Individual and Class Moral Disengagement in ... - Wiley Online Library

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 38, pages 378–388 (2012)

Individual and Class Moral Disengagement in Bullying Among Elementary School Children Tiziana Pozzoli∗ , Gianluca Gini, and Alessio Vieno Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, Padova, Italy

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A cross-sectional study from a sample of 663 elementary school children assessed the four sets of moral disengagement mechanisms conceptualized by Bandura (i.e., cognitive restructuring, minimizing one’s agentive role, disregarding/distorting the consequences, blaming/dehumanizing the victim) at both the individual and the class level. Additionally, an analysis of the relations of these mechanisms to pro-bullying behavior was conducted. Multilevel analysis showed a significant relationship between cognitive restructuring and individual pro-bullying behavior. Moreover, between-class variability of pro-bullying behavior was positively related to minimizing one’s agentive role and blaming/dehumanizing the victim at the class level. Conversely, class disregarding/distorting the consequences was negatively associated with between-class variation in the outcome behavior. Implications for understanding the C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. role of morality in children’s bullying are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 38:378–388, 2012.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Keywords: bullying; moral disengagement; cognitive distortions; moral responsibility; class normative context

INTRODUCTION

Research on bullying has recently broadened its scope to understand the role of morality as a factor in relation to children’s aggressive behavior. In particular, a series of studies have investigated the relationship between moral disengagement and bullying [Hymel et al., 2010]. However, two notable limitations of the extant literature were identified. First, although Bandura [1986, 1991] identified different sets of selfjustification mechanisms, research has traditionally measured moral disengagement as a unidimensional construct, with one exception [Pornari and Wood, 2010]. Second, moral disengagement has consistently been measured as an individual factor. To date, literature fails to provide empirical evidence investigating the relation of class moral disengagement (i.e., moral disengagement at the class-level) with children’s aggression and/or bullying. This study aims to test the relation between different sets of mechanisms of moral disengagement and bullying behavior among elementary-school children at both the individual and class level. Given the pervasive incidence of bullying across the globe and the detrimental effects it has on children’s health and wellbeing (for recent meta-analyses see, Gini and Pozzoli, 2009; Ttofi et al., 2011], it is crucial that we maximize our understanding of bullying and any factors

contributing to this behavior. Gaining insight into the role of individual and class moral disengagement in regards to bullying is paramount for public health and safety as well as the development and practice of effective intervention programs. Individual and Class Moral Disengagement In his social cognitive theory of moral agency, Bandura [1986, 1990, 2002] described a series of self-serving cognitive distortions that can lead to aggressive or even more inhumane behavior through a process of moral disengagement. These cognitive distortions act as a coping strategy that protects the offenders from negative feelings, such as guilt or shame that normally follow an inappropriate behavior [Bandura, 1990]. Specifically, Bandura [1990, 2002] identified eight moral disengagement mechanisms clustered into four broad strategies [see also Hymel et al., 2005]. The first, cognitive restructuring, operates by framing the behavior itself in a positive light (i) by ∗ Correspondence to: Tiziana Pozzoli, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, via Venezia 8, Padova 35131, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 27 September 2011; Accepted 7 June 2012 Published online 9 July 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.21442

C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Moral Disengagement and Bullying

