J Abnorm Child Psychol
DOI 10.1007/s10802-014-9920-7
The Role of Individual and Collective Moral Disengagement
in Peer Aggression and Bystanding: A Multilevel Analysis
Gianluca Gini & Tiziana Pozzoli & Kay Bussey
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study investigates the relationships between
individual and collective moral disengagement and aggression-
related behaviors (peer aggression, defending, and passive
bystanding) among 918 adolescents (55.8 % boys; Mage =
14.1 years, SD=1.1). Hierarchical linear modeling showed that,
at the individual level, aggressive behavior was significantly
explained by both individual moral disengagement and student
perceived collective moral disengagement, which was also pos-
itively associated with defending. Student perceived collective
moral disengagement moderated the link between individual
moral disengagement and peer aggression. At the class level,
classroom collective moral disengagement explained between-
class variability in all the three aggression-related behaviors.
These results extend previous research by demonstrating the
role of collective moral disengagement at the individual and
the class levels and have potential implications for interventions.
Keywords Peer aggression . Bullying . Defending .
Bystanders . Moral disengagement . Class norms
Increasing research findings indicate that peer aggression, in-
cluding bullying, negatively impacts children’s psychosocial
adjustment (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, and Little 2008; Ttofi,
Farrington, Losel, and Loeber 2011) and physical health (Gini
and Pozzoli 2013; Gini et al. 2014c). To further understand
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9920-7) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
G. Gini (*) : T. Pozzoli
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of
Padova, via Venezia, 8, Padova 35131, Italy
e-mail: gianluca.gini@unipd.it
K. Bussey
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
NSW 2109, Australia
factors associated with peer aggression at school, researchers
have begun to address the role of moral factors. Specifically,
individual differences in aggressive behavior have been attrib-
uted to biases in morality, with aggressive behavior positively
linked to moral disengagement, which involves distorted moral
reasoning that minimizes guilt (for a meta-analysis see Gini et al.
2014b). However, one major limitation of this research has been
the neglect of the complex group nature of peer aggression
(Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Faris and Ennett 2012; Salmivalli
2010). This has two main consequences. First, studies on moral
disengagement have rarely examined the differential association
with peer bystanders who actively intervene to defend victims in
aggression episodes compared with those who passively ob-
serve the episode (Salmivalli et al. 1996). Second, researchers
have typically focused on individual moral cognition associated
with aggressive behavior, whereas group morality has been
neglected. However, peer group characteristics, such as shared
moral values, diffusion of responsibility, and moral climate may
partially explain the pervasiveness of peer aggression (e.g.,
Espelage, Holt, and Henkel 2003; Gini 2008; for a review,
Hymel et al. 2010). Thus, in the moral domain, collective moral
disengagement, that is, disengagement processes shared at the
group level (White, Bandura, and Bero 2009), may be relevant
for understanding differences in aggressive and bystander be-
haviors among school classes. To begin filling this gap, the aim
of this study is to test, for the first time, the role of both
individual and collective moral disengagement in explaining
individual and between-class variation in aggression-related
behaviors (i.e., peer aggression, defending, and passive
bystanding) among adolescents through a multilevel approach.
Moral Disengagement, Peer Aggression and Bystander
Behaviors
Within the comprehensive social cognitive theory of moral
agency, Bandura (1991, 2004) has argued that moral

reasoning is linked to (im) moral behavior through a series of
self-regulatory mechanisms. Specifically, Bandura described
eight mechanisms, clustered into four broad categories
through which moral control can be disengaged (see Bandura
2002, for a more detailed description). The first category of
mechanisms, cognitive restructuring, operates by framing the
behavior itself in a positive light, by (i) portraying immoral
conduct as warranted (moral justification); (ii) contrasting a
negative act with a worse one (advantageous comparison);
and (iii) using language which palliates the condemned act,
thus diminishing its severity (euphemistic labeling). The sec-
ond set of disengagement strategies operates by obscuring or
minimizing one’s agentive role in the harm caused. The third
set of strategies operates by minimizing, disregarding or
distorting the consequences of one’s action. The final set of
strategies involves stripping the recipients of detrimental acts
of human qualities (dehumanization) and considering aggres-
sion as provoked by the victim (attribution of blame). These
mechanisms can lead to aggressive behaviors through a pro-
cess of moral disengagement, that is, a partial gap between the
“abstract” personal idea of moral behavior and the individual’s
actual behavior. In this way, the individual is protected from
negative feelings, such as guilt or shame, that usually follow
immoral conduct (Bandura 1991).
