participation of the classes in the study, and active parental consent was obtained prior to data collection (acceptance rate: 88 %). Before data collection, individual consent for participation was also obtained from the participants with parental consent, who were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and who were allowed to refuse to participate and to withdraw from the study at any time. None of the participants refused to participate. They completed an anonymous questionnaire during class time. Data were collected at least 4 months after the beginning of the school year. The study was approved by the University of Padua Ethics Committee for Research in Psychology (protocol #1157–2012). The final sample consisted of 918 students (55.8 % boys; Mage =14.1 years, SD=1.1, range: 12–16). Socio-economic
status was not directly measured. However, as in all public schools in Italy, our sample included youths from a wide range of socioeconomic statuses. In terms of racial/ethnic background, the sample was predominantly Caucasian (96.2 %).
Measures Behaviors During Aggressive Episodes A 12-item scale (adapted from Pozzoli and Gini 2010; Pozzoli et al. 2012) was used to measure aggressive behavior, defending and passive bystanding behavior. Each behavior was measured by 4 items (2 overt and 2 relational aggression items). Items for peer aggression were: “I tease some classmates, calling them nasty nicknames, threatening or offending them,” “I exclude some classmates from the group or I do something so that they are isolated,” “I am aggressive towards my classmates, I hit or push some of them,” “I spread rumors about some classmates or I say mean things about other students behind their back” (CFA: χ2 (2) =16.93, p=0.0003; CFI=0.98; GFI=0.99; SRMR=0.03). Items for defending were: “I help or comfort classmates who are excluded from the group and isolated,” “I defend classmates who are targeted by gossip or false rumors that are said behind their back,” “I defend the classmates who are hit or attacked hard,” “I defend classmates who are threatened or offended” (CFA: χ2 (2) =14.94, p= 0.001; CFI=0.99; GFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02). Items for passive bystanding were: “When a classmate is hit or pushed, I stand by and I mind my own business,” “When I hear nasty rumors or mean things said about other students behind their back I mind my own business,” “If a classmate is teased or threatened I do nothing and I don’t interfere,” “If I know that someone is excluded or isolated from the group I act as if nothing has happened” (CFA: χ2 (2) =5.59, p=0.06; CFI= 0.99; GFI=1.00; SRMR=0.02). Participants were asked to rate how often (with reference to the current school year) they had enacted the behavior described in each item on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). For each participant, responses to the 4 items of each scale were averaged to obtain a score for aggression (Cronbach’s alpha=0.66, McDonald’s ω=0.67, greatest lower bound = 0.71), defending (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79, McDonald’s ω=0.80, greatest lower bound=0.82) and passive bystanding (Cronbach’s alpha=0.65, McDonald’s ω= 0.66, greatest lower bound=0.68). We have also performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor structure for the peer-related aggressive behaviors, with aggressive (4 items), defending (4 items) and passive bystanding (4 items) behaviors as latent factors. Results for the three-factor model showed an adequate fit to the data (χ2 (51)=272.66, p
The Role of Individual and Collective Moral Disengagement in Peer Aggression and Bystanding: A Multilevel Analysis Gianluca Gini & Tiziana Pozzoli & Kay Bussey
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study investigates the relationships between individual and collective moral disengagement and aggressionrelated behaviors (peer aggression, defending, and passive bystanding) among 918 adolescents (55.8 % boys; Mage = 14.1 years, SD=1.1). Hierarchical linear modeling showed that, at the individual level, aggressive behavior was significantly explained by both individual moral disengagement and student perceived collective moral disengagement, which was also positively associated with defending. Student perceived collective moral disengagement moderated the link between individual moral disengagement and peer aggression. At the class level, classroom collective moral disengagement explained betweenclass variability in all the three aggression-related behaviors. These results extend previous research by demonstrating the role of collective moral disengagement at the individual and the class levels and have potential implications for interventions. Keywords Peer aggression . Bullying . Defending . Bystanders . Moral disengagement . Class norms Increasing research findings indicate that peer aggression, including bullying, negatively impacts children’s psychosocial adjustment (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, and Little 2008; Ttofi, Farrington, Losel, and Loeber 2011) and physical health (Gini and Pozzoli 2013; Gini et al. 2014c). To further understand
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9920-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
