Moral Disengagement Processes in Bullying

Theory Into Practice, 53:278–285, 2014 Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2014.947219

Shelley Hymel Rina A. Bonanno

Moral Disengagement Processes in Bullying Bullying is the most common form of interpersonal violence facing youth in schools, and recent school-based intervention efforts have shown only limited success in reducing such behavior. Accordingly, this article considers the utility of Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement in understanding bullying behavior among children and youth. Originally developed to explain how adults are able to engage in extreme forms of

aggression without apparent self-condemnation, we review research examining the links between moral disengagement and peer bullying and aggression in children and adolescents, documenting significant associations between the ability to disengage from moral self-sanctions and aggressive behavior (including bullying). Given these links, we consider the implications of these findings for educational practice.

S

underlie the development and maintenance of what turns out to be a far more complex form of interpersonal violence than originally thought. For example, despite traditional stereotypes of the school bully as a socially incompetent individual who resorts to aggression or coercion to address interpersonal conflicts, research indicates that many children who bully are quite socially intelligent (Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 2000; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). And although bullies are generally disliked by peers (Boulton, 1999; Pelligrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999), some enjoy considerable status and popularity among peers (Farmer et al., 2010; Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003). Moreover, although a small portion of students who bully others (less than 3%) demonstrate high levels

INCE THE EARLIEST STUDIES of school bullying (e.g., Olweus, 1978), research on the topic has increased dramatically (Jimerson, Swearer, & Espelage, 2010; Olweus, 1993, 1999; Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010), as scholars around the world seek to understand the processes that

Shelley Hymel is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia and Rina A. Bonanno is an associate professor in the School of Education at Dowling College. Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Shelley Hymel, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada. E-mail: shelley.hymel@ ubc.ca.

278

Hymel and Bonanno

of psychopathic characteristics (e.g., impulsive, narcissistic, callous-unemotional; Fanti & Kimonis, 2013), a much larger percentage admit to bullying others, at least occasionally (e.g., Currie et al., 2012). Indeed, among 13-year-olds in 27 countries (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002), 1–10% admitted to bullying others every week or more, but another 12– 64% admitted to sometimes engaging in bullying. Given such diversity, researchers have begun to consider the processes that influence whether or not individuals engage in bullying and why. One focus within this literature has been on the links between bullying and morality. Are individuals who bully morally deficient? In a recent review (Hymel, Schonert-Reichl, Bonanno, Vaillancourt, & Rocke Henderson, 2010), we pointed out that, despite decades of research on morality and aggression (e.g., see Tisak, Tisak, & Goldstein, 2006), and a range of theories of moral development (e.g., Kohlberg, 1981/1984; Nucci, 2001; Turiel, 2002), answers to this question remain unclear. For example, although research investigating Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental model of morality consistently demonstrated delays in moral reasoning among delinquents (see Stams et al., 2006), far less is known about moral development and aggression within normative samples (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2004), and at least one study (Schonert-Reichl, 1999) failed to demonstrate these links in a community sample of grade 5–7 students. Moreover, children differ considerably in whether they view aggression as a moral issue (reflecting fundamental right/wrong) or a social conventional issue (regulated by social norms; Murray-Close, Crick, & Galotti, 2006). How, then, does morality impact bullying behavior? Children and youth who bully others demonstrate lower levels of empathy (Caravita, DiBlasio, & Salmivalli, 2009; Espelage, Mebane, & Adams, 2004; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe, 2007) and endorse more positive beliefs about the use of aggression (Bentley & Li, 1995; Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999). More recent research has focused on the role of moral disengagement (MD) in bullying. Over 2 decades ago, Bandura put forward his theory of MD to explain the

Moral Disengagement Processes in Bullying

social-cognitive processes through which good people can engage in harmful behavior toward others seemingly without self-recrimination or guilt (Bandura, 1986, 1990, 1999, 2002). Although the theory was initially used to explain adult behavior (e.g., soldiers and terrorists), researchers have increasingly considered its utility in understanding negative behaviors in children and youth (e.g., Hyde, Shaw, & Moilanen, 2010), including school bullying (e.g., see Hymel et al., 2010). This article provides a summary of Bandura’s theory of MD and recent efforts to apply the theory to the problem of school bullying.

