AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 00, pages 1–13 (2012)

Main and Moderated Effects of Moral Cognition and

Status on Bullying and Defending
Simona C. S. Caravita1 ∗ , Gianluca Gini2 , and Tiziana Pozzoli2
1
C.R.I.d.e.e, Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milano, Italy
2
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
This study analyzed the relations of two dimensions of moral cognition (i.e., acceptance of moral transgression and moral dis-
engagement) and two forms of status in the peer group (i.e., social preference and perceived popularity) with bullying and de-
fending among 235 primary-school children and 305 middle-school early adolescents. Social status was tested as a moderator of
the associations between moral cognition and bullying and defending. Participants completed self-reports assessing the two di-
mensions of moral cognition and peer nominations for status, bullying, and defending. Both acceptance of moral transgression
and moral disengagement were associated to bullying among early adolescents only, whereas in childhood moral disengagement
was linked to defending among girls. Social status moderated the associations between morality dimensions and bullying and
defending. The moderating effects of status were discussed considering status as a magnifying lens for the relations between in-
dividual characteristics and social behavior. The results were also discussed with reference to age and gender differences in the
associations. Aggr. Behav. 00:1–13, 2012. 
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Keywords: bullying; defending; morality; social preference; perceived popularity

INTRODUCTION planation of bullying and defending behavior in late

Recent approaches to bullying have described it as
strategic, goal-oriented, even skillful behavior, aimed
at changing the structure of the peer group, manipu-
lating peer relationships, and gaining social power by
intentionally inflicting harm [e.g., Peeters et al., 2010;
Sijtsema et al., 2009]. As such, bullying represents an
immoral act because it is in contrast with children’s
fundamental rights of not being humiliated and op-
pressed, and of living in a safe place [Hymel et al.,
2010]. On the other end, some children hold negative
attitudes toward bullying behavior, feel personal re-
sponsibility for intervention and, at least under some
contextual circumstances (such as when peers support
defending behavior), actively intervene to defend the
bullied classmate [Pozzoli et al., 2012; Pozzoli et al., in
press; Salmivalli and Voeten, 2004]. In comparison to
bullying behavior as an immoral conduct, defending
the victim is a moral behavior, aimed at increasing the
other child’s safety and well being.
Based on this conceptualization of bullying [Hymel
et al., 2010], in the present study we concurrently
tested whether two components of morality, namely
acceptance of moral transgression and moral disen-
gagement, offered a different contribution in the ex-
childhood and early adolescence. Most importantly,
in keeping with the view of bullying as a group pro-
cess [Salmivalli et al., 1996] and the broader child-
by-environment perspective [e.g., Ladd, 2003], recent
research has provided some evidence that the individ-
ual position within the peer-group, in terms of social
status, moderates the associations between defending
and bullying, on the one hand, and children’s charac-
teristics, such as affective and cognitive empathy, and
theory of mind, on the other hand [Caravita et al.,
2009, 2010]. Based on this background, we worked
with two different age groups to test the hypothesis
that social status in the peer group could moderate the
Contract grant sponsor: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore; Con-
tract grant number: D1–2006; Contract grant sponsor: University of
Padova; Contract grant number: Grant CPDA085704.
Part of this study was presented at the 2010 Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research on Adolescence, Philadelphia, PA, March 2010.
∗ Correspondence to: Simona C. S. Caravita, C.R.I.d.e.e., Diparti-
mento di Psicologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go
Gemelli, 1, 20123 Milano, Italy. E-mail: simona.caravita@unicatt.it
Received 21 June 2011; Accepted 11 June 2012
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/ab.21447


C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2 Caravita et al.
associations between morality and these behaviors.
More specifically, we aimed to test two hypotheses on
the role of status that have been recently formulated
[see Caravita and Cillessen, 2012], namely the “sta-
tus as a motivator” and, above all, the “status as a
magnifying lens” hypotheses. To our knowledge, no
previous studies have tested these hypotheses in rela-
tion to morality and different individual behaviors in
bullying.
BULLYING, DEFENDING, AND MORALITY
Bullying is an instrumental form of aggression, in
which attacking another person is mainly used as a
tool to gain or keep a prominent position among peers
and obtain higher levels of resource control [Sijtsema
et al., 2009]. Children who bully usually know that
they are causing pain to the victim, thus breaking
moral rules that forbid harming others [Turiel, 1983].
Therefore, bullies might either conceive moral rules
as more breakable than their nonaggressive peers do,
or be more prone to self-justifying their offensive con-
duct in order to avoid feelings of guilt. In other words,
two moral processes may be relevant in this context: (i)
judging moral rules as breakable because of a wrong
conception of these rules as not universally valid and
worthy by themselves, and consequently more easily
accepting moral transgressions, and (ii) using mech-
anisms of self-justification that allow the individual
to act in an aggressive way without feeling guilty,
namely mechanisms of moral disengagement [Ban-
dura, 1991]. However, till now these two moral pro-
cesses have not been analyzed together in a single
study.
As far as the first component is concerned, there is
some evidence that from the early age of three years,
children perceive moral rules (which are aimed at pre-
serving others’ well being) as universally valid, inde-
pendent of the statements of authorities, and their
transgression as not acceptable. In contrast, the va-
lidity of other rules, namely the social-conventional
rules (which are aimed at preserving the social order),
is conceived to be dependent on the dictates of au-
thority, and to be more easily breakable than moral
rules are. However, people can sometimes attribute the
characteristics of social-conventional rules, such as
their dependency on authority states, to moral rules,
thus believing that their transgression is, to some ex-
tent, acceptable. Acceptance of moral transgression,
in general or when “allowed” by authorities, is con-
sidered a signal of a social-conventional perception of
moral rules. In the end, this process can favor the ac-
tual transgression of moral rules [Leenders and Brug-
man, 2005].
Aggr. Behav.
With respect to bullying behavior, a recent study
[Caravita et al., 2009] showed that, in comparison to
peers, child and early adolescent bullies considered
the breaking of moral rules (e.g., a rule forbidding
pushing and hitting other schoolmates) as acceptable
when it was allowed by authorities of that context
(i.e., teachers and head teachers for school). More-
over, Gasser and Keller [2009] found that, when pro-
vided with hypothetical scenarios about moral trans-
gressions (e.g., verbal bullying), 7–8-year-old bullies
scored significantly lower than prosocial peers (i.e.,
peers sharing with others, comforting, and helping
others in distress) on the understanding of moral rule
transgression as wrong. Based on these findings, we
may speculate that, compared to (above all proso-
cial) peers, bullies may be more prone to adopt social-
conventional criteria to judge moral rules, because
they can accept the transgression of these rules, at
least when “allowed” by authorities [Caravita et al.,
2009].
As far as moral self-justification is concerned, moral
disengagement processes can also enable the trans-
gressor to self-justify the immoral action [Bandura,
1991]. Indeed, a bulk of studies has evidenced that bul-
lies tend to use moral disengagement mechanisms, es-
pecially from early adolescence onwards [e.g., Barchia
and Bussey, 2011; Gini, 2006; Gini et al., 2011; Hymel
et al., 2005; Menesini et al., 2003; Obermann, 2011].
This can allow bullies to avoid sense of guilt.
However, conceptualizing bullying as an immoral
act may be not enough. Some authors [e.g., Arsenio
and Lemerise, 2001; Sutton and Keogh, 2000] have
argued that bullying behavior does not derive only
from individual deficits (e.g., in terms of social cog-
nition or moral understanding), but is sometimes an
adaptive strategy within the peer group, because it al-
lows to gain social status and access resources. For
example, bullies are sometimes described as assertive,
good leaders, popular, and well integrated into the
peer group [Estell et al., 2007; Pellegrini et al., 1999].
In order to better understand the extent to which chil-
dren who bully differ from well adjusted and socially
skillful, but nonaggressive peers, researchers usually
compare bullying with defending behavior [e.g., Car-
avita et al., 2009; Gini et al., 2007]. Defending in bul-
lying situations refers to actively intervening to stop
the bullying, helping, or consoling the bullied school-
mate, or asking for adults’ intervention, and it is asso-
ciated with good social skills, high social self-efficacy,
and efficacious coping strategies [e.g., Caravita et al.,
2009; Gini et al., 2008; Pöyhönen et al., 2010; Poz-
zoli and Gini, 2010; Pozzoli et al., 2012]. Moreover,
defenders have a high sense of moral responsibility
and feelings of guilt or shame in bullying situations