factors associated with peer aggression at school, researchers have begun to address the role of moral factors. Specifically, individual differences in aggressive behavior have been attributed to biases in morality, with aggressive behavior positively linked to moral disengagement, which involves distorted moral reasoning that minimizes guilt (for a meta-analysis see Gini et al. 2014b). However, one major limitation of this research has been the neglect of the complex group nature of peer aggression (Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Faris and Ennett 2012; Salmivalli 2010). This has two main consequences. First, studies on moral disengagement have rarely examined the differential association with peer bystanders who actively intervene to defend victims in aggression episodes compared with those who passively observe the episode (Salmivalli et al. 1996). Second, researchers have typically focused on individual moral cognition associated with aggressive behavior, whereas group morality has been neglected. However, peer group characteristics, such as shared moral values, diffusion of responsibility, and moral climate may partially explain the pervasiveness of peer aggression (e.g., Espelage, Holt, and Henkel 2003; Gini 2008; for a review, Hymel et al. 2010). Thus, in the moral domain, collective moral disengagement, that is, disengagement processes shared at the group level (White, Bandura, and Bero 2009), may be relevant for understanding differences in aggressive and bystander behaviors among school classes. To begin filling this gap, the aim of this study is to test, for the first time, the role of both individual and collective moral disengagement in explaining individual and between-class variation in aggression-related behaviors (i.e., peer aggression, defending, and passive bystanding) among adolescents through a multilevel approach.
G. Gini (*) : T. Pozzoli Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padova, via Venezia, 8, Padova 35131, Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Moral Disengagement, Peer Aggression and Bystander Behaviors
K. Bussey Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Within the comprehensive social cognitive theory of moral agency, Bandura (1991, 2004) has argued that moral
J Abnorm Child Psychol
reasoning is linked to (im) moral behavior through a series of self-regulatory mechanisms. Specifically, Bandura described eight mechanisms, clustered into four broad categories through which moral control can be disengaged (see Bandura 2002, for a more detailed description). The first category of mechanisms, cognitive restructuring, operates by framing the behavior itself in a positive light, by (i) portraying immoral conduct as warranted (moral justification); (ii) contrasting a negative act with a worse one (advantageous comparison); and (iii) using language which palliates the condemned act, thus diminishing its severity (euphemistic labeling). The second set of disengagement strategies operates by obscuring or minimizing one’s agentive role in the harm caused. The third set of strategies operates by minimizing, disregarding or distorting the consequences of one’s action. The final set of strategies involves stripping the recipients of detrimental acts of human qualities (dehumanization) and considering aggression as provoked by the victim (attribution of blame). These mechanisms can lead to aggressive behaviors through a process of moral disengagement, that is, a partial gap between the “abstract” personal idea of moral behavior and the individual’s actual behavior. In this way, the individual is protected from negative feelings, such as guilt or shame, that usually follow immoral conduct (Bandura 1991). The construct of moral disengagement has received progressively increasing attention in developmental psychology as it is related to a variety of youths’ antisocial behaviors. A recent meta-analysis (Gini et al., 2014b) has synthesized the results of almost two decades of research, showing that youths who typically endorse these mechanisms more frequently engage in different types of peer-directed aggressive behavior (e.g., Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Gini, Pozzoli, and Hauser 2011; Hyde, Shaw, and Moilanen 2010; Obermann 2011a; Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinet, and Caprara 2008). Importantly, the link between moral disengagement and aggressive behavior remains significant even after controlling for other predictors (e.g., aggression efficacy, rule perception, or parenting) of such behavior (Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Caravita, Gini, and Pozzoli 2012; Pelton, Gound, Forehand, and Brody 2004). Finally, results of (Gini et al. 2014b) metaanalysis showed that the link between moral disengagement and aggressive behavior is significantly stronger starting from early adolescence compared with childhood. Researchers have stressed the importance of the social context in which episodes of peer aggression occur (Salmivalli 2010). Peer victimized students are not only the targets of perpetrators’ attacks, they are often disliked, isolated, and even rejected by other students within the larger peer group, especially starting from the middle school years (Smith 2010). Peer aggression is more likely to be accepted when a victimized child is perceived by peers, even those who are not aggressive, as someone deserving of aggression, perhaps because of personal characteristics, or the belief that s/he is