Bandura’s Theory of Moral Agency With age, children gradually develop the capacity for moral reasoning and acquire standards of moral conduct that help them to distinguish right from wrong and guide behavior within their culture or context. Without such standards, negative behavior is more likely. Bandura (1990, 1999, 2002) argued that, although moral reasoning and moral standards can serve as a guide for moral conduct, regulating behavior involves more than just moral reasoning. Specifically, Bandura argued that moral standards and moral reasoning are linked to behavior via a number of selfregulatory mechanisms that ultimately determine engagement in (im)moral behavior and that selectively activate or disengage internal controls across situations, allowing for both positive and negative behavioral responses within the same set of moral standards. In general, individuals engage in moral behavior that gives them a positive sense of self-worth, and avoid behaviors that violate their moral standards, leading to selfcondemnation, guilt and/or shame. However, as Bandura (2002) pointed out: Moral standards do not function as fixed internal regulators of conduct. Self-regulatory mechanisms do not operate unless they are activated. There are many psycho-social maneuvers by which moral self-sanctions can be disengaged from inhumane conduct. Selective activation and disengagement of self-sanctions permits

279

Theories of Bullying and Cyberbullying

With adults, Bandura identified four broad categories of MD and eight cognitive mechanisms through which individuals can morally “disengage.” With the first mechanism, cognitive restructuring, individuals can view negative or immoral behavior more positively through (a) moral justification (seeing the behavior as warranted, appropriate, or performed in the service of a higher moral purpose), (b) advantageous comparisons (viewing the behavior as less immoral relative to other, worse behavior), or (c) euphemistic labeling (making the behavior more acceptable through language that minimizes or obscures its negative impact). The second mechanism involves minimizing one’s agentive role by displacing personal responsibility for the act on to a legitimate authority or diffusing one’s own responsibility for the behavior through emphasis on collective action or group decisionmaking. The third mechanism involves distorting or disregarding the consequences of the behavior, viewing it more positively. The fourth and final mechanism involves efforts to dehumanize the victim or consider them as deserving of the behavior (attribution of blame). (See Bandura, 2002, for an extended discussion.)

the more students endorsed these morally disengaged statements, the more they reported bullying others. Ours is not the only study to demonstrate that MD is more likely among children who bully. Menesini and colleagues (2003) proposed that the behavior of bullies is tied to their moral understanding of the consequences of behavior, rather than a reflection of deficits in social skills. Menesini et al. found that bullies endorsed higher levels of emotions associated with MD (i.e., indifference, pride) than did victims or outsiders, and that egocentric reasoning was the specific mechanism through which bullying was justified. Since then, a growing body of research has explored the links between MD and bullying. In a meta-analysis of 27 studies, Gini, Pozzoli and Hymel (2014) found that, overall, MD was significantly related (r D .28) to aggressive behavior and bullying. Although effect sizes did not vary as a function of type of aggression or gender, stronger associations between MD and aggression were found for adolescents than children, consistent with Bandura’s (2002) assertion that the effects of disengagement on the moral self are gradual rather than instant. It is through repeated disengagement from moral self-sanctions that it becomes easier to behave in ways that were once found reprehensible.

Moral Disengagement and Bullying

Longitudinal Studies

Are these same MD mechanisms operating among youth who bully? Consistent with Bandura’s theory, our own research on student beliefs about bullying (Hymel, Rocke Henderson, & Bonanno, 2005) showed that, among nearly 500 grade 8–10 students, 64% of students agreed that “Bullying is just a normal part of being a kid” (cognitive restructuring); 51% agreed that “Adults at school should be responsible for protecting kids from bullies” (minimizing agency) and 44% agreed that “Getting bullied helps to make people tougher” (distortion of negative consequences). Finally, 56% of the students agreed that “Most students who get bullied bring it on themselves” (blaming the victim). Moreover,