The construct of moral disengagement has received pro-
gressively increasing attention in developmental psychology
as it is related to a variety of youths’ antisocial behaviors. A
recent meta-analysis (Gini et al., 2014b) has synthesized the
results of almost two decades of research, showing that youths
who typically endorse these mechanisms more frequently
engage in different types of peer-directed aggressive behavior
(e.g., Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Gini, Pozzoli, and Hauser
2011; Hyde, Shaw, and Moilanen 2010; Obermann 2011a;
Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinet, and Caprara 2008). Im-
portantly, the link between moral disengagement and aggres-
sive behavior remains significant even after controlling for
other predictors (e.g., aggression efficacy, rule perception, or
parenting) of such behavior (Barchia and Bussey 2011a;
Caravita, Gini, and Pozzoli 2012; Pelton, Gound, Forehand,
and Brody 2004). Finally, results of (Gini et al. 2014b) meta-
analysis showed that the link between moral disengagement
and aggressive behavior is significantly stronger starting from
early adolescence compared with childhood.
Researchers have stressed the importance of the social
context in which episodes of peer aggression occur (Salmivalli
2010). Peer victimized students are not only the targets of
perpetrators’ attacks, they are often disliked, isolated, and
even rejected by other students within the larger peer group,
especially starting from the middle school years (Smith 2010).
Peer aggression is more likely to be accepted when a victim-
ized child is perceived by peers, even those who are not
aggressive, as someone deserving of aggression, perhaps be-
cause of personal characteristics, or the belief that s/he is
J Abnorm Child Psychol
partially responsible for his/her own victimization (Lahelma
2004; Teräsahjo and Salmivalli 2003; Thornberg 2013). Stud-
ies that have examined onlookers’ reactions to school aggres-
sion have shown that active intervention in favor of victims is
rare (e.g., Pepler and Craig 1995; Salmivalli et al. 1996). This
may be due to the fact that defending behavior in peer aggres-
sion situations differs from more general altruistic conduct
towards needy people in every-day life (Pozzoli and Gini
2010) and it is likely to be the outcome of both personal and
contextual characteristics (Pozzoli, Gini, and Vieno 2012;
Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). Therefore, it is not surprising
that recent school-based interventions have included strategies
specifically focused on bystanders (e.g., Kärnä et al. 2011;
Pfetsch, Steffgen, Gollwitzer, and Ittel 2011; Polanin,
Espelage, and Pigott 2012). However, evaluations of interven-
tions aimed at reducing peer aggression at school have shown
that, despite efforts to encourage bystanders to intervene,
many children resist doing so (e.g., Evers, Prochaska, Van
Marter, Johnson, and Prochaska 2007). It is therefore para-
mount that, beyond aggressive behavior, we increase our
understanding of the factors underlying active defending and
supportive behaviors toward victims compared with passive
bystanding.
If aggression is an immoral action because of its harmful
intentions and negative consequences (Hymel et al. 2010),
defending a victim of peer aggression is an example of pro-
active moral action because it aims to protect the welfare and
rights of the victim (Tisak, Tisak, and Goldstein 2006). In-
deed, active support to victims requires, among others, a sense
of moral responsibility to intervene (Pozzoli and Gini 2010).