partially responsible for his/her own victimization (Lahelma 2004; Teräsahjo and Salmivalli 2003; Thornberg 2013). Studies that have examined onlookers’ reactions to school aggression have shown that active intervention in favor of victims is rare (e.g., Pepler and Craig 1995; Salmivalli et al. 1996). This may be due to the fact that defending behavior in peer aggression situations differs from more general altruistic conduct towards needy people in every-day life (Pozzoli and Gini 2010) and it is likely to be the outcome of both personal and contextual characteristics (Pozzoli, Gini, and Vieno 2012; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). Therefore, it is not surprising that recent school-based interventions have included strategies specifically focused on bystanders (e.g., Kärnä et al. 2011; Pfetsch, Steffgen, Gollwitzer, and Ittel 2011; Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott 2012). However, evaluations of interventions aimed at reducing peer aggression at school have shown that, despite efforts to encourage bystanders to intervene, many children resist doing so (e.g., Evers, Prochaska, Van Marter, Johnson, and Prochaska 2007). It is therefore paramount that, beyond aggressive behavior, we increase our understanding of the factors underlying active defending and supportive behaviors toward victims compared with passive bystanding. If aggression is an immoral action because of its harmful intentions and negative consequences (Hymel et al. 2010), defending a victim of peer aggression is an example of proactive moral action because it aims to protect the welfare and rights of the victim (Tisak, Tisak, and Goldstein 2006). Indeed, active support to victims requires, among others, a sense of moral responsibility to intervene (Pozzoli and Gini 2010). Even though in recent years there has been an increasing attention to the ways youths react to a situation in which a peer is being victimized (e.g., Barchia and Bussey 2011b; Forsberg, Thornberg, and Samuelsson 2014; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, and Altoè 2008; Pöyhönen et al. 2010, 2012; Pozzoli and Gini 2013; Pozzoli et al. 2012; Sandstrom, Makover, and Bartini 2012; Thornberg and Jungert 2013), studies on the relationship between moral disengagement and bystander behaviors are scarce. There is some evidence that, similar to the findings for general prosocial behavior (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli 1996), students’ proneness to use moral disengagement mechanisms is negatively associated with active defending in bullying situations (Caravita et al. 2012; Gini et al. 2011; Thornberg and Jungert 2013; Thornberg, Pozzoli, Gini, and Jungert in press). Conversely, passive bystanding tends to be positively, though weakly, related to the activation of these mechanisms (Obermann 2011b). Specifically (Obermann 2011bb) found that a particular subgroup of bystanders, so-called “unconcerned bystanders”, showed a significantly higher level of moral disengagement than both so-called “guilty bystanders” and defenders.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
Classroom as a Socio-Moral Context in Peer Aggression As suggested by the view of peer aggression as a social process (Espelage and Swearer 2004; Salmivalli 2010), contextual variables could influence behavior in the classroom above and beyond individual characteristics. Indeed, some studies have confirmed that the context in which peer aggression takes place is likely to influence adolescents’ perceptions, attitudes, and behavior (e.g., Lenzi et al. 2014; Pellegrini and Long 2002; Pozzoli et al. 2012; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004; Salmivalli, Voeten, and Poskiparta 2011). For example, adherence to peer group norms, homophily, pluralistic ignorance, social identity concerns, and other group mechanisms might contribute to how victims are perceived and to aggressive conduct among peers (e.g., Gini 2006; Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, Kiesner, and Griffiths 2008; Sandstrom et al. 2012). These processes of social influence among classmates can be particularly pervasive, since school classes represent one of the most salient social contexts throughout childhood and adolescence (e.g., Bronfenbrenner 1979). With respect to peer aggression, there are two main reasons for considering the classroom as a relevant context. First, most episodes of peer aggression occur in school among classmates and several authors agree that classrooms represent an important context for both understanding and tackling the problem (e.g., Doll, Song, and Siemers 2004; Salmivalli et al. 2011; Troop-Gordon and Ladd 2013). Second, in Italy, like in many other countries, students remain in a single classroom with the same classmates for the full school day and for more than one school year. In the current study, for the first time, we introduce the concept of classroom collective moral disengagement, based on Bandura’s conceptualization (White et al. 2009), and examine its relationship with adolescents’ aggressive and bystander behaviors.