Most of the research on MD and bullying in youth has been cross-sectional, raising concerns about the directionality of findings. However, results from four longitudinal studies shed light on the nature and stability of this relationship. In a study of 567 Danish youth (age 12–14), Obermann (2013) found relatively stable levels of MD over one year, but self-reported bullying and changes in self-reported bullying significantly predicted changes in MD. Obermann suggested that the lack of change (decrease) in MD among students reporting decreases in bullying may reflect a crystallization of MD; repeated bullying may allow students to habituate to disengagement efforts, stressing the need for early interven-

different types of conduct by people with the same moral standards. (p. 102)

280

Hymel and Bonanno

tion efforts. However, in a study of 1,167 Australian adolescents, Barchia and Bussey (2011) found that, over an 8-month period, significantly higher levels of peer aggression were reported by students endorsing higher levels of MD. Importantly, and in contrast to Obermann, MD was found to predict aggressive behavior across time, whereas aggressive behavior did not predict subsequent MD. Thus, early efforts to enhance students’ ability to morally engage may be important in reducing later aggression. The influence of MD on bullying (and vice versa), however, may vary across individuals. In a study of 366 Italian adolescents (aged 12–20), Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara (2008) investigated changes in the links between MD and aggressive/violent behavior across five time-points. As in previous research, MD was consistently related to aggression, especially among boys. Although Obermann (2013) found relatively stable levels of MD over time among 12- to 14-year-olds, Paciello et al. found that MD generally decreased over time across 12- to 20-year-olds, and identified four developmental trajectories for MD. Most youth fell into the first two groups: a nondisengaged group (37.9%, mostly girls), characterized by low initial levels of MD and a normative group (44.5%) reporting moderate levels of MD initially, with both groups showing significant declines over time. A third, later desister group (6.9%) reported high-medium initial levels of MD, followed by increases from ages 14–16 and a significant drop from age 16 to 20. Finally, the chronic group (10.7%, mostly boys) consistently reported medium-high levels of MD over time. As expected, the latter two groups reported more aggression and more problems with violence. Thus, although levels of MD generally appear to decline with age for the majority of adolescents, for some (especially boys) early intervention aimed at enhancing moral engagement may prove beneficial. There may, indeed, be a window of opportunity in which to circumvent the habituation of the self-censorship required to engage in transgressive behaviors. In a study of 369 Italian youth, Caravita, Sijtsema, Rambaran, and Gini (2013) examined peer influences on MD across


two age groups over one year. Compared to younger students, early adolescents increased in MD over time, and level of MD was significantly dependent on their friends’ MD, whereas peers were not found to influence MD in younger students. Caravita et al. (2013) suggested that younger children may be more open to adult influence, whereas adolescents are more inclined to value the norms of the peer group. If so, adultmediated interventions may be more successful with younger students, whereas peer-mediated efforts may prove more successful with teens. Taken together, findings from these longitudinal studies stress the need to develop effective strategies to address bullying at younger ages— thereby reducing opportunities to practice disengaging from their moral standards.

Moral Disengagement Among Bystanders More recently, researchers have also demonstrated links between MD and more passive involvement in bullying as a bystander. The more students morally disengage, the less likely they are to intervene on behalf of victimized peers (Gregory, Trach, Shumka, Lee, & Hymel, 2012; Obermann, 2011; Rocke Henderson & Hymel, 2011) and the less likely they are to include victimized peers in play (Howard, Landau, & Pryor, 2014). Bystanders who felt no sense of responsibility for intervening reported higher levels of MD than bystanders who felt guilty for their inaction (Obermann, 2011). Moreover, the relationship between witnessing, MD, and bullying may be cyclical; the more children are exposed to bullying, the more they are able to disengage from moral self-actions, increasing the likelihood of more bullying (Bonanno & Hymel, 2014).

