Working With Kids Who Bully: New

Perspectives on Prevention and Intervention

Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention

Contributors: By: Walter B. Roberts Jr.

Book Title: Working With Kids Who Bully: New Perspectives on Prevention and Intervention
Chapter Title: "Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention"
Pub. Date: 2017
Access Date: April 27, 2020
Publishing Company: Corwin
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781506333878
Online ISBN: 9781506334974
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506334974.n13
Print pages: 151-157
© 2017 Corwin All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2017 by Corwin

Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention

©iStockphoto.com/monkeybusinessimages

What is our role in addressing the issue of morality when we interact with others? It’s one thing when we do
so with adults who, theoretically, have the free will to discuss the pros and cons of their opinions and behavior.
But what about doing so with children and adolescents? Can we do so in educational settings and not violate
or contradict the religious or philosophical beliefs accompanying children and adolescents from the home or
the legal sanctions designed to protect and keep church and state doctrines separate?

I believe we can, and furthermore, I believe we do it on a daily basis whether we know we do so or not.

Acting in what is defined as a moral fashion is a learned behavior. We are born biologically amoral (Tomasello
& Vaish, 2012). We learn what is “moral” or “immoral” behavior from our immediate caregivers. Those first
caregivers are, usually, the family of origin. We learn of different values as we age and increase our inter-
action with greater society. In the most basic respects, acting in a moral fashion is a cooperation necessary
among civilizations. Without a sense of right and wrong, there can be no order, no sense of safety, no foun-
dation on which to base decisions. A culture’s morality provides the springboard for the moral emotions of
empathy, shame, guilt, and pride (Malti & Latzko, 2010).

SAGE Books - Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention

Page 2 of 7
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2017 by Corwin

When we act in an ethical fashion, we teach moral behavior. Ethics and morality have a lot in common, but
they are not always the same. The primary nexus between the two is that they focus on the application of
“right behavior” toward others. We act in a moral fashion toward others because of the social rules taught
to us in our basic institutions—family, faith, education, the legal system—all which teach components of em-
pathic behaviors toward others. While often thought of in religious terms, one does not have to adhere to a
religious philosophy in order to be a moral person. Morality is based on a sense of fairness for the good of all
and to protect the weak from those who would take advantage of them. True morality is applied equally with-
out concern to superficiality—color of skin, sexual orientation, religious affiliation. When people are wronged,
we apply the concept of justice to right that wrong, and that justice must be fair and moral in itself. Moral be-
havior occurs every day in our homes, schools, courts, and greater society, though we may not think about it
as such as we go about our day.

Ethics and morality have a relationship to each other, but they are not the same.

Unfortunately, people also interact with others in ways that do not take a moral perspective of right behavior
into account. When people bully others, they may or may not be violating the law, the interpretation of the
tenets of their faith, what they have been taught at home or in school, but they are acting in an immoral fash-
ion from the standpoint that they are engaging in behaviors that violate the social order, take dignity and self-
esteem away from others, and abuse those who are weaker in whatever circumstance the behavior occurs.

Cognition and Moral Intelligence

Borba (2001) defined moral intelligence as the “capacity to understand right from wrong; it means to have
strong ethical convictions and to act on them so that one behaves in a right and honorable way” (p. 4). Borba
identified many of the causes of the lack of moral intelligence among children, including the lack of “acquired
moral intelligence . . . poor impulse control, underdeveloped moral sensitivity,” the belief that “the moral at-
mosphere in which today’s kids are being raised is toxic,” and that “our kids are being steadily bombarded
with outside messages that go against the very values we are trying to instill” (p. 4). One can generalize this
statement for children and adolescents in the broadest of senses and include individuals from all races, eth-
nicities, faiths, and family background. We are often frustrated and make the observation—true or not—that
what moral or ethical behavior one learns in the home is undone at school and vice versa.