Collective Moral Disengagement, Peer Aggression and Bystander Behaviors In the above cited literature, moral disengagement has been always studied at the individual level. However, class group characteristics may confer varying levels of approval toward specific types of social conduct, thereby affecting the behavior of group members even when they do not reflect their private attitudes (e.g., Espelage et al. 2003; Pozzoli et al. 2012). Moral disengagement is also conceptualized as reflecting influences of the social environment and moral agency is cultivated and learned through the community in which people develop their social relationships; in other words, moral behavior is determined by a combination of personal and social influences (Bandura 2002). Group decision making can facilitate inhumane behavior by virtue of the responsibility being shifted to the collective as opposed to the individual. For example, it has
been demonstrated that people have an increased likelihood to behave more cruelly in a group as opposed to when they are alone; likewise, group members can sometimes share a negative perception of the victim or blame the victim for his/her condition (Ahmed and Braithwaite 2004; Cehajic, Brown, and González 2009; Gini 2008; Haslam 2006). Accordingly, moral disengagement can also occur at the group level (Caravita, Sijtsema, Rambaran, and Gini 2013; Sijtsema, Rambaran, Caravita, & Gini, in press). Bandura has defined the concept of collective moral disengagement as “an emergent group-level property arising from the interactive, coordinative, and synergistic group dynamics” (White et al. 2009, p.43). As for other collective constructs, such as collective efficacy (Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Caprara et al. 2004), collective moral disengagement operates through similar processes to individual moral disengagement, differing only in the unit of agency. That is, collective moral disengagement includes the same mechanisms as individual moral disengagement, but it refers to the beliefs in justifying negative actions that are—to some extent—shared within a significant social group. Importantly, the construct of collective moral disengagement can be considered from both an individual and a group perspective (Gini et al. 2014a). At the individual level, it refers to individuals’ perception of the degree to which morally disengaged justifications are shared by members of their group. That is, it measures students’ beliefs about the extent to which members of their group use such mechanisms in everyday interactions. This construct differs from individual moral disengagement as described above, because it does not refer to an individual’s own use of the mechanisms; rather it reflects an individual’s belief about the extent to which many, or few, peers in the group use such mechanisms in everyday interactions. For the sake of clarity, we refer to this concept as student perceived collective moral disengagement. At the group level, the construct refers to the collective property of a given group, that is, it does not reflect individual use of moral disengagement mechanisms but the degree to which such mechanisms are shared by members within that group. As for other collective constructs (Hoffman 2002), collective moral disengagement most likely comes about through the interactions among individuals within a group— and their socialization tactics including routines, social activities and the justificatory strategies that are modeled by others to condone immoral behavior. Importantly, it cannot be measured by simply asking individuals about their own use of these mechanisms and then computing an aggregate score at the group level. Only when the content of the measure specifically references the group does one obtain a measure of the collective construct (Hoffman 2002). As foreshadowed, in this study we considered the classroom as the relevant social grouping unit as it provides a salient proximal context (Henry
J Abnorm Child Psychol
et al. 2000). We therefore refer to the class-level construct as classroom collective moral disengagement. In view of the importance of the social context of peer aggression, the relative neglect of group-level constructs to examine the influence of group values on peer aggression is surprising (Barchia and Bussey 2011a). Although the existing constructs share some similarities with classroom collective moral disengagement, they differ from it in significant ways. One such construct involves the measurement of normative beliefs about aggression at the classroom level. In their study, (Henry et al. 2000) examined two aspects of classroom norms, descriptive and injunctive norms. Descriptive classroom norms were operationalized as children’s beliefs about the level of aggressive behavior of children in the class, whereas injunctive classroom norms were defined as classmates’ acceptability of aggressive behavior. While the injunctive classroom norm measure is closest to our notion of classroom collective moral disengagement, it differs significantly from it in terms of its conceptual basis and measurement. It relies on an aggregate of individual normative beliefs about aggressive behavior in the classroom rather than measuring children’s normative beliefs about aggressive behavior at the classroom level. Although the measure of bullying-related classroom norms devised by Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) provides a more group focused measure than the aggregated scores approach used by (Henry et al. 2000), it requires students to imagine how other students in the class would respond to an ‘ordinary student’ performing various bullying-related behaviors without taking account of the actual proportion of students likely to endorse such a response. This measure provides important information about how other students in the class are expected to respond to