Implications for Educators As this review indicates, MD is clearly linked to aggressive behavior generally, and bullying and bystander behavior specifically, among children and youth, and may be associated with

281

Theories of Bullying and Cyberbullying

increased aggression over time, at least for some students. Such findings underscore the importance of investigating the perceptions and motivations underlying bullying behavior among children and youth (see Thornberg, 2010, 2013). Children who engage in bullying behavior do so for different reasons, and those reasons can impact the effectiveness of particular intervention approaches. For example, bullying that a child views as morally justified may be less responsive to punishment. Even among adults, self-defense is commonly viewed as an acceptable justification for negative behavior. In cyberbullying, more so than traditional forms of bullying, distinctions between bully and victim can be blurred (see Law, Shapka, Hymel, Olson, & Waterhouse, 2012); most students see themselves as victims of peer cyberharassment, engaging in self-defense in the form of spontaneous retaliation. Moreover, considering bullying incidents as teaching moments, rather than discipline problems, it is important to help children and youth to recognize the distinction between intention and behavior. In one bullying incident, for example, two grade 8 students roughed up a grade 6 student because he was bullying the perpetrator’s younger brother. Both the police school liaison officer and a school psychologist commended the perpetrators for their desire to protect a younger youth, but challenged them in regard to the physical approach used, pointing to the negative outcomes that occurred and encouraging other ways to address the problem. Of interest for practitioners, however, is whether efforts to counter morally-disengaged reasoning can effectively reduce bullying. At the present time, we do not know. Although researchers have clearly indicated the need for interventions efforts that focus on decreasing MD and enhancing personal responsibility (e.g., Bonanno & Hymel, 2014; Obermann, 2011) among all children involved in bullying, empirical studies testing the efficacy of such interventions are not yet available. To begin to address this, we consider studies exploring constructs similar to MD. Although Bandura’s theory of MD is a relatively recent focus within the psychology literature, the concept is not new. Indeed, Ribeaud and

282

Eisner (2010) pointed out that Sykes and Matza proposed very similar arguments 50 years ago, in attempting to explain juvenile delinquency as a function of “techniques of neutralization” (p. 300), and Gibbs and colleagues (Barriga & Gibbs, 1996; Gibbs, Potter, & Goldstein, 1995) explored the role of “self-serving cognitive distortions” (see Ribeaud & Eisner, p. 302) in their work with young offenders. Moving from theory to practice, Gibbs and colleagues developed the EQUIP program, utilizing cognitive behavioral therapy to effectively address “selfserving cognitive distortions” in young offenders (see Gibbs, Potter, DiBiase, & Devlin, 2008). In 2005, EQUIP was adapted for use in educational settings, called EQUIP for Educators or EfE (DiBiase, Gibbs, & Potter, 2005). Results of three recent studies evaluating EfE in school settings provide mixed, but promising, results. Specifically, van der Velden, Brugman, Boom, and Koops (2010) found that EfE was effective in improving Dutch adolescents’ attitudes about antisocial behavior, as well as their self-serving cognitive distortions relative to controls, although effect sizes were small and actual changes in antisocial behavior were nonsignificant. In a small N study of EfE with behaviorally at-risk youth, DiBiase (2010) found significant improvements in anger management, social skills, and sociomoral reasoning in experimental, as compared to control, subjects, with medium to large effect sizes. Finally, in a small N study exploring the impact of EfE in reducing self-serving cognitive distortions or “thinking errors” and perceptions of peer victimization (van der Meulen, Granizo, & del Barrio, 2010, p. 67), positive effects were reported for only one of two Spanish secondary schools. Further research is clearly needed to evaluate the potential impact of efforts to reduce MD on actual bullying behavior, but these initial studies of EfE underscore the potential utility of this approach. Finally, given recent efforts in schools to reduce bullying by encouraging positive bystander behavior on the part of students who witness bullying, research linking MD to bystander responses (as reviewed previously) underscores the importance of creating a safe and caring

Hymel and Bonanno


classroom environment in which students can, and do, support one another. Classrooms and schools that promote empathy and compassion (see Schonert-Reichl & Oberle, 2011), encouraging personal and social (interpersonal) responsibility among students, may be better contexts for fostering moral engagement rather than moral disengagement.