portraying an immoral conduct as warranted (moral justification); (ii) by contrasting a condemned act with worse conducts (advantageous comparison); (iii) by using language which palliates the condemned act thus diminishing its severity (euphemistic labeling). The second set of disengagement practices operates by obscuring or minimizing one’s agentive role in the harm caused (displacement and diffusion of responsibility). The third category operates by minimizing, disregarding or distorting the consequences of one’s action, allowing the individual to distance him or herself from the harm caused or to emphasize positive rather than negative outcomes (minimizing or misconstruing consequences). Finally, through blaming or dehumanizing the victim, negative feelings can be avoided by stripping the recipients of detrimental acts of human qualities (dehumanization) or considering aggression as provoked by the victim (attribution of blame). Immoral behavior is not uncommon among children. Unfortunately, due to the paucity of longitudinal research in this field, there is little empirical data on how moral disengagement changes with children’s development. In particular, as far as we know, only two studies directly examined how moral disengagement changes across time. Shulman et al. [2011] recently investigated moral disengagement stability across a 3-year follow-up period in a group of 14–17 years old juvenile male offenders. The authors found a tendency of moral disengagement to decline over time. In a community sample, Paciello et al. [2008] conducted a longitudinal study of Italian adolescents assessed at four intervals from the ages of 14 to 20 to measure the stability and change of moral disengagement and its relationship to aggressive behavior. These authors identified four distinct developmental categories as follows: (i) nondisengaged adolescents (37.9% of the sample) who started with initially low levels of moral disengagement followed by a significant decline, (ii) a normative group (44.5%) that started with initially moderate levels followed by a decline, (iii) the so-called “later desistent” adolescents (6.9%) who started with initially high-medium levels followed by a significant increase from the ages of 14 to 16 and an even steeper decline from the ages of 16–20, and (iv) a “chronic” group (10.7%) that maintained constant medium-high levels of moral disengagement. Even though there are not similar longitudinal analyses with younger children, previous studies have shown that moral disengagement processes are already present and measurable during the elementary school years [e.g., Caprara et al., 1995; Pelton et al., 2004]. Presently what is unclear is whether the psychological meaning of these processes and the

379

way they operate is comparable between children and adolescents. Moral disengagement is generally described as an individual process, despite that self-regulation of morality is not regulated by internal psychological factors alone. People do not function as autonomous beings, resistant to the influences in their external environment. Naturally, moral agency is cultivated and learned through the community and culture in which people develop their social relationships. In other words, behavior is determined by a combination of personal (internal) and social (external) influences [Bandura, 1986, 2002]. Accordingly, depending on the circumstances, moral disengagement can also be considered a characteristic of the group [Hymel et al., 2010]. Likewise, 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, or when the victimized person or group is perceived as subhuman by the other group members [Diener, 1979; Haslam, 2006]. In regards to the role of children’s peer groups in school, processes of social influence among classmates can be particularly pervasive, as classrooms represent one of the most salient normative contexts throughout childhood and adolescence [e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979]. Classrooms, like other social groups, are characterized by social/cultural norms and moral climate. These characteristics may implicitly or explicitly confer varying levels of approval toward negative conducts, thereby affecting the behavior of group members even when they do not reflect their personal, private attitudes [e.g., Espelage et al., 2003; Juvonen and Galvan, 2008]. However, previous studies on children’s moral disengagement have never considered moral disengagement at the class level. Moral Disengagement and Bullying Disengagement of moral control mechanisms has been studied most extensively in military, public, and criminal violence, but it is by no means limited to extraordinary circumstances. Such mechanisms may be applied in everyday situations in which people routinely exhibit behavior that brings them some kind of benefit at the expense of others [Bandura, 1999]. Therefore, theory of moral disengagement may provide a useful framework for understanding antisocial behavior, including aggression and bullying among school-age children [Hymel et al., 2010]. In fact, empirical evidence suggests that children and adolescents who endorse these mechanisms are more likely to Aggr. Behav.

380

Pozzoli et al.

engage in different types of aggressive behavior, at least from middle childhood onwards [e.g., Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1995; Hyde et al., 2010; Paciello et al., 2008; Pelton et al., 2004]. This association has also been confirmed in the field of school bullying [e.g., Gini, 2006; Hymel et al., 2005], which consists of systematic peer-to-peer abuse and represents the major form of proactive aggression among children. Bullying is an unprovoked aversive means of influencing or coercing another person and it constitutes an inappropriate social behavior instrumentally used to reach valued goals such as dominance, resource control, and popularity within a group of peers [e.g., Peeters et al., 2010]. Thus, bullying behavior represents an immoral act because it violates children’s fundamental rights to education, freedom, and safety [Hymel et al., 2010]. Current research converges to demonstrate that children who bully, similarly to other aggressive children, tend more frequently to use moral disengagement mechanisms compared to their nonaggressive peers. For instance, in a cross-national study with Italian and Spanish elementary school children, bullies reported higher levels of moral disengagement and the presence of a profile of egocentric reasoning when compared to the defenders of the victim [Menesini et al., 2003b]. Among Canadian adolescents, Hymel et al. [2005] also found a positive association between bullying and moral disengagement. Similarly, in a sample of Italian elementary-school children, Gini [2006] found that bullies scored higher than nonaggressive pupils on a scale assessing the mechanisms identified by Bandura. In this study, bullies’ followers (i.e., assistants and reinforcers of the bully) also scored high on the same scale. Thus, in bullying dynamics, it is not solely the bullies who are likely to morally disengage, but also the peers who support them. Finally, higher levels of moral disengagement in both child and adolescent bullies were recently confirmed by Gini et al. [2011] and Obermann [2011]. Unfortunately, based on exploratory factor analysis, previous studies have only investigated the association between a global index of moral disengagement and bullying behavior, thus losing information about the specificity of the different sets of mechanisms conceptualized by Bandura. Conversely, Pornari and Wood [2010] have recently analyzed the relationship between the various mechanisms of moral disengagement and peer aggression (but not specifically bullying) among 12–14-year-old students. Results of their regression analysis showed that aggressive behavior toward peers was positively associated with moral justification and euphemistic language and, to a lesser extent, displacement of responsibility. In other words, Aggr. Behav.