Even though in recent years there has been an increasing
attention to the ways youths react to a situation in which a
peer is being victimized (e.g., Barchia and Bussey 2011b;
Forsberg, Thornberg, and Samuelsson 2014; Gini, Albiero,
Benelli, and Altoè 2008; Pöyhönen et al. 2010, 2012; Pozzoli
and Gini 2013; Pozzoli et al. 2012; Sandstrom, Makover, and
Bartini 2012; Thornberg and Jungert 2013), studies on the
relationship between moral disengagement and bystander be-
haviors are scarce. There is some evidence that, similar
to the findings for general prosocial behavior (Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli 1996), students’
proneness to use moral disengagement mechanisms is
negatively associated with active defending in bullying
situations (Caravita et al. 2012; Gini et al. 2011;
Thornberg and Jungert 2013; Thornberg, Pozzoli, Gini,
and Jungert in press). Conversely, passive bystanding
tends to be positively, though weakly, related to the
activation of these mechanisms (Obermann 2011b). Spe-
cifically (Obermann 2011bb) found that a particular sub-
group of bystanders, so-called “unconcerned bystanders”,
showed a significantly higher level of moral disengage-
ment than both so-called “guilty bystanders” and
defenders.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
Classroom as a Socio-Moral Context in Peer Aggression
As suggested by the view of peer aggression as a social
process (Espelage and Swearer 2004; Salmivalli 2010), con-
textual variables could influence behavior in the classroom
above and beyond individual characteristics. Indeed, some
studies have confirmed that the context in which peer aggres-
sion takes place is likely to influence adolescents’ perceptions,
attitudes, and behavior (e.g., Lenzi et al. 2014; Pellegrini and
Long 2002; Pozzoli et al. 2012; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004;
Salmivalli, Voeten, and Poskiparta 2011). For example, ad-
herence to peer group norms, homophily, pluralistic igno-
rance, social identity concerns, and other group mechanisms
might contribute to how victims are perceived and to aggres-
sive conduct among peers (e.g., Gini 2006; Nesdale, Durkin,
Maass, Kiesner, and Griffiths 2008; Sandstrom et al. 2012).
These processes of social influence among classmates can be
particularly pervasive, since school classes represent one of
the most salient social contexts throughout childhood and
adolescence (e.g., Bronfenbrenner 1979).
With respect to peer aggression, there are two main reasons
for considering the classroom as a relevant context. First, most
episodes of peer aggression occur in school among classmates
and several authors agree that classrooms represent an impor-
tant context for both understanding and tackling the problem
(e.g., Doll, Song, and Siemers 2004; Salmivalli et al. 2011;
Troop-Gordon and Ladd 2013). Second, in Italy, like in many
other countries, students remain in a single classroom with the
same classmates for the full school day and for more than one
school year. In the current study, for the first time, we intro-
duce the concept of classroom collective moral disengage-
ment, based on Bandura’s conceptualization (White et al.
2009), and examine its relationship with adolescents’ aggres-
sive and bystander behaviors.
Collective Moral Disengagement, Peer Aggression
and Bystander Behaviors
In the above cited literature, moral disengagement has been
always studied at the individual level. However, class group
characteristics may confer varying levels of approval toward
specific types of social conduct, thereby affecting the behavior
of group members even when they do not reflect their private
attitudes (e.g., Espelage et al. 2003; Pozzoli et al. 2012). Moral
disengagement is also conceptualized as reflecting influences
of the social environment and moral agency is cultivated and
learned through the community in which people develop their
social relationships; in other words, moral behavior is deter-
mined by a combination of personal and social influences
(Bandura 2002). Group decision making can facilitate inhu-
mane behavior by virtue of the responsibility being shifted to
the collective as opposed to the individual. For example, it has
been demonstrated that people have an increased likelihood to
behave more cruelly in a group as opposed to when they are
alone; likewise, group members can sometimes share a nega-
tive perception of the victim or blame the victim for his/her
condition (Ahmed and Braithwaite 2004; Cehajic, Brown, and
González 2009; Gini 2008; Haslam 2006). Accordingly, mor-
al disengagement can also occur at the group level (Caravita,
Sijtsema, Rambaran, and Gini 2013; Sijtsema, Rambaran,
Caravita, & Gini, in press).
Bandura has defined the concept of collective moral
disengagement as “an emergent group-level property arising
from the interactive, coordinative, and synergistic group dy-
namics” (White et al. 2009, p.43). As for other collective
constructs, such as collective efficacy (Barchia and Bussey
2011a; Caprara et al. 2004), collective moral disengage-
ment operates through similar processes to individual mor-
al disengagement, differing only in the unit of agency.
That is, collective moral disengagement includes the same
mechanisms as individual moral disengagement, but it
refers to the beliefs in justifying negative actions that
are—to some extent—shared within a significant social
group. Importantly, the construct of collective moral disen-
gagement can be considered from both an individual and a
group perspective (Gini et al. 2014a).