Summary and Conclusion Over the past 4 decades, school-based antibullying programs have come to be viewed as the most cost-effective way to reduce peer victimization, but recent reviews of the impact of such efforts have been disappointing (see Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), with overall reductions in bullying being only about 20–23% on average. Given the limited success of such programs and increasing recognition of the diversity of students who engage in bullying, it becomes important to consider new approaches to the problem and to build a bigger toolbox with which educators can address bullying behavior. In this article, we review research showing that children and youth who bully their peers are more likely to demonstrate high levels of MD (e.g., Gini et al., 2014), justifying and rationalizing their behavior, and avoiding self-condemnation and feelings of guilt or shame. Of practical interest is whether efforts to counter morally disengaged reasoning can effectively reduce bullying behavior. Although studies to date have not explored such possibilities directly, related studies within the criminology literature do underscore the potential of such efforts. Our hope is that this review can serve as an impetus for further prevention research, moving Bandura’s concept of moral disengagement from theory to practice.

Funding We are grateful for the financial support provided by the Lando, Attias and Mitchell Foundations and the Canadian Science Prevention Cluster for this work.

References Arsenio, W., & Lemerise, E. (2004). Aggression and moral development: Integrating social information processing and moral domain models. Child Development, 75, 987–1002. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 27–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb 00270.x. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119. doi: 10.1080/0305724022 014322. Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011). Individual and collective social cognitive influences on peer aggression: Exploring the contribution of aggression efficacy, moral disengagement, and collective efficacy. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 107–120. doi: 10. 1002/ab.20375. Barriga, A., & Gibbs. J. (1996). Measuring cognitive distortion in antisocial youth: Development and preliminary validation of the “How I Think” questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 333–343. Bentley, K., & Li, A. (1995). Bully and victim problems in elementary schools and students’ beliefs about aggression. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11, 153–165. Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social intelligence empathy D aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191–200. doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00029-9. Bonanno, R. A., & Hymel, S. (2014, March). Witnessing bullying and moral disengagement: A formula for behaving badly. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Austin, Texas. Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., & Simon, T. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 341–362. Boulton, M. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal relations between children’s playground behaviour and social preference, victimization, and bullying. Child Development, 70, 944–954. doi: 10.1111/ 1467-8624.00068.

283

Theories of Bullying and Cyberbullying Caravita, S., DiBlasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163. doi: 10.1111/j.14679507.2008.00465.x. Caravita, S., Sijtsema, J., Rambaran, J., & Gini, G. (2013). Peer influences on moral disengagement in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1–15. Currie C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., DeLooze, M., Roberts, C., : : : Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Health Behaviour in Schoolaged Children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe. DiBiase, A. (2010). The impact of a psychoeducational prevention program for behaviourally at-risk students: EQUIP for Educators. Journal of Research in Character Education, 8, 21–59. DiBiase, A., Gibbs, J., & Potter, G. (2005). EQUIP for Educators: Teaching youth (grades 5–8) to think and act responsibly. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Espelage, D., Mebane, S., & Adams, R. (2004). Empathy, caring, and bullying: Toward an understanding of complex associations. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fanti, K., & Kimonis, E. (2013). Bullying and victimization: The role of conduct problems and psychopathic traits. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 617–631. Farmer, T. W., Petrin, R., Robertson, D., Fraser, M., Hall, C., Day, S., & Dadisman, K. (2010). Peer relations of bullies, bully-victims, and victims: The two social worlds of bullying in second-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 110, 364– 392. doi: 10.1086/648983. Gibbs, J., Potter, G., DiBiase, A.-M., & Devlin, R. (2008). The EQUIP Program. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(2), 35–38 (www.reclaiming.com). Gibbs, J., Potter, G., & Goldstein. A. (1995). The EQUIP Program: Teaching Youth to Think and Act Responsibly through a Peer-Helping Approach. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoe, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467– 476. Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hymel, S. (2014). Moral disengagement among children and youth: A metaanalytic review of links to aggressive behavior.