students who were more prone to cognitively restructure the meaning of their negative behavior were more likely to behave aggressively with peers.

The Present Study In keeping with this literature, it is hypothesized that at the individual-level moral disengagement would be positively associated with bullying behavior in a sample of elementary-school children. Specifically, we tested whether the analysis of the four distinct sets of mechanisms can provide greater cognizance of how self-justification processes work in bullying among children. While all mechanisms can be potentially related to individual bullying behavior [Hymel et al., 2010], consistent with the findings by Pornari and Wood [2010], we hypothesized that there is a significant association between cognitive reconstruction and bullying. In fact, this set of mechanisms, which includes moral justifications, sanitizing language, and exonerating comparisons, is the most powerful set of psychological mechanisms for disengaging individual moral control [Bandura, 1990]. Consequently, these are the mechanisms that more directly operate on the negative act and, in turn, on people who behave immorally, such as the bully. Moreover, bullies may sometimes disregard the consequences of their acts in order to avoid guilty feelings or as a means to elude punishment from authority. Therefore, a positive association between this mechanism and bullying behavior was also hypothesized. As aforementioned, previous studies have only investigated the role of moral disengagement in bullying at the individual level. However, it has been acknowledged that bullying is a group phenomenon [e.g., Espelage and Swearer, 2004; Salmivalli et al., 1996]. In comparison to other types of aggressive behavior, bullying usually takes place within a group of peers. Furthermore, bullies are not individual children, but rather leaders accompanied by other classmates (the so-called “followers”). These “followers” often take side with the bully and support his/her bullying behavior by either participating in the abuse of the victim or by laughing at the bullying [Craig et al., 2000; Salmivalli et al., 1996]. Moreover, shared moral values, diffusion of responsibility, group norms, moral atmosphere, and other group processes within the classroom may partially explain the pervasiveness of bullying [e.g., Espelage et al., 2003; Gini, 2008]. Thus in the moral domain, class moral disengagement, that is, the degree of disengagement processes at the class level, may be relevant for understanding differences in the behavior of bullies and their


followers, named “pro-bullying behavior”1 [Sutton and Smith, 1999], among classes. However, there are no published studies that have applied the concept of class moral disengagement to the bullying phenomenon. Only one, unpublished study [Vaillancourt et al., 2006] addressed this issue by examining the relationship between global moral disengagement at the broad school level and bullying. The researchers concluded that higher levels of school moral disengagement were associated with greater self-reported involvement in bullying as perpetrators and as witnesses. With respect to bullying, however, there are two main reasons for considering the class instead of the whole school as the relevant context. First, bullying often takes place within the classroom and several authors agree that classes represent an important context for both understanding and tackling it [e.g., Doll et al., 2004; Salmivalli and Voeten, 2004]. Second, in many countries including Italy, pupils remain in a single classroom with the same classmates for the full school day and, in almost all cases, for several years. This is a further reason why classes, rather than the whole school, should be considered as the immediate context for the study of peer relationships [Chang, 2003]. Previous research on class characteristics, such as class normative beliefs on bullying, class attitudes, and class injunctive and descriptive norms [Pozzoli et al., in press; Salmivalli and Voeten, 2004], indicates that class norms can help predict bullying behaviors over and above individual characteristics. Based on these findings, this study hypothesizes that moral disengagement at the class level is associated with between-class variation in pro-bullying behavior. In other words, it is anticipated that there is a greater likelihood of pro-bullying behavior in classes with higher levels of class moral disengagement. Further to this, it is proposed that, at the group level some sets of mechanisms are more relevant than others. It is predicted that the findings show a significant role of displacement or diffusion of responsibility, since these mechanisms are inherently group-based [e.g., Diener, 1977]. Moreover, group members can sometimes share a negative perception of the victim [e.g., Ahmed and Braithwaite, 2004; Cehajic et al., 2009;