[Menesini and Camodeca, 2008; Pozzoli and Gini,
2010]. In other words, children who defend victims
may experience what Menesini and Camodeca [2008]
called “the moral conflict of the innocent bystander,”
which may increase the likelihood that they actively
intervene in front of a peer in pain, danger, or distress.
Nevertheless, to date morality characteristics likely to
be associated with defending have been explored in
few studies, and need to be better examined.
This study adds to the current literature by ana-
lyzing the role of both dimensions of morality dis-
cussed here (i.e., acceptance of moral transgression
and moral disengagement) together in two age groups
and in relation to both bullying and defending.
BULLYING, DEFENDING, AND STATUS
Recent literature on peer-group dynamics and net-
works recognizes the existence of two distinct forms
of social status reflecting the child’s social position
among peers, which is social preference and perceived
popularity. Social preference reflects the extent to
which a child is accepted or rejected by peers, whereas
perceived popularity reflects the level of individual
visibility, power, and prominence among peers [Cil-
lessen, 2009], and it is associated to higher levels of
dominance and resource control in the peer-group
[e.g., Caravita et al., 2011]. Even though an overlap
exists between social preference and perceived pop-
ularity, they are usually oppositely related to peer
aggression, including bullying. Indeed, bullying is as-
sociated negatively with social preference and posi-
tively with perceived popularity, whereas defending
is positively associated to both social preference and
perceived popularity [Caravita et al., 2009; de Bruyn
et al., 2010; Pöyhönen et al., 2010].
Based on these data and studies that provided evi-
dence of concurrent and prospective bidirectionality
of the associations between forms of status and so-
cial behavior [e.g., Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004], re-
cent studies suggested that having high status among
peers, either as socially preferred or perceived popu-
lar, promotes the kinds of behavior likely to keep the
influential position within the peer-group and the as-
sociated rewards: the so-called status as a motivator
hypothesis [Caravita and Cillessen, 2012]. In particu-
lar, high-perceived popularity, often gained by means
of bullying, is likely to motivate to continue to bully.
In contrast, a high status as socially preferred may
inhibit bullying and promote defending. Indeed, chil-
dren who are well accepted by peers are likely to wish
to continue to be well liked, thus they should refrain
from bullying others, because this behavior is disliked
Morality and Bullying: Moderations by Status 3
by peers, and be motivated to defend, because this
behavior is rewarded with peer-acceptance.
Beyond literature on the positive relation between
being high in status and enacting social behaviors
rewarded by status [e.g., Hymel et al., 2010], a re-
cent study [Caravita and Cillessen, 2012] has provided
some further evidence for the status as a motiva-
tor hypothesis by showing that, among early ado-
lescents (11–14 years), perceived popularity medi-
ated the positive association between motivation to
be prominent among peers (i.e., agentic goals) and
bullying, whereas social preference mediated the neg-
ative associations between motivation to be well liked
(i.e., communal goals) and bullying. Because status
can motivate status-enhancing behavior, it may even
magnify the associations between status-enhancing
behaviors and their psychological correlates (status
as a magnifying lens hypothesis; Caravita and Cil-
lessen, 2012]. For instance, being perceived popular
may promote the use of one’s own social cognitive
skills to bully others in order to maintain one’s sta-
tus, strengthening the associations between skills and
the behavior. Consistently, in early adolescence good
understanding of others’ feelings is positively associ-
ated to bullying for perceived popular girls [Caravita
et al., 2009]. Albeit still limited, these findings can
suggest that the status acts as a magnifying lens for
the relation between other personal characteristics—
including moral processes—and bullying especially
during early adolescence, the age in which the sta-
tus in the peer groups becomes a priority [LaFontana
and Cillessen, 2010].
With reference to social preference, being socially
preferred is likely to strengthen the associations be-
tween defending behavior and its correlates (again,
the status as a magnifying lens hypothesis) because, on
the one hand, well-liked peers wish to maintain peer
acceptance by behaving prosocially and, on the other
hand, they may feel they have their peers’ support
when they stand up for the victimized peer against bul-
lies [Juvonen and Galvan, 2008]. Accordingly, a high
social preference status has been found to strengthen
the positive associations between empathy and de-
fending among children and early adolescents [Car-
avita et al., 2009; Pöyhönen et al., 2010], and between
theory of mind and defending in late childhood [Car-
avita et al., 2010]. In other words, only when young-
sters are well liked by peers, empathic feelings, and
good theory of mind skills are positively associated to
defending.
To our knowledge no studies, so far, have investi-
gated whether the individual status within the peer-
group moderates the associations between the indi-
vidual morality and social behaviors, in particular
Aggr. Behav.
4 Caravita et al.
bullying and defending. In fact, studies on moral-
ity related to bullying, for instance research by Gini
[2006] and Gasser and Keller [2009], have mainly ex-
plored the associations between either moral disen-
gagement or the acceptance of moral transgression
and bullying, without examining possible influences
by peer-group processes and, in particular, by sta-
tus among peers. However, a high status as perceived
popular is likely to strengthen the associations be-
tween bullying and acceptance of moral transgres-
sion and moral disengagement, whereas social pref-
erence might particularly strengthen the associations
between defending and lower levels of both kinds of
distortion in morality. In other terms, we expect to
confirm the validity of the status as a magnifying lens
hypothesis also in the context of the morality-bullying
connection.
AGE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
Literature on forms of participation in bullying has
consistently found higher levels of bullying among
boys and older students [e.g., Salmivalli et al., 1996],
compared to girls and younger students who, con-
versely, tend to show higher levels of defending the
victim [e.g., Pozzoli and Gini, 2010, 2012]. Research
findings on moral disengagement, on the other hand,
are less clear-cut. For example, Paciello et al. [Paciello
et al., 2008] have found that, in adolescence, boys tend
to endorse higher levels of moral disengagement than
girls do, and that overall moral disengagement de-
creases with increasing age, but remains highly sta-
ble in aggressive youths. With regards to perception
of rules, children perceive both moral, and social-
conventional rules as more highly authority depen-
dent and breakable than do early adolescents [Car-
avita et al., 2009].
From late childhood to early adolescence, social
preference, and perceived popularity become more
distinct. Among boys the association between these
forms of status declines with age but remains positive,
whereas among girls it shifts from positive to non-
significant or even negative in adolescence [Hymel
et al., 2010]. After the transition between primary
school and middle school, having high-perceived pop-
ularity becomes a priority over other valued domains,
such as friendship and academic achievement [La-
Fontana and Cillessen, 2010]. Such priority attached
to popularity further predicts aggression in early ado-
lescence [Cillessen et al., 2009]. Accordingly, from
late childhood to early adolescence the positive as-
sociation between perceived popularity and bullying
almost doubles, whereas the negative association be-
tween social preference and bullying decreases by as
Aggr. Behav.
much as half [Caravita and Cillessen, 2012]. The pos-
itive association between social preference and de-
fending found in childhood remains through early
adolescence, while defending the victims is linked to
a high-perceived popular status among children but
not adolescents [Caravita et al., 2009].
THE PRESENT STUDY
In sum, the main aim of this study was to test main
effects of status on behaviors in bullying and moder-
ation effects of status on the associations between the
morality dimensions and bullying and defending. As
discussed above, studies have consistently showed that
bullying is related to higher levels of perceived popu-
larity and lower levels of social preference, whereas de-
fending is related positively to social preference and,
at least in childhood, to perceived popularity [Car-
avita et al., 2009]. Moreover, literature has provided
some evidence that, compared to other peers, particu-
larly defenders, bullies may perceive moral transgres-
sions as more acceptable (at least at younger ages) and
show higher levels of moral disengagement. Based
on these findings and the status as a motivator and
the status as a magnifying lens hypotheses described
above [Caravita and Cillessen, 2012], perceived pop-
ularity was expected to be positively associated with
bullying, and to strengthen the positive associations
of bullying with accepting moral transgression and
morally disengaging, especially in early adolescence,
when having a high perceived popularity status be-
comes a priority [LaFontana and Cillessen, 2010].
In contrast, a high social preference status was ex-
pected (1) to be negatively associated with bullying
and to reduce the positive associations between bul-
lying and accepting moral transgression and morally
disengaging, and (2) to be positively associated with
defending and to strengthen the negative associations
between morality dimensions and defending. Indeed,
well-liked kids are likely to wish to maintain their well-
liked status, by withdrawing from bullying, which is
usually disliked by peers, and by defending the vic-
tims, which is rewarded with higher peer-acceptance.
As a secondary aim of this study, we also investi-
gated the associations of acceptance of moral trans-
gression and moral disengagement with bullying and
defending by including these dimensions together in
same models. In fact, no studies so far have analyzed
these two moral dimensions by taking into accounts
their reciprocal effects on forms of participation in
bullying. Based on previous findings, both accept-
ing moral transgression and morally disengaging were
expected to be associated to higher levels of bullying
and lower levels of defending.