bullying-related behavior, however, this is different from examining the extent to which the group endorses justifications for performing aggressive behaviors which is the focus of the collective moral disengagement measure. In another approach to investigating the influence of group level norms on bullying intentions, group norms have been operationalized from the perspective of in-group and out-group members based on the principles of social identity development theory. From this perspective, the desire to belong to the in-group contributes to the adoption of ingroup norms. Using the minimal group paradigm, (Nesdale et al. 2008) showed that when the group norm involved dislike and rejection of the out-group, in-group members were more inclined to bully the out-group than when the group norm involved liking and inclusion of the out-group. Although this study considered norms at the group level, these norms were imposed experimentally and it is unclear whether children in a classroom would form an in-group by uniformly adopting the same values. In contrast, the measure of collective moral disengagement takes account of the variability in students’ moral justificatory beliefs within different classrooms. Although collective moral disengagement is assessed for each
individual student, it measures students’ perceptions of the extent to which classroom members employ moral disengagement mechanisms. Further, the concept of classroom collective moral disengagement is embedded within the conceptual framework of social cognitive theory that includes not only personal agency but collective agency as a key feature of the self-regulatory process (Bandura 2002). As the classroom is a social system that exerts a significant influence over students’ behavior, it is important to measure its influence through a collective measure that is independent of the personal measure, yet operates through the same set of mechanisms as the personal one. Surprisingly, so far, no studies have empirically analyzed the role of collective moral disengagement in aggression among classmates.
The Present Study In sum, we aimed to investigate whether individual and collective moral disengagement each contribute to the explanation of different levels of aggressive behavior, defending and passive bystanding among adolescent students, as well as between-class variations of these behaviors. First, consistent with previous studies (Gini et al. 2014b), it was hypothesized that individual moral disengagement would be positively associated with aggression and passive bystanding behavior and negatively with defending after controlling for age, gender and the other individual behaviors. Similar hypotheses were made about the role of student perceived collective moral disengagement, even though no previous studies have used this construct to predict aggression-related behaviors and thus these hypotheses are more speculative. Believing that moral disengagement is quite common in the class group may lead youths to think that aggressive behavior is more likely to be tolerated by peers. Consequently, this perception should be related to higher levels of individual aggression and passive bystanding, and lower levels of active intervention in favor of peer victimized classmates (Sandstrom et al. 2012). Beyond the hypothesized main effects, we may also expect that student perceived collective moral disengagement would moderate the association between individual moral disengagement and aggression and bystander behaviors. Whereas we know that higher levels of individual moral disengagement increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior and, to some extent, the withholding of help toward victimized peers, and decreases the likelihood of active intervention in favor of victims, we know less about what factors may buffer these links (Gini et al. 2014b). One of these factors could be the perception that the majority of peers within the group actually use moral disengagement mechanisms to justify their negative behaviors, diffuse/displace responsibility of such behaviors, or blame victims. Hence, higher levels of perceived collective moral disengagement may strengthen the positive link
J Abnorm Child Psychol
between moral disengagement and both aggression and passive bystanding by making it more acceptable and ‘normal’ from the perspective of the individual student. Similarly, they could make the negative association between individual moral disengagement and defending stronger. This hypothesis was tested by adding the interaction term between these two variables at the individual level of the model. Second, previous research on class characteristics, such as class normative beliefs on bullying, class attitudes and class injunctive and descriptive norms (Pozzoli et al. 2012; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004), indicates that class norms can help explain bullying-related behaviors over and above individual characteristics. Therefore, this study hypothesized that, at the class level, classroom collective moral disengagement would significantly explain between-class variation in aggression-related behaviors. Specifically, it was anticipated that there is a greater likelihood of aggressive behavior and passive bystanding in school classes with higher levels of collective moral disengagement. Conversely, higher levels of collective moral disengagement should be related to less defending. Indeed, in the classroom context, high collective moral disengagement was expected to contribute to a negative climate, including shared attitudes favoring aggression, more justification and redefinition of aggression in terms of both causes and consequences, more diffused/displaced responsibility, and victim blame/dehumanization, thus enhancing acceptance of aggressive acts (either enacted or just witnessed) and decreasing the likelihood of students defending victimized peers.