Moral cognition follows a “distinct developmental trajectory” (Malti & Latzko, 2010, p. 2). We “generate un-
derstandings of the social world by making inferences and forming theories about experienced social events”
(Turiel, p. 1, as cited in Packer, 1985). Regardless of one’s opinions of the origins and maintenance of a
child’s morality, hopefully we can all agree that a child without a moral compass is a child at risk and one more
likely to have fewer internal resources to think twice before acting in a fashion that, later, might be deemed
a mistake. Bandura (1991) and Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (1996) spoke of moral dis-
engagement, a phenomenon in which individuals set aside their moral scruples under circumstances for the
benefit of personal gain. Pozzoli, Gini, and Vieno (2012) found moral disengagement to be a factor in elemen-
tary children’s bullying behaviors. Apparently, just as quickly as children can learn moral foundations, they
can be convinced by their peers and even themselves that circumstances supercede application of moral
convictions in specific instances—again, the peer group reigns supreme.1 Gini, Pozzoli, and Hymel (2013), in
a meta-analysis of prior studies, also found a link between moral disengagement and aggressive behaviors.
SAGE Books - Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention
Page 3 of 7
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2017 by Corwin

In essence, the less one ascribes to some semblance of moral standards, the greater the likelihood of some
type of aggressive behavior.

In teaching children to act empathically toward others, we automatically provide and strengthen some of those
internal resources to better enable them to put the brakes on impulsive behaviors. It is more difficult to harm
others when one considers what that harm might be like if directed toward him or her.

It’s important to remember that “right” and “wrong” are different for different people and different cul-
tures.

Borba (2001) identifies seven “essential virtues” (p. 8) for building moral intelligence and character. These
include the following:

• Empathy—the ability to understand others’ concerns

• Conscience—knowing the right way to act and then doing so
• Self-Control—the ability to act rationally without giving in to peer pressure or internal beliefs
• Respect—valuing others
• Kindness—acting in a fashion that takes into account the welfare of others
• Tolerance—respecting others and their beliefs, even when they are different from the individual’s
• Fairness—being open minded and acting in a just way toward others

All of Borba’s (2001) essential virtues can be incorporated into interventions with individuals who have been
involved in bullying others. They are embedded in the strategies and techniques advanced in this book in one
fashion or another. Perhaps some concrete examples of conversational leads would be helpful in highlighting
ways to incorporate those seven virtues of moral intelligence into an intervention.

Conversational Leads Embedding Borba’S Moral Intelligence Virtues

The following leads are offered as starting points for engaging individuals who have in some way wronged
others, based on Borba’s (2001) seven essential virtues.

Empathy
• “I can’t help but wonder what it might be like to be put in a situation like the one you had with Student
B. What if the roles were reversed? What might you have thought in the same situation.”
• “Sometimes we forget what it’s like to receive that kind of treatment. Do you think it would have
made a difference if you had been the one who had been treated that way instead of the other way
around?”
• “Have you ever heard of the term empathy? It’s when you understand how others feel in similar sit-
uations. If you were applying empathy toward Student B in this instance, how might that look/sound/
feel?”

SAGE Books - Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention

Page 4 of 7
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2017 by Corwin

As with “cheater” words and phrases, having a few “cheater” leads can also help in the intervention
process.

Conscience
• “When you and Student B got into the shoving match today, did it occur to you that behavior might
not fit in with the school rules?”
• “Since the incident today in the cafeteria, what have you thought about how it all fits in with our school
rules?”
• “How did today’s behavior match what we teach here in school about doing what we know is the right
thing?”

Self-Control
• “One of the things that makes us good citizens is the ability to not automatically react to things that
make us mad. Did you do what you did today because you thought about it first, or did you just do it
without thinking about it?”
• “What would have been different about today if you had thought before you acted?”
• “There are lots of times we want to do things in the heat of the moment, but if we give ourselves a
little more time, we often cool down and then don’t feel so strongly about them.”

Respect
• “Was what happened today between you and Student B based on respect? If not, how did it hap-
pen?”
• “What was respectful about what happened today between you and Student B?”
• “Respect is when we value everyone enough to treat them as if we would like to be treated ourselves.
Did that happen today?”

Kindness
• “What was kind about what happened today?”
• “Help me understand how raising your voice and shoving Student B was kind.”
• “Would you want what happened between you and Student B today to be done to another member
of your family? Would that be very kind?”

Tolerance
• “You know that tolerance is one of our basic school values. We’ve spent a lot of time on it this year
SAGE Books - Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention
Page 5 of 7
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2017 by Corwin

in student advisory groups. Can you tell me how you were practicing tolerance yesterday when you
said those words to Student B?”
• “Is what you have been saying about Student B on your Facebook page a good example of toler-
ance?”
• “It’s OK to disagree with someone else. We don’t have to believe the same way everyone else does,
but as long as no one is hurting anyone else, people have the right to be who they are, whether we
approve of it or not. We have to learn to tolerate other people because there are a lot of people on
this planet who are different from us.”