We tested for possible gender differences in the ex-
pected associations between morality, status, and be-
havior, by including the interactions of gender with
the two types of moral cognition and the two forms
of social status in the analyses. In keeping with some
studies that reported a stronger relation between so-
cial status and bullying behavior among boys than
among girls [e.g., Caravita and Cillessen, 2012], we
anticipated that boys would show greater associa-
tions between status (especially perceived popularity),
moral dimensions and bullying. Conversely, we hy-
pothesized a stronger effect of social preference on
the relation between morality and defending among
girls.
Finally, possible age-related differences were inves-
tigated by testing the associations of the study vari-
ables separately in two age groups: a late childhood
group and an early adolescence group. To this respect,
in keeping with literature on status [Hymel et al.,
2010], we hypothesized that, compared to late child-
hood, during early adolescence the perceived popular
status was more relevant than social preference in
favoring bullying behavior and that its role as a mag-
nifying lens was also more evident at this age level
[Caravita and Cillessen, 2012]. As far as morality is
concerned, we expected that accepting moral trans-
gression was related to bullying especially among
younger participants, whereas moral disengagement
might be associated to bullying more strongly among
adolescents, who may be more able to use sophis-
ticated processes of self-justification of moral trans-
gression.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 235 children, aged 9–11 years (av-
erage age = 9.8 years, SD = .66, 51.9% boys), attend-
ing grades four and five, i.e. the last two grades of
the Italian primary school, and 305 early adolescents,
aged 12–15 years (average age: 12.48 years, SD = 1.00;
54.4% boys), attending grades six to eight, i.e. the
three grades of middle school in the Italian school
system. Participants were recruited from two primary
schools and one middle school in the Province of Mi-
lan, in Northern Italy. Socio-economic status (SES)
of participants’ families was assessed by asking stu-
dents to report their parents’ qualifications and jobs.
Seventy-two youngsters (13.3%) were not able to pro-
vide this information and their SES data were missing.
Of the remaining 468 participants’ families, 18.3%
had low-middle SES, 47.4% middle SES, and 20.9%
middle-high SES. The majority of participants were
Italian (95.2%), 3.1% were immigrants from other Eu-
Morality and Bullying: Moderations by Status 5
ropean Countries, .9% from Africa, .6% from South
America and .2% from Asia. School principals and
teachers’ committees authorized the participation of
the classes in the study, and before the data collection
a letter explaining the purposes of the research project
was sent to participants’ parents to ask for active con-
sent. Parents of all the pupils in the school grades were
contacted for consent and 85 pupils (13.7% of the
whole sample) were not allowed to participate in this
study. Nonauthorized pupils did not answer question-
naires but could be nominated in peer-nomination
measures. Pupils without permission did not signif-
icantly differ from the participants on bullying, but
showed significantly lower levels of defending behav-
ior (t(145.51) = 6.81, P < .001), perceived popularity
(t(107.66) = 3.92, P < .001), and social preference
(t(110.37) = 5.64, P < .001). Before data collection,
individual consent for participation was also obtained
from the participants, who were informed that partic-
ipation in the study was voluntary and were allowed
both to refuse to participate and to withdraw from the
study at any time. None of the participants refused to
participate.
Measures
Peer nominations of bullying and defending
behavior. Forms of participation in bullying were
measured by administering the Italian validated ver-
sion of the Participant Roles Questionnaire [PRQ;
Menesini and Gini, 2000; Salmivalli et al., 1996] based
on the shortened version for primary school children
by Sutton and Smith [1999]. The whole measure con-
sists of 21 items, i.e. behavioral descriptions of bully-
ing situations, of which four items measure bullying
(e.g., “starts bullying”; Cronbach’s α = .94; original
α = .94) and five items assess defending (e.g., “stick
up for the victim”; α = .82; original α = .81). First, we
provided a definition of bullying, which makes clear
to the child the specificity of bullying in compari-
son to other forms of aggression: “We say a child or
young person is being bullied, or picked on when an-
other child or young person, or a group of children or
young people, say nasty and unpleasant things to him
or her. It is also bullying when a child or young per-
son is hit, kicked, threatened, locked inside a room,
sent nasty notes, when no one ever talks to them and
things like that. These things can happen frequently
and it is difficult for the child or young person being
bullied to defend himself or herself. It is also bully-
ing when a child or young person is teased repeatedly
in a nasty way. But it is not bullying when two chil-
dren or young people of about the same strength have
the odd fight or quarrel.” Then, for each item the
Aggr. Behav.
6 Caravita et al.
participants were asked to nominate up to five class-
mates who fitted each behavioral description and, for
each nominated classmate, to indicate whether s/he
“sometimes” (scored as 1) or “often” (scored as 2)
showed that behavior. The weighted sum of the re-
ceived peer-nominations for each item formed the
score, which was standardized by class, and these
scores were then averaged to form bullying and de-
fending scores.
Moral disengagement. The tendency to
morally disengage was assessed by means of the
14-item version of the Moral Disengagement scale,
a self-report measure specifically designed and
validated for school children [Caprara et al., 1995].
For each item, respondents were asked to rate the
strength of their endorsement or rejection of moral
exoneration of detrimental conduct on a 5-point
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Higher scores indicate a higher tendency
to engage in one or more of these mechanisms
(example items: “Some kids deserve to be treated like
animals”; “Kids cannot be blamed for misbehaving
if their friends pressured them to do it”). In line with
previous studies [e.g., Caprara et al., 1995; Gini,
2006] items were averaged to form a global score
(α = .73).
Acceptance of moral transgression. Chil-
dren’s acceptance of transgression of moral rules was
investigated by administering a self-report question-
naire based on the interview schedule by Buchanan-
Barrow and Barrett [1998; Caravita et al., 2009].
The measure included two hypothetical scenarios, in
which moral rules, i.e. do not hurt other kids and do
not steal others’ properties, were transgressed by a
child. The rules were presented as explicit rules of the
school, so that the character breaking the rule was
aware of his/her rule-transgression. A sample sce-
nario is the following: “In Davide’s school, there is a
rule that you must never push anyone off the climbing
frame. One day at school, while Davide is playing on
the climbing frame, he pushes Stefano so hard that he
falls to the ground.”
For each scenario respondents judged how much
the rule breaking was right on a 5-point scale (from
0 “not right at all,” to 4 “totally right”). The two
item scores (r = .35) were averaged (range: 0–4) in
order to obtain the acceptance of moral transgression
score. The higher the score, the more acceptable the
transgression of the moral rule.
Social preference and perceived popularity.
Four peer-nomination items assessed social status.
Participants nominated up to five same- and cross-
gender classmates they liked the most, they liked the
least, and they thought were the most and the least
Aggr. Behav.
popular kids [Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004]. Accord-
ing to procedure proposed in sociometric literature
[Cillessen, 2009], after summing the peer-nominations
for each item and standardizing them by class, two
combined indices were computed: nominations as the
least liked were subtracted from nominations as the
most liked to assess social preference; nominations as
the least popular were subtracted from nominations
as the most popular to assess perceived popularity.
The final scores for social preference and perceived
popularity were the two subtraction indices after stan-
dardization by class.
Procedure
The research project was approved by the Ethical
Committee of the Department of Psychology of the
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. Measures
were group-administered in one session per class by
a research assistant during regular school hours. The
administration session took around 1 hr per class,
and the order of the questionnaires was counterbal-
anced across classes to control for the order effect,
so that each questionnaire was at least once in any
rank position in the administering order. For each
measure the research assistant explained how to fill
in the questionnaire. For the peer-nomination mea-
sures, the class roster was written on the classroom
blackboard with names associated to anonymous nu-
meric codes and the participants were instructed to
use these codes in place of classmates’ names to an-
swer questions. At the end of the session, children were
thanked for their participation and debriefed about
the purpose of the study, and their questions were
answered.
RESULTS
Missing Data
Missing data were handled by first verifying that
they were random in nature, and that there was not
a systematic pattern of nonresponse [Meyers et al.,
2006]. Then, we considered the questionnaire to be
reliable if the participants answered at least 80% of
the questions and if they had less than 20% miss-
ing data in one or more of the scales used. Follow-
ing these criteria, 32 students were excluded from
the sample and were not included in subsequent
analyses.
Correlations and Group Differences
Correlations were computed in the two age groups,
separately (Table I). In both age-groups bullying was
higher for boys than girls, whereas defending was
higher for girls than boys. In adolescence boys scored
 Morality and Bullying: Moderations by Status 7