1 In keeping with previous studies [e.g., Belacchi and Farina, 2010; Gini

et al., 2007; Menesini et al., 2003a, b; Tani et al., 2003] pro-bullying behavior is defined as single category of bullying-related behaviors including behaviors of the ringleader bully (e.g., “Starts bullying,” “Makes the others join in the bullying”), of the assistant of the bully (e.g., “Joins in the bullying when someone else has started it,” “Assists the bully”), and of the reinforce of the bully (e.g., “Incites the bully by shouting,” says to the bully, “Show him/her”).

381

Gini, 2008]. Thus, it is anticipated that class dehumanizing/blaming the victim are also related to bullying at the class level. METHOD

Participants and Procedure Participants were recruited from 38 elementaryschool classes (4th and 5th grades) from eight public schools. The average class size was 18.6 (SD = 6.0). School principals and teachers were asked first for consent. Parental consent letters were then distributed to all the families in order to obtain permission for their children’s participation (acceptance rate: 92%). Finally, the sample children were asked for their personal authorization whereby all agreed to participate. The final sample consisted of 663 children (51.9% boys; mean age = 9 years, 9 months, SD = 11 months, range: 8–10). Socioeconomic status was not directly measured. However, as in all public elementary schools in Italy, our sample included children from a wide range of socioeconomic statuses. In terms of racial/ethnic background, the sample was predominantly Caucasian (96%), with a small proportion of Asian (2%) and North African (2%) origin. Data were collected about 3–4 months after the beginning of the school year. Because in Italian schools pupils remain in a single classroom with the same classmates during the entire period of the five elementary school grades, children participating in this study have been together in the same class group at least for three years. The questionnaires were completed in counterbalanced order during a single classroom session. The session began with a brief introduction about the general purpose of the study. Then, the definition of bullying [e.g., Whitney and Smith, 1993] was discussed with children. Measures Pro-bullying behavior Items from the Italian validation of the Participant Role Questionnaire [Salmivalli et al., 1996] were used to collect peer nominations about bullying (four items, e.g., “Starts bullying”), assisting the bullies (two items, e.g., “Helps the bully, by catching or holding the victim”), and reinforcing the bullies (five items, e.g., “Laughs at people getting bullied”). Children were asked to nominate classmates who fit each behavioral description. Then, for each nominated classmate, participants were also asked to indicate whether he or she “sometimes” (scored as 1) or “often” (scored as 2) showed that behavior. Finally, for each child, the mean score obtained from each scale was divided by the number of nominators, to account for differences in class size. Aggr. Behav.

382

Pozzoli et al.

Consistently with previous works, the three scores were highly correlated (rs > .65) and were combined into a single pro-bullying score (α = .92) [see Sutton and Smith, 1999]. Moral disengagement. We used the 14-item version of the moral disengagement scale that has been specifically designed and validated for elementary school children [Caprara et al., 1995]. The items describe individual’s readiness to construe injurious conduct as serving righteous purposes, masquerading censored activities by palliative language or rendering them benign by advantageous comparison, minimizing the harmful effects of one’s detrimental conduct, and devaluing those who are maltreated. Children were asked to rate the strength of their endorsement or rejection of moral exoneration of detrimental conduct on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree (see Results section for confirmatory factor analysis). RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analyses In order to test whether it was adequate to use the four separate scores of moral disengagement, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis with the ¨ ¨ LISREL 8.7 program [Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993; Weighted Least Squares method for non-normally distributed variables) of the four-factor structure of the moral disengagement scale, with cognitive restructuring (six items), minimizing one’s agentive role (three items), distorting consequences (two items), and blaming/dehumanizing the victim (three items) as latent factors representing the four sets of mechanisms as conceptualized by Bandura. To evaluate the fit of the model, the following criteria are commonly considered. If the model is correct, the chi-squared test statistic should be nonsignificant. However, when the sample size is very large (>200; ¨ ¨ Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996), chi-squared may be significant even if the difference between the observed and the predicted covariance structure is negligible. In order to address this limitation of the chi-squared test, the other presented indices are used. The ratio χ2 /df should be as small as possible. Usually, a ratio between 0 and 2 and between 2 and 3 is indicative of a good or acceptable data-model fit, respectively. Comparative fit index (CFI) values between 0.90 and 0.97 are related to an acceptable fit [Hu and Bentler, 1995] and values greater than 0.97 indicate a good fit. As far as goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is concerned, it is considered acceptable when it is comprised between 0.90 and 0.95, while it is good when greater than 0.95. Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) values rangAggr. Behav.