Method Participants and Procedure Participants were recruited from 49 Italian public school classes (6th to 10th grade) from middle and high schools located in urban and suburban areas. The average class size was 19 (SD=4.7). School principals and teachers authorized the participation of the classes in the study, and active parental consent was obtained prior to data collection (acceptance rate: 88 %). Before data collection, individual consent for participation was also obtained from the participants with parental consent, who were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and who were allowed to refuse to participate and to withdraw from the study at any time. None of the participants refused to participate. They completed an anonymous questionnaire during class time. Data were collected at least 4 months after the beginning of the school year. The study was approved by the University of Padua Ethics Committee for Research in Psychology (protocol #1157–2012). The final sample consisted of 918 students (55.8 % boys; Mage =14.1 years, SD=1.1, range: 12–16). Socio-economic
status was not directly measured. However, as in all public schools in Italy, our sample included youths from a wide range of socioeconomic statuses. In terms of racial/ethnic background, the sample was predominantly Caucasian (96.2 %).
Measures Behaviors During Aggressive Episodes A 12-item scale (adapted from Pozzoli and Gini 2010; Pozzoli et al. 2012) was used to measure aggressive behavior, defending and passive bystanding behavior. Each behavior was measured by 4 items (2 overt and 2 relational aggression items). Items for peer aggression were: “I tease some classmates, calling them nasty nicknames, threatening or offending them,” “I exclude some classmates from the group or I do something so that they are isolated,” “I am aggressive towards my classmates, I hit or push some of them,” “I spread rumors about some classmates or I say mean things about other students behind their back” (CFA: χ2 (2) =16.93, p=0.0003; CFI=0.98; GFI=0.99; SRMR=0.03). Items for defending were: “I help or comfort classmates who are excluded from the group and isolated,” “I defend classmates who are targeted by gossip or false rumors that are said behind their back,” “I defend the classmates who are hit or attacked hard,” “I defend classmates who are threatened or offended” (CFA: χ2 (2) =14.94, p= 0.001; CFI=0.99; GFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02). Items for passive bystanding were: “When a classmate is hit or pushed, I stand by and I mind my own business,” “When I hear nasty rumors or mean things said about other students behind their back I mind my own business,” “If a classmate is teased or threatened I do nothing and I don’t interfere,” “If I know that someone is excluded or isolated from the group I act as if nothing has happened” (CFA: χ2 (2) =5.59, p=0.06; CFI= 0.99; GFI=1.00; SRMR=0.02). Participants were asked to rate how often (with reference to the current school year) they had enacted the behavior described in each item on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). For each participant, responses to the 4 items of each scale were averaged to obtain a score for aggression (Cronbach’s alpha=0.66, McDonald’s ω=0.67, greatest lower bound = 0.71), defending (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79, McDonald’s ω=0.80, greatest lower bound=0.82) and passive bystanding (Cronbach’s alpha=0.65, McDonald’s ω= 0.66, greatest lower bound=0.68). We have also performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor structure for the peer-related aggressive behaviors, with aggressive (4 items), defending (4 items) and passive bystanding (4 items) behaviors as latent factors. Results for the three-factor model showed an adequate fit to the data (χ2 (51)=272.66, p