TABLE I. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Study Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD

1. Gender (0 = boys, 1 = girls) – − .35*** .37*** − .09 − .26*** .09 − .09 - -

2. Bullying − .32*** - − .26*** .18** .30*** − .24*** .43*** .44 .78
3. Defending .45*** − .22** – − .14* − .16** .29*** .06 .73 .65
4. Acceptance of moral transgression .00 .01 .06 – .23** .01 .04 .89 .75
5. Moral disengagement − .12 .09 − .21** .14* − − .08 .14* 2.28 .57
6. Social preference .05 − .30*** .38*** .11 − .16* − .39*** .002 .97
7. Perceived popularity − .20** .23*** .19** .11 − .10 .56*** - − .02 .95
M – .50 1.04 .57 2.33 .04 .01
SD – .73 .80 .59 .55 .95 .98
Note. Correlations for primary school children (n = 222) are presented below the diagonal, and correlations for middle school early adolescents
(n = 286) are presented above the diagonal.
* P < .05, ** P < .01, *** P < .001.

higher than girls in moral disengagement. Among
children, boys were more perceived popular than girls.
At both age levels, defending was significantly asso-
ciated to lower levels of moral disengagement and, in
early adolescence, to lower acceptance of moral trans-
gression. Bullying was associated with higher scores
in both moral dimensions, but only in early adoles-
cence. Moreover, bullying positively correlated with
perceived popularity and this correlation was higher
among early adolescents than among children. The
correlation between bullying and social preference
was negative in both age groups, but higher among
children. Defending was positively associated to both
status dimensions in children, but only to social pref-
erence in early adolescents. In adolescence perceived
popularity was associated to higher levels of moral
disengagement, and in both age groups of social pref-
erence too, even if this association was higher among
children than early adolescents.
Age and gender differences were tested using t-
tests. Effect sizes are expressed as Cohen’s d, based
on the pooled standard deviation of the two groups.
Results showed that in the overall sample boys
scored higher than girls in bullying (Mgirls = .20,
SDgirls = .33; Mboys = .71, SD boys = .93; t(506) = 7.94,
P < .001, d = .72, 95% CI [.54, .90]), moral disen-
gagement (Mgirls = 2.19, SDgirls = .54; Mboys = 2.41,
SD boys = .55; t(506) = 4.49, P < .001, d = .40, 95%
CI [.23, .58]) and perceived popularity (Mgirls = −.15,
SDgirls = .93; Mboys = .12, SD boys = .97; t(506) = 3.15,
P = .002, d = .28, 95% CI [.11, .46]). In contrast, girls
reported greater defending behavior than boys did
(Mgirls = 1.18, SDgirls = .84; Mboys = .58, SD boys = .49;
t(506) = 7.94, P < .001, d = .88, 95% CI [.70, 1.07]).
As far as age differences are concerned, older students
(M = .89) showed greater acceptance of moral trans-
gression than younger pupils (M = .57; t(506) = 5.29,
P < .001, d = .47, 95% CI [.30, .65]), while children
(M = 1.04) scored higher in defending behavior com-
pared with early adolescents (M = .73; t(506) = 4.92,
P < .001, d = .43, 95% CI [.25, .61]).
Analyses Predicting Bullying
and Defending Behavior
Even if intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)
for bullying (late-childhood: .006; early adolescence:
.003) and defending (late-childhood: .019; early ado-
lescence: .081) were low, to control for the possi-
ble clustering effects of classrooms (students nested
within classes) we utilized the Complex method pro-
vided by the Mplus software (Muthèn and Muthèn,
1998–2007).
Hypothesized associations among the study vari-
ables were investigated through regression analyses
with bullying and defending behavior as the out-
comes. Separate analyses were conducted for the two
age groups. For each analysis, two models were tested.
In model 1 (main effect model), gender (dummy
coded: 0 = boys, 1 = girls) was entered together
with acceptance of moral transgression, moral dis-
engagement, social preference, and perceived popu-
larity. Moreover, the defending score was included as
a predictor of bullying and the bullying score in the
prediction of defending, in order to control for their
reciprocal influence. Then, to test for moderation ef-
fects, in model 2 (interaction model) we entered the
four 2-way interaction terms of perceived popular-
ity and social preference with moral disengagement
and acceptance of moral transgression, as well as the
2-way interactions of moral and status dimensions
with gender and the four 3-way interactions of moral
constructs with status dimensions and gender. Inter-
action terms [Aiken and West, 1991] were created by
mean centering predictors. The improvement of fit be-
tween the first and the second model was evaluated
through the log-likelihood ratio test (based on the χ2
distribution), by comparing the log-likelihood value
of the interaction model with the log-likelihood value

Aggr. Behav.
8 Caravita et al.

TABLE II. Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Bullying and Defending Behavior

Bullying behavior Defending behavior

Late childhood Early adolescence Late-childhood Early adolescence

Predictor R2 β R2 β R2 β R2 β

Step 1 .363*** .476*** .348*** .233***

Gender (0 = boys, 1 = girls) − .18*** − .23*** .47*** .32***
Defending/bullying − .01 − .05 − .01 − .08
Acceptance of moral transgression .01 .02 .05 − .10*
Moral disengagement (MD) .03 .12*** .02 − .04
Social preference (SP) − .58*** − .53*** .26*** .22***
Perceived popularity (PP) .53*** .71*** 05 . .04
Step 2 .077 .149*** .054* 041 .
SP × MD − .04 − .08 − .09 − .11
PP × MD .08 .24** − .04 − .02
SP × acceptance of moral transgression .06 − .21** − .09 .09
PP × acceptance of moral transgression .06 .17 .10 .12*
Gender × MD − .05 − .02 − .17* .05
Gender × acceptance of moral transgression − .09 .00 − .09 − .05
Gender × SP .46*** .25*** − .04 .19*
Gender × PP − .30* − .32*** .17 .02
Gender × MD × SP .08 − .01 .00 .16
Gender × MD × PP − .08 − .06 − .02 .01
Gender × acceptance of moral transgression × SP − .01 .16*** .09 − .12
Gender × acceptance of moral transgression × PP .01 − .14* − .10 − .05
Total R2 .440*** .625*** .402*** .274***
N 222 286 222 286
*P < .05, ** P < .01, *** P < .001.

of the main effect model, including predictions from
the interaction terms fixed to 0.
Bullying behavior. Results are reported in
Table II. In the late-childhood sample the interaction
terms entered in model 2 did not fit the data better
than model 1 (log-likelihood ratio test(12) = 20.17, P
> .05). So, model 1 was retained as the final model.
Predictors entered in model 1 explained 36.3% of the
variance in children’s bullying behavior. Bullying was
significantly higher among boys than girls, negatively
associated to social preference and positively to per-
ceived popularity. Neither of the moral components
had significant main associations with bullying in late
childhood.
Among early adolescents, model 1 explained 47.6%
of variation in bullying, but model 2 explained a sig-
nificantly higher variation (62.5%) of this behavior
(log-likelihood ratio test(12) = 67.23, P < .001). There-
fore model 2 was retained as the final model. Similarly
to what emerged among children, bullying was higher
among boys. Higher levels of perceived popularity
and lower levels of social preference were associated
with higher levels of bullying behavior. The interac-
tion terms of the status dimensions with gender were
both significant. Moreover, in this age-sample, moral
disengagement was significantly associated to bully-
ing, and interacted with perceived popularity in pre-
dicting changes in the variance of bullying. With re-
gards to the acceptance of the moral transgression,
both its 2-way interaction with social preference and
its 3-way interactions with status dimensions and gen-
der were significantly associated to bullying.
In order to interpret the nature of these significant
interactions, simple slopes of acceptance of moral
transgression and moral disengagement on bullying
were derived for high (+1 SD) and low levels (−1 SD)
of social preference and perceived popularity as the
moderating variables [Aiken and West, 1991]. For in-
teractions including gender, models were run again,
separately in the two gender groups and excluding
gender and its interactions from predictors. Figure 1
depicts the interaction between perceived popularity
and moral disengagement. The computation of the
simple slopes showed that higher levels of moral dis-
engagement were significantly and positively related
to bullying behavior at high levels of perceived popu-
larity (β = .30, P < .001), but it was not significantly
associated to bullying when the perceived popularity
was low (β = −.08, P = .33).
Because the 2-way interactions of the acceptance of
moral transgression with social status in predicting
changes in the variance of bullying were included in
the significant 3-way interactions of acceptance with
status and gender, we separately tested in the two

Aggr. Behav.