ing from 0.85 to 0.90 reflect an acceptable fit of the model, that is considered good when AGFI values are greater than 0.90. Finally, with respect to the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), a good fit is represented by values under 0.05 and an acceptable fit corresponds to values between 0.05 and 0.08 for RMSEA and between 0.05 and 0.10 for SRMR [Browne and Cudeck, 1993; SchermellehEngel et al., 2003]. Based on these criteria, results for the four-factor model showed an adequate fit to the data: χ2 (71) = 203.17, P < .001, χ2 /df = 2.86, CFI = .90, GFI = .95, AGFI = .93, RMSEA = .052 (90% CI: .04, .06), SRMR = .051. These results confirmed that computing the score for each of the four categories of moral disengagement mechanisms separately was legitimate. The four-factor model of the moral disengagement scale is represented in Figure 1. The percentage of explained variance by factors were 43% for cognitive restructuring, 56% for minimizing one’s agentive role, 29% for distorting consequences, and 44% for blaming/dehumanizing the victim. After having established the four-factor structure of the scale through the CFA, the mean score was computed for each moral disengagement category. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Study Variables Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables are reported in Table I. Moreover, to help comparisons with other studies in this field, the correlation between global moral disengagement and bullying was also computed (r = .16). In order to test gender differences a series of t-tests were conducted. Effect sizes are expressed as Cohen’s d, based on the pooled standard deviation of the two groups. Multilevel Analysis In order to take into account the multilevel nature of our data (students nested within classes) and to test our hypotheses about the role of class moral disengagement, we used the multilevel modeling technique of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM, Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002), which properly estimates standard errors when data measured at one level (student) share variance at another level (class). In a first step, the null model was estimated to obtain the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results showed that a significant portion of variance (13.7%) of probullying behavior was explained by classes (χ2 (37) = 131.27, P < .001). The estimated reliability with which classes can be distinguished on pro-bullying behavior was .72.


383

Fig. 1. Confirmatory factor analysis model of the moral disengagement scale. Note. Standardized factor loadings are reported.

Then, two nested models were estimated. In Model 1, the influence of individual variables on peernominated pro-bullying behavior was examined. Age and gender were included in the analyses as control variables together with the four sets of moral disen-

gagement mechanisms. Yi j = β0 j + β1 j (age) + β2 j (gender) + β3 j (cognitive restructuring)

TABLE I. Correlations, Descriptive Statistics, and Gender Comparisons for All Measures Full sample 1. 1. Pro-bullying behavior 2. Cognitive restructuring 3. Minimizing one’s agentive role 4. Disregarding/distorting the consequences 5. Blaming/dehumanizing the victim *P

< .05;

** P

< .01;

*** P

2.

3.

4.

.15*** .12** .03

.32*** .27***

.23***

.12**

.46***

.28***

M

SD

Boys M

Girls SD

M

SD

t

d

5.82***

-

.18 2.24 2.35 1.84

.19 .69 .95 .89

.22 2.29 2.31 1.92

.21 .74 .94 .93

.14 2.17 2.39 1.73

.15 .63 .97 .81

2.35* -1.07 2.82**

.44 .17 -.08 .22

.21***

2.23

.92

2.28

.93

2.17

.89

1.55

.12

< .001. Aggr. Behav.

384

Pozzoli et al.