At the individual level, it refers to individuals’ perception
of the degree to which morally disengaged justifications are
shared by members of their group. That is, it measures stu-
dents’ beliefs about the extent to which members of their
group use such mechanisms in everyday interactions. This
construct differs from individual moral disengagement as
described above, because it does not refer to an individual’s
own use of the mechanisms; rather it reflects an individual’s
belief about the extent to which many, or few, peers in the
group use such mechanisms in everyday interactions. For the
sake of clarity, we refer to this concept as student perceived
collective moral disengagement.
At the group level, the construct refers to the collective
property of a given group, that is, it does not reflect individual
use of moral disengagement mechanisms but the degree to
which such mechanisms are shared by members within that
group. As for other collective constructs (Hoffman 2002),
collective moral disengagement most likely comes about
through the interactions among individuals within a group—
and their socialization tactics including routines, social activ-
ities and the justificatory strategies that are modeled by others
to condone immoral behavior. Importantly, it cannot be mea-
sured by simply asking individuals about their own use of
these mechanisms and then computing an aggregate score at
the group level. Only when the content of the measure specif-
ically references the group does one obtain a measure of the
collective construct (Hoffman 2002). As foreshadowed, in this
study we considered the classroom as the relevant social
grouping unit as it provides a salient proximal context (Henry

et al. 2000). We therefore refer to the class-level construct as
classroom collective moral disengagement.
In view of the importance of the social context of peer
aggression, the relative neglect of group-level constructs to
examine the influence of group values on peer aggression is
surprising (Barchia and Bussey 2011a). Although the existing
constructs share some similarities with classroom collective
moral disengagement, they differ from it in significant ways.
One such construct involves the measurement of normative
beliefs about aggression at the classroom level. In their study,
(Henry et al. 2000) examined two aspects of classroom norms,
descriptive and injunctive norms. Descriptive classroom
norms were operationalized as children’s beliefs about the
level of aggressive behavior of children in the class, whereas
injunctive classroom norms were defined as classmates’ ac-
ceptability of aggressive behavior. While the injunctive class-
room norm measure is closest to our notion of classroom
collective moral disengagement, it differs significantly from
it in terms of its conceptual basis and measurement. It relies on
an aggregate of individual normative beliefs about aggressive
behavior in the classroom rather than measuring children’s
normative beliefs about aggressive behavior at the classroom
level. Although the measure of bullying-related classroom
norms devised by Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) provides a
more group focused measure than the aggregated scores ap-
proach used by (Henry et al. 2000), it requires students to
imagine how other students in the class would respond to an
‘ordinary student’ performing various bullying-related behav-
iors without taking account of the actual proportion of stu-
dents likely to endorse such a response. This measure provides
important information about how other students in the class
are expected to respond to bullying-related behavior, however,
this is different from examining the extent to which the group
endorses justifications for performing aggressive behaviors
which is the focus of the collective moral disengagement
measure. In another approach to investigating the influence
of group level norms on bullying intentions, group norms
have been operationalized from the perspective of in-group
and out-group members based on the principles of social
identity development theory. From this perspective, the desire
to belong to the in-group contributes to the adoption of in-
group norms. Using the minimal group paradigm, (Nesdale
et al. 2008) showed that when the group norm involved dislike
and rejection of the out-group, in-group members were more
inclined to bully the out-group than when the group norm
involved liking and inclusion of the out-group. Although this
study considered norms at the group level, these norms were
imposed experimentally and it is unclear whether children in a
classroom would form an in-group by uniformly adopting the
same values. In contrast, the measure of collective moral
disengagement takes account of the variability in students’
moral justificatory beliefs within different classrooms. Al-
though collective moral disengagement is assessed for each
J Abnorm Child Psychol
individual student, it measures students’ perceptions of the
extent to which classroom members employ moral disengage-
ment mechanisms. Further, the concept of classroom collec-
tive moral disengagement is embedded within the conceptual
framework of social cognitive theory that includes not only
personal agency but collective agency as a key feature of the
self-regulatory process (Bandura 2002). As the classroom is a
social system that exerts a significant influence over students’
behavior, it is important to measure its influence through a
collective measure that is independent of the personal mea-
sure, yet operates through the same set of mechanisms as the
personal one. Surprisingly, so far, no studies have empirically
analyzed the role of collective moral disengagement in ag-
gression among classmates.