Fig. 1. The perceived popularity x moral disengagement effect on change
in the variance of bullying behavior among early adolescents.
gender-groups the regression model that included all
the 2-ways interactions after removing gender and the
interaction terms including gender from predictors.
The acceptance of moral transgression significantly
interacted with social preference (β = −.16, P < .01;
Fig. 2) and perceived popularity (β = .15, P < .05;
Fig. 2. The gender x social preference x acceptance of moral transgres-
sion effect on change in the variance of bullying behavior among early
adolescents for boys (A) and girls (B).
Morality and Bullying: Moderations by Status 9
Fig. 3. The gender x perceived popularity x acceptance of moral trans-
gression effect on change in the variance of bullying behavior among
early adolescents for boys (A) and girls (B).
Fig. 3) in the prediction of bullying among boys,
whereas these associations were nonsignificant among
girls (βs .10 and −.10, ps .34 and .37, respectively).
In the boys group, higher levels of acceptance of
moral transgression were significantly associated to
bullying for low levels of social preference (β = .16,
P < .05), whereas the association was not significant
for high levels of social preference (β = −.07, P < .33).
When considering perceived popularity as the mod-
erator, the acceptance of moral transgression signifi-
cantly predicted variance in bullying for high levels of
perceived popularity (β = .17, P = .05), but not for
low levels of this form of status (β = −.05, P = .57).
Lastly, gender moderated the associations of bully-
ing with status dimensions: perceived popularity was
more strongly associated to bullying among boys (.63,
P < .001) than girls (.57, P < .001), whereas the
negative association of social preference and bully-
ing was stronger among girls (−.51, P < .001) than
boys (−.43, P < .001).
Defending behavior. The results of the analy-
ses on defending behavior are displayed in Table II.
Aggr. Behav.
10 Caravita et al.
Fig. 4. The gender x moral disengagement effect on change in the vari-
ance of defending behavior among children.
In childhood, model 1 predicted 34.8% of variation
in defending, and model 2 40.2%. The difference in
the amount of variation explained by the two models
was significant (log-likelihood ratio test(12) = 21.64,
P < .05), thus model 2 was retained as the final model.
Gender was associated with different amounts of de-
fending behavior, such that girls were more prone to
defend the victims than boys were. Social preference
was positively related with this behavior. Neither the
acceptance of moral transgression nor the interac-
tions terms including acceptance were significantly
associated to defending. Moral disengagement signif-
icantly and negatively interacted with gender in pre-
dicting variation in defending. When the model was
separately tested in gender-groups, moral disengage-
ment was negatively associated to defending among
girls (β = −.22, P < .05), but the association was low
and not significant among boys (β = −.04, P = .69)
(Fig. 4).
Among early adolescents, model 1 explained 23.3%
of variability of defending. Model 2 explained 27.4%
of variation, and it did not significantly differ from
model 1 (log-likelihood ratio test(12) = 16.69, P > .05).
Therefore model 1 was retained as the final model.
Defending was significantly associated to being a
girl, low levels of acceptance of moral transgression
(β = −.10, P < .05) and higher social preference
(β = .22, P < .001).
DISCUSSION
This study was the first to analyze the associations
of morality and status in the peer group with bully-
ing and defending in late childhood and early ado-
lescence. Specifically, we tested whether two differ-
ent forms of dysfunctional moral cognition, namely
acceptance of moral transgression and moral disen-
Aggr. Behav.
gagement processes, were associated positively to bul-
lying and negatively to defending. Furthermore, the
main aim of the study was to test two hypotheses
on the role of status that have been recently formu-
lated [Caravita and Cillessen, 2012]: the “status as a
motivator” and the “status as a magnifying lens” hy-
potheses. To this end, we investigated whether forms
of status among peers, namely social preference and
perceived popularity, both were directly associated
to outcome behaviors, above and beyond moral di-
mensions, and moderated the associations between
moral cognition and bullying and defending. Finally,
the potential moderating role of gender was analyzed
by entering the interaction terms, whereas age-related
differences in the investigated associations were ex-
amined by performing separate analyses for the two
age groups.
Morality, Status, and Behavior in Bullying
Among the study variables high status dimensions
had the strongest associations with the behavior, espe-
cially with bullying. Consistently with previous stud-
ies [e.g., Caravita et al., 2009; de Bruyn et al., 2010], in
both age-groups lower levels of social preference and
higher levels of perceived popularity (i.e., high pres-
tige status) in the peer group were associated with
bullying others, whereas defending the victims was
linked to high social preference. These findings fit
with the status as a motivator hypothesis [Caravita
and Cillessen, 2012], that states that a high status as
perceived popular is likely to be associated with in-
creases in the variance of bullying, and a high status
as socially well liked with higher levels of prosocial be-
havior. Interesting enough, this hypothesis was con-
firmed in both age groups, thus suggesting that social
status may be an important determinant of differ-
ent behaviors in bullying already in late childhood.
In this perspective, popular children may be more
likely to bully others because bullying is rewarded
with keeping high-perceived popular status [Cillessen
and Mayeux, 2004; Hymel et al., 2010]. Differently
from perceived popular kids, well-accepted students
(i.e., students high in social preference) may be moti-
vated to avoid acting aggressively and, conversely, to
behave prosocially because prosocial behavior is usu-
ally rewarded by higher levels of peer acceptance (the
status as motivator hypothesis). This is also true for
defending behavior in bullying, which is usually well
approved by peers [Salmivalli and Voeten, 2004].
However, when considering the specificity of de-
fending, our data are also consistent with the hy-
pothesis that children that feel they are supported
by their peers may be encouraged to actively defend
victimized peers [Juvonen and Galvan, 2008]. Indeed,