+ β4 j (minimizing one s agentive role)

was linked to lower levels of pro-bullying behavior (see Table II). The deviance of the Model 2 decreased + β5 j (disregarding/distorting the consequences) significantly compared to that of the Model 1 (χ2 (5) = 16.62, P = .006), indicating that Model 2, in which + β6 j (blaming/dehumanizing the victim) + εi j both individual and class variables were considered, β0i = γ00 + u0i . fitted the data better than Model 1, in which only individual variables were taken into account. Results (see Table II) showed that pro-bullying behavior was higher in boys. Moreover, among the different dimensions of moral disengagement, only cognitive restructuring strategies were significantly related to pro-bullying behavior. Overall, individual predictors entered in Model 1 explained 6% of the variance in participants’ pro-bullying behavior. In Model 2, we added class-level variables in order to examine whether class moral disengagement mechanisms were related to variability among classes of pro-bullying behavior, controlling for the proportion of boys in the class. Following the procedure of Krull and MacKinnon [2001], data at the class level were obtained by aggregating children’s responses in each of the four sets of mechanisms. Yi j = β0 j + β1 j (age) + β2 j (gender) + β3 j (cognitive restructuring) + β4 j (minimizing one s agentive role) + β5 j (disregarding/distorting the consequences) + β6 j (blaming/dehumanizing the victim) + εi j β0 j = γ00 + γ01 (proportion of boys) + γ02 (class cognitive restructuring) + γ03 (class minimizing one s agentive role) + γ04 (class disregarding/distorting the consequences) + γ05 (class blaming/dehumanizing the victim)+ u0 j β1 jto to β6 j were estimated as fixed effects.

Results revealed that the between-class variance in pro-bullying behavior was partly explained by the proportion of boys in the class, so that pro-bullying behavior was higher in classes with more boys. Moreover, three out of four types of class moral disengagement were significantly associated with variance in pro-bullying behavior at the class level. Specifically, a stronger class tendency to minimize the agentive role when harm is caused and to blame or dehumanize the victim was positively related to higher levels of pro-bullying behavior in the class. In contrast, a more frequent use in the class of strategies aimed at disregarding or distorting the consequences of an action Aggr. Behav.

DISCUSSION

This study was the first to analyze the role of both individual and class moral disengagement in bullying among elementary-school children with a multilevel design. In keeping with the view that bullying is a group process, we measured bullying behavior as well as the accompanying behaviors that support and encourage bullying within a group of classmates. Lastly, contrary to previous studies, we analyzed the four sets of disengagement mechanisms proposed by Bandura, separately. At the individual level, consistent with the extant literature, a positive association between moral disengagement and bullying emerged. First, zero-order correlations showed that the four sets of disengagement mechanisms positively correlated with each other and (with exception of disregarding/distorting the consequences) with individual pro-bullying behavior. Interestingly, partially consistent with our hypotheses and with Pornari and Wood [2010], the current data revealed that, taking into account the other predictors in the model, only one category of self-justification mechanisms had a statistically significant association with individual pro-bullying behavior: individual pro-bullying behavior was more likely in those children who were more prone to cognitively restructure their harmful behavior. As stated earlier, Bandura [1990] claimed that cognitive restructuring of negative actions is the most effective set of psychological mechanisms for disengaging individual moral control. Moreover, “a person who sees an injurious act as the means to fulfill a higher moral or social goal, apart from being more likely to engage in this behavior, is also likely to experience positive feelings for doing so (e.g., pride, self-approval) which, in turn, further facilitates harmful behavior” [Pornari and Wood, 2010, p. 90]. Therefore, this might be a particularly perverse set of mechanisms when it comes to bullying, since this particular form of aggressive behavior consists of an unprovoked and instrumental aversive means of influencing or coercing other persons to reach personal goals [Sijtsema et al., 2009]. Through cognitive restructuring, children can habituate to these behaviors thus viewing bullying as acceptable behavior and a means to gain high status in the peer group or


385

TABLE II. Multilevel Modeling Predicting Pro-Bullying Behavior Model 1

Level-1 Age Gender Cognitive restructuringa Minimizing one’s agentive rolea Disregarding/distorting the consequencesa Blaming/dehumanizing the victima Level-2 Proportion of boys Class cognitive restructuringb Class minimizing one’s agentive roleb Class disregarding/distorting the consequencesb Class blaming/dehumanizing the victimb Deviance

Model 2

C

SE

t-ratio

.001 − .08 .03 .01 − .01 .004

.001 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01

1.10 − 4.35 2.48 1.52 − .76 .46

− 406.54

df

P

r

656 .27 .04 656