284

Aggressive Behavior, 40(1), 56–68. doi: 10.1002/ ab.21502. Gregory, S., Trach, J. Shumka, E., Lee, M., & Hymel, S. (2012, March). Moral disengagement when witnessing bullying: An investigation of morality and bystander behaviour in Canadian schools. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Adolescence, Vancouver, BC. Howard, A. M., Landau, S., & Pryor, J. B. (2014). Peer bystanders to bullying: Who wants to play with the victim? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 265–276. Hyde, L., Shaw, D., & Moilanen. K. (2010). Developmental precursors of moral disengagement and the role of moral disengagement in the development of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(2), 197–209. Hymel, S., Rocke Henderson, N., & Bonanno, R. A. (2005). Moral disengagement: A framework for understanding bullying among adolescents. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 1–11. Hymel, S., Schonert-Reichl, K., Bonanno, R. A., Vaillancourt, T., & Rocke Henderson, N. (2010). Bullying and morality: Understanding how good kids can behave badly. In S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, & D. Espelage (Eds), The handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 101– 118). New York, NY: Routledge. Jimerson, S., Swearer, S. & Espelage, D. (2010). The handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Kohlberg, L. (1981/1984). The philosophy of moral development: Essays on moral development (Vol. I/ II). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Krug, E., Dahlberg, L., Mercy, J., Zwi, A., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Law, D., Shapka, J., Hymel, S., Olson, B., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 226–232. Menesini, E., Sanchez, V., Fonzi, A., Ortega, R., Costabile, A., & Lo Feudo, G. (2003). Moral emotions and bullying: A cross-national comparison of differences between bullies, victims and outsiders. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 515–530. Murray-Close, D., Crick, N., & Galotti, K. (2006). Children’s moral reasoning regarding physical and relational aggression. Social Development, 15, 345–372. Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hymel and Bonanno Obermann, M. (2011). Moral disengagement among bystanders to school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 239–257. Obermann, M. (2013). Temporal aspects of moral disengagement in school bullying: Crystallization or escalation? Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 193–210. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A crossnational perspective (pp. 7–27). New York, NY: Routledge. Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinetti, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2008). Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impact on aggression and violence in late adolescence. Child Development, 79, 1288–1309. Pelligrini, A., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216–224. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.216. Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2010). Are moral disengagement, neutralization techniques, and selfserving cognitive distortions the same? Developing a unified scale of moral neutralization of aggression. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 298–315. Rocke Henderson, N., & Hymel, S. (2011, March). Peer responses to school bullying: The role of emotions and friendships in early adolescents bystander problem-solving. Paper presented as part of a symposium organized by M. Sandstrom for the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, PQ. Schonert-Reichl, K. (1999). Moral reasoning during early adolescence: Links with peer acceptance, friendship, and social behaviors. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 249–279. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Oberle, E. (2011). Teaching empathy to children: Theoretical and empirical considerations and implications for practice. In B. Weber & E. Marsal (Eds.), The politics of empathy: New interdisciplinary perspectives on an ancient phenomenon (pp. 1–24). Berlin, Germany: Lit Verlag.

Moral Disengagement Processes in Bullying Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stams, G., Brugman, D., Dekovic, M., van Rosmalen, L., van der Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. (2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 697– 713. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450. Swearer, S., Espelage, D., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38–47. Thornberg, R. (2010). School children’s social representations on bullying causes. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 311–327. Thornberg, R. (2013). School bullying as collective action: Stigma processes and identity struggling. Children & Society. New York, NY: Wiley. doi: 10-1111/chso.12058. Tisak, M. S., Tisak, J., & Goldstein, S. (2006). Aggression, delinquency, and morality: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 611–629). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ttofi, M. & Farrington, D. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. doi: 10.1007/s11 292-010-9109-1. Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157–176. doi: 10.1300/J008v19n0 2_10. van der Meulen, K., Granizo, L., & del Barrio, C. (2010). Using EQUIP for Educators to prevent peer victimization in secondary schools. Journal of Research in Character Education, 8, 61–76. van der Velden, F., Brugman, D., Boom, J., & Koops, W. (2010). Effects of EQUIP for Educators on student’s self-serving, cognitive distortions, moral judgements and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Character Education, 88, 77–95.

285