Fairness
• “Is what happened to Student B today fair when it comes to the way we want people to be treated in
our school?”
• “Is it fair if one person is not capable of defending himself or herself to try get that person to fight
another?”
• “Fairness means we try to give everyone an equal chance to achieve and be successful. When you
don’t treat others fairly, it prevents them from being the best they can be because they worry about
not getting that equal chance. Have you treated everyone fairly today? If not, what could you do to
change that?”

A Magic Question
That last question in some applicable format in the previous section is an important one: “What could you
do to change that?” It’s a Magic Question. It could well be applied in virtually any conversation with an in-
dividual with whom behavior is a concern. The purpose of having an intervention conversation with another
individual is not to pepper him or her with a million questions—it’s not a test or an effort to trick one into giving
the “wrong” answer. The ultimate goal is to help the individual explore the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
that lead to specific problematic behaviors. The only way to do that is to give the individual the opportunity to
think, verbalize, and, perhaps if possible, role-play new methods of correcting current misbehaviors.

Magic Questions are designed to give individuals in the “hot seat” a chance to show how they might
be a part of the solution.

Shaming is Not an Option!

The phrase You ought to be ashamed of yourself! is a weapon. Shaming as a tool of intervention and restora-
tion does damage to both the individual to whom it is directed and the credibility of the one using it as the
self-esteem exterminator that it is. One does not intelligently shame another into proper behavior. Shame has
no therapeutic utility, and truth be told, countless adults have spent years in therapy trying to rid themselves
of the damage done when shaming was inflicted upon them in childhood and adolescence. Stuewig, Tangney,
Helgel, Harty, and McCloskey (2010) addressed the issue of shame and guilt as “moral emotions that regulate

SAGE Books - Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention

Page 6 of 7
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2017 by Corwin

social behavior” (p. 92) and that shame has been shown to be “positively linked to hostility and aggression”
(p. 92). They go on to note a litany of additional studies wherein shaming creates situations in which individu-
als feel “shame-rage or humiliated fury [emphasis added] . . . [and] . . . aggressively lash out in an attempt
to regain a sense of agency and control” (p. 92). Such rage and fury is often reported by those who have
been the targets of bullying behaviors as the basis of acts of vengeance to rectify the sense of past wrongs
(Newman, Fox, Harding, Mehta, & Roth, 2004). Additionally, shaming encourages individuals to hide the be-
havior deemed shameful (Stuewig et al.), which makes it even harder to encourage the agent of bullying to
talk about the logic behind the actions.

We must not, then, inadvertently (or on purpose) do to others what they choose to do to their targets. In place
of shame, we must use intelligent conversation to move those who misbehave toward making more ethical
and rational decisions based on an empathic foundation. No matter how much those who intimidate others
get under our own skin—either because they make us angry or because they intimidate us—we cannot be
guilty of using the same tactic on them under the guise of an educational intervention.

Can we express that we are “disappointed” in their behavior? Yes—as long as it is tempered with “. . . because
I know that you are capable of acting in a more positive manner.” But we must avoid the parentlike, stand-
alone admonition of “You ought to be ashamed of yourself!” because the truth may well be that the individual
is not ashamed, nor feels guilt for what has occurred. That is why it is so important to spend the time to get
underneath the thought processes of those who bully others so that we can craft more effective interventions
to counter the logic that is creating so much misery toward their targets.

Shaming has no place in bullying interventions.

1. Such behaviors, conforming to the norms of the group or to those in authority, are an extension of the clas-
sic obedience experiments of Stanley Milgram (1963) in which participants were encouraged to deliver what
they thought were painful electric shocks to others by the assurance that it was safe to do so, no matter how
badly those receiving the shocks begged them to stop. While the shocks weren’t real, the rationalizations for
forsaking the values and empathic preferences of the unknowing participants were. Group power becomes
authority if an individual wants to be accepted by a group badly enough.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506334974.n13

SAGE Books - Morality as a Component of Bullying Prevention

Page 7 of 7