when compared to other types of prosocial behav-
ior, active intervention in favor of the victim in the
context of bullying represents a risky behavior, be-
cause the helper must confront a powerful bully and,
often, a supporting group. Being well liked by peers
may, therefore, increase the defenders’ perception that
peers will help them in contrasting bullies. In further
accordance with this hypothesis, defending behavior
has been shown to be promoted by class norms in fa-
vor of this behavior, i.e. classmates’ positive attitudes
toward defending [Pozzoli et al., in press]. Thus, de-
fending behavior is likely to be motivated by both per-
sonal characteristics and group conditions, including
a high status as socially accepted [Caravita et al., 2009;
Pozzoli and Gini, 2010; Pozzoli et al., in press].
As far as morality is concerned, consistent with
our hypotheses based on the status as a magnifying
lens hypothesis, in early adolescence the tendencies to
morally disengage and to accept the moral transgres-
sion interacted with status dimensions in explaining
bullying behavior. Specifically, perceived popularity
exacerbated the link of bullying with moral disen-
gagement in both gender groups, so that bullying be-
havior was more likely in students who were more
prone to morally disengage and high in perceived
popularity. The moderating role of perceived popu-
larity was also confirmed for the association between
acceptance of moral transgression and bullying, but
only among boys. Altogether, these findings expand
the results of recent studies that provided evidence
that high perceived popular status not only promotes
bullying directly but also strengthens the association
between personal characteristics, such as social cog-
nition, and bullying among early adolescents [Car-
avita et al., 2009], the age group in which perceived
popularity becomes a priority over other valued do-
mains [LaFontana and Cillessen, 2010]. Furthermore,
this finding is consistent with the hypothesis that a
high status may act as a magnifying lens for status-
enhancing behaviors, such as bullying [Caravita and
Cillessen, 2012]. Finally, when the effects of moral
disengagement and status were taken into account,
acceptance of moral transgression was not directly
related to bullying. These findings may also indicate
that even once bullies understand that there are moral
issues involved, this still does not guarantee that they
will care about these moral issues.
As far as social preference is concerned, its mod-
eration effects indicated that, among early adolescent
boys (but not girls), accepting moral transgression
was related to bullying behavior only for boys and
who were not well liked by peers. In other terms,
having a high social preference status weakens the
associations of possible distortions in morality with
Morality and Bullying: Moderations by Status 11
bullying among adolescent boys. Also these findings
are in accordance with the magnifying lens hypothe-
sis, stating that higher levels of social preference can
be a protective factor for antisocial behavior, even
buffering the effects of potential risk factors such as
perceiving moral rules as breakable. Well-liked chil-
dren may avoid engaging in disruptive behavior in
order to maintain their likeability status among peers.
Effects of Gender and Age
While most findings were consistent across gender
and age groups, a few relations were moderated by
gender and age. First, gender moderated the associa-
tions of status with bullying, in that perceived popu-
larity was more strongly associated to bullying among
boys than girls, whereas the negative association of so-
cial preference and bullying was stronger among girls
than boys. Second, after taking into account the ef-
fects of social status and in keeping with previous find-
ings [e.g., Hymel et al., 2005; Menesini et al., 2003],
higher levels of moral disengagement were associated
to and interacted with perceived popularity in pre-
dicting higher levels of bullying only among early
adolescents, thus suggesting that these mechanisms
of self-justification may become particularly impor-
tant in explaining aggressive behavior at this age [see
also Paciello et al., 2008]. Third, again only in adoles-
cence acceptance of moral transgression was related
to boys’ bullying and to defending. These results may
indicate that moral cognition becomes important in
explaining social behavior mainly from the early ado-
lescence years. Fourth, consistent with previous stud-
ies reporting stronger effects of status in the male
group [Caravita and Cillessen, 2012], the moderating
role of perceived popularity and social preference on
the association between acceptance of moral trans-
gression and bullying emerged only among adolescent
boys. These results are consistent with the hypothesis
that high perceived popular status not only promotes
bullying directly, but also strengthens the relations be-
tween individual characteristics and bullying among
early adolescents, the age group in which perceived
popularity becomes a priority [Hymel et al., 2010;
LaFontana and Cillessen, 2010].
With regards to defending behavior, lower levels
of acceptance of moral transgression were associated
to higher defending among early adolescents but not
children. Moreover, only among girls a lower ten-
dency to morally disengage was linked to higher lev-
els of defending behavior in late childhood. This is
consistent with the picture of girls as both less morally
disengaged [Paciello et al., 2008] and more prone
to defending than boys [Pozzoli and Gini, 2010].
Furthermore, these findings indicate the value of
Aggr. Behav.
12 Caravita et al.
investigating the relation between moral disengage-
ment and different forms of participation in the phe-
nomenon, not only bullying, and to expand the anal-
ysis to younger children.
Limitations and Implications
Limitations of this study included the cross-
sectional nature of the data, which did not allow us to
clarify the causal direction of associations, and to ex-
clude alternative explanations for our findings. In par-
ticular, we cannot exclude that levels of social status
may be the outcome and not the precursors of social
behavior, even though this latter hypothesis is consis-
tent with longitudinal studies on this topic [Cillessen,
2009]. Furthermore, we assessed differences in moral
rule comprehension only through two scenarios and
by considering just the acceptance of moral transgres-
sion, while other dimensions, such as the perception
of the rule as dependent on the authority, may also as-
sess the level of and maturity in perceiving moral rules.
A replication of these findings with a more thorough
assessment of these dimensions of children’s morality
is required.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the current find-
ings have potential implications for interventions. For
example, they indicate that dysfunctions in moral cog-
nition are important issues for bullying prevention in
adolescence, and that educational programs must fo-
cus on mitigating these distortions in kids to decrease
the likelihood of bullying behavior. Moreover, they
evidence the importance of taking into consideration
the role of the peer group in bullying and indicate that
anti-bullying intervention should address not only the
individuals involved, but also the dynamics within
their peer group. Given the strong association between
motivation to keep a prominent status within the peer
group and bullying behavior [Caravita and Cillessen,
2012; Sijtsema et al., 2009], interventions should work
to decreasing the social rewards of bullying others, es-
pecially in terms of a high popularity status. On the
other hand, defenders are highly accepted by peers
and, in other studies, have been found to be both well
liked and perceived popular [Caravita et al., 2009]. As
a consequence defenders may become positive mod-
els for their classmates, and interventions focusing on
proposing defending as a model behavior may be par-
ticularly effective [e.g., Kärnä et al., 2010].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to the students, teachers,
and school administrators participating in this study,
and to Mrs. Silvia Capraro for her help in collecting
the data.
Aggr. Behav.
REFERENCES
Aiken LS, West SG. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Arsenio WF, Lemerise EA. 2001. Varieties of childhood bullying:
Values, emotion processes, and social competence. Soc Dev 10:59–
73.
Bandura A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and ac-
tion. In: Kurtines WM, Gewirtz GL, editors. Handbook of moral
behavior and development: theory, research and applications. Vol.
1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p 71–129.
Barchia K, Bussey K. 2011. Individual and collective social cogni-
tive influences on peer aggression: Exploring the contribution of
aggression efficacy, moral disengagement, and collective efficacy.
Aggr Behav 37:107–120.
Buchanan-Barrow E, Barrett M. 1998. Individual differences
in children’s understanding of the school. Soc Dev 7:250–
268.
Caprara GV, Pastorelli C, Bandura A. 1995. La misura del disim-
pegno morale in età evolutiva [Measuring age differences in moral
disengagement]. Età Evolutiva 51:18–29.
Caravita SCS, Cillessen AHN. 2012. Agentic or communal? Develop-
mental differences in the associations among interpersonal goals,
popularity, and bullying. Soc Dev 2:376–395.
Caravita SCS, Di Blasio P, Salmivalli C. 2009. Unique and interactive
effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying.
Soc Dev 18:140–163.
Caravita SCS, Di Blasio P, Salmivalli C. 2010. Early adolescents’
participation in bullying: Is ToM involved? J Early Adolesc 30:138–
170.
Caravita SCS, Miragoli S, Di Blasio P. 2009. Why should I behave
in this way? Rule discrimination within the school context related
to bullying. In: Elling LR, editor. Social development. New York:
Nova Science Publishers. p 269–290.
Caravita SCS, Pöyhönen V, Rajala I, Salmivalli C. 2011. The archi-
tecture of high status among Finnish youth. Br J Dev Psychol
29:668–679.
Caravita SCS, Pöyhönen V, Salmivalli C. 2009. Prosocial involvement
in antisocial situations: Defending the victims of bullying. In: Kin-
ney TA, Porhola M, editors. Anti- and pro-social communication:
Theories, methods, and applications. New York: Peter Lang Pub-
lishing Group. p 173–182.
Chang L. 2004. The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the
relations of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Dev
Psychol 40:691–702.
Cillessen AHN. 2009. Sociometric methods. In: Rubin KH, Bukowski
WM, Laursen B, editors. Handbook of peer interactions, relation-
ships and groups. New York: Guilford. p 82–99.
Cillessen AHN, de Bruyn EH, LaFontana KM. 2009. Behav-
ioral effects of prioritizing popularity. Paper presented
at the Biennal Meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Denver, CO. Available online at:
http://www.srcd.org/meeting/schedule/2009/dayview.cfm?code=3.
Cillessen AHN, Mayeux L. 2004. From censure to reinforcement: De-
velopmental changes in the association between aggression and
social status. Child Dev 75:147–163.
de Bruyn EH, Cillessen AHN, Wissink I. 2010. Associations of
peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and
victimization in early adolescence. J Early Adolesc 30:543–
566.
Estell DB, Farmer TM, Cairns BD. 2007. Bullies and victims in ru-
ral African American youth: Behavioral characteristics and social
network placement. Aggr Behav 33:145–159.
Fontaine NM, McCrory EJ, Boivin M, Moffitt TE, Viding
E. 2011. Predictors and outcomes of joint trajectories of

callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in childhood.
J Abnorm Psychol 120:730–742.
Gasser L, Keller M. 2009. Are the competent the morally good? Per-
spective taking and moral motivation of children involved in bul-
lying. Soc Dev 18:798–816.
Gibbs JC. 2010. Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories
of Kohlberg and Hoffman. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gini G. 2006. Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s
wrong? Aggr Behav 32:528–539.
Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Altoè G. 2007. Does empathy predict
adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggr Behav 33:467–
476.
Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Altoè G. 2008. Determinants of adoles-
cents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying.
J Adolesc 31:93–105.
Gini G, Pozzoli T, Hauser M. 2011. Bullies have enhanced moral
competence to judge relative to victims, but lack moral compassion.
Pers Indiv Differ 50:603–608.
Hymel S, Closson LM, Caravita SCS, Vaillancourt T. 2010. Social
status among peers: From sociometric attraction to peer accep-
tance to perceived popularity. In: Smith PK, Hart CH, editors.
Handbook of childhood social development. 2nd ed. Malden, MA:
Wiley/Blackwell. p 375–392.
Hymel S, Rocke Henderson N, Bonanno RA. 2005. Moral disengage-
ment: A framework for understanding bullying among adolescents.
J Soc Sci 8:1–11.
Hymel S, Schonert-Reichl KA, Bonanno RA, Vaillancourt T, Rocke
Henderson N. 2010. Bullying and morality. Understanding how
good kids can behave badly. In: Jimerson SR, Swearer SM, Es-
pelage DL, editors. Handbook of bullying in schools. An interna-
tional perspective. New York: Routledge. p 101–118.
Juvonen J, Galvan A. 2008. Peer contagion in involuntary social
groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In: Prinstein M, Dodge
K, editors. Peer influence processes among youth. New York: Guil-
ford Press. p 225–244.
Kärnä A, Voete M, Little T, Poskiparta E, Kaljonen A, Salmivalli C.
2010. A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying program.
Child Dev 32:311–330.
Ladd GW. 2003. Probing the adaptive significance of children’s behav-
ior and relationships in the school context: A child-by-environment
perspective. In: Kail R, editor. Advances in child behavior and de-
velopment. New York: Wiley. p 43–104.
Ladd GW. 2005. Children’s peer relations and social competence: A
century of progress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
LaFontana KM, Cillessen AHN. 2010. Developmental changes in the
priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Soc Dev
19:130–147.
Leenders I, Brugman D. 2005. Moral/non-moral domain shift in
young adolescents in relation to delinquent behavior. Br J Dev
Psychol 23:65–79.
Menesini E, Camodeca M. 2008. Shame and guilt as behaviour reg-
ulators: Relationships with bullying, victimization and prosocial
behaviour. Br J Dev Psychol 26:183–196.
Menesini E, Gini G. 2000. Il bullismo come processo di gruppo: adat-
tamento e validazione del questionario “Ruoli dei partecipanti”
Morality and Bullying: Moderations by Status 13
alla popolazione italiana [Bullying as a group process: adaptation
and validation of the Participant Role Questionnaire to the Italian
population]. Età Evolutiva 66:18–32.
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. Aggr Behav
29:515–530.
Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino A. 2006. Applied multivariate research:
Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Obermann ML. 2011. Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-
nominated school bullying. Aggr Behav 37:133–144.
Paciello M, Fida R, Tramontano C, Lupinetti C, Caprara GV. 2008.
Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impacts on
aggression and violence in late adolescence. Child Dev 79:1288–
1309.
Peeters M, Cillessen AHN, Scholte RHJ. 2010. Clueless or powerful?
Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. J Youth Adolesc
39:1041–1052.
Pellegrini AD, Bartini M, Brooks F. 1999. School bullies, vic-
tims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation
and victimization in early adolescence. J Educ Psychol 91:216–
224.
Pöyhönen V, Juvonen J, Salmivalli C. 2010. What does it take to stand
up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and
social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quart 56:143–163.
Pozzoli T, Gini G. 2010. Active defending and passive bystanding
behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and per-
ceived peer pressure. J Abnorm Child Psychol 38:815–827.
Pozzoli T, Gini G. 2012. Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A
multidimensional model. J Early Adolesc. Available online ahead
of print: DOI: 10.1177/0272431612440172
Pozzoli T, Ang RP, Gini G. 2012. Bystanders’ reactions to bullying:
A cross-cultural analysis of personal correlates among Italian and
Singaporean students. Soc Dev. Available online ahead of print.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00651.x
Pozzoli T, Gini G, Vieno A. in press. The role of individual correlates
and class norms in defending and passive bystanding behavior in
bullying: A multilevel analysis. Child Dev.
Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Björkqvist K, Österman K, Kaukiainen
A. 1996. Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their
relations to social status within the group. Aggr Behav 22: 1–15.
Salmivalli C, Voeten M. 2004. Connections between attitudes, group
norms, and behaviors associated with bullying in schools. Int J
Behav Dev 28:246–258.
Sijtsema J, Veenstra R, Lindenberg SS, Salmivalli C. 2009. Empirical
test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and
prestige. Aggr Behav 34:1–11.
Sutton J, Keogh E. 2000. Social competition in school: Relationships
with bullying, machiavellianism, and personality. Br J Educ Psy-
chol 70:443–456.
Sutton J, Smith PK. 1999. Bullying as a group process: An adap-
tation of the participant role approach. Aggr Behav 25:97–
111.
Turiel E. 1983. The development of social knowledge: Morality and
convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aggr. Behav.