The Present Study
In sum, we aimed to investigate whether individual and col-
lective moral disengagement each contribute to the explana-
tion of different levels of aggressive behavior, defending and
passive bystanding among adolescent students, as well as
between-class variations of these behaviors. First, consistent
with previous studies (Gini et al. 2014b), it was hypothesized
that individual moral disengagement would be positively as-
sociated with aggression and passive bystanding behavior and
negatively with defending after controlling for age, gender
and the other individual behaviors. Similar hypotheses were
made about the role of student perceived collective moral
disengagement, even though no previous studies have used
this construct to predict aggression-related behaviors and thus
these hypotheses are more speculative. Believing that moral
disengagement is quite common in the class group may lead
youths to think that aggressive behavior is more likely to be
tolerated by peers. Consequently, this perception should be
related to higher levels of individual aggression and passive
bystanding, and lower levels of active intervention in favor of
peer victimized classmates (Sandstrom et al. 2012). Beyond
the hypothesized main effects, we may also expect that student
perceived collective moral disengagement would moderate
the association between individual moral disengagement and
aggression and bystander behaviors. Whereas we know that
higher levels of individual moral disengagement increase the
likelihood of aggressive behavior and, to some extent, the
withholding of help toward victimized peers, and decreases
the likelihood of active intervention in favor of victims, we
know less about what factors may buffer these links (Gini
et al. 2014b). One of these factors could be the perception that
the majority of peers within the group actually use moral
disengagement mechanisms to justify their negative behav-
iors, diffuse/displace responsibility of such behaviors, or
blame victims. Hence, higher levels of perceived collective
moral disengagement may strengthen the positive link
J Abnorm Child Psychol
between moral disengagement and both aggression and pas-
sive bystanding by making it more acceptable and ‘normal’
from the perspective of the individual student. Similarly, they
could make the negative association between individual moral
disengagement and defending stronger. This hypothesis was
tested by adding the interaction term between these two var-
iables at the individual level of the model.
Second, previous research on class characteristics, such as
class normative beliefs on bullying, class attitudes and class
injunctive and descriptive norms (Pozzoli et al. 2012;
Salmivalli and Voeten 2004), indicates that class norms can
help explain bullying-related behaviors over and above indi-
vidual characteristics. Therefore, this study hypothesized that,
at the class level, classroom collective moral disengagement
would significantly explain between-class variation in
aggression-related behaviors. Specifically, it was anticipated
that there is a greater likelihood of aggressive behavior and
passive bystanding in school classes with higher levels of
collective moral disengagement. Conversely, higher levels of
collective moral disengagement should be related to less
defending. Indeed, in the classroom context, high collective
moral disengagement was expected to contribute to a negative
climate, including shared attitudes favoring aggression, more
justification and redefinition of aggression in terms of both
causes and consequences, more diffused/displaced responsi-
bility, and victim blame/dehumanization, thus enhancing ac-
ceptance of aggressive acts (either enacted or just witnessed)
and decreasing the likelihood of students defending victim-
ized peers.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited from 49 Italian public school clas-
ses (6th to 10th grade) from middle and high schools located
in urban and suburban areas. The average class size was 19
(SD=4.7). School principals and teachers authorized the par-
ticipation of the classes in the study, and active parental
consent was obtained prior to data collection (acceptance rate:
88 %). Before data collection, individual consent for partici-
pation was also obtained from the participants with parental
consent, who were informed that participation in the study
was voluntary and who were allowed to refuse to participate
and to withdraw from the study at any time. None of the
participants refused to participate. They completed an anony-
mous questionnaire during class time. Data were collected at
least 4 months after the beginning of the school year. The
study was approved by the University of Padua Ethics Com-
mittee for Research in Psychology (protocol #1157–2012).
The final sample consisted of 918 students (55.8 % boys;
Mage =14.1 years, SD=1.1, range: 12–16). Socio-economic
status was not directly measured. However, as in all public
schools in Italy, our sample included youths from a wide range
of socioeconomic statuses. In terms of racial/ethnic back-
ground, the sample was predominantly Caucasian (96.2 %).
Measures
Behaviors During Aggressive Episodes A 12-item scale
(adapted from Pozzoli and Gini 2010; Pozzoli et al. 2012)
was used to measure aggressive behavior, defending and
passive bystanding behavior. Each behavior was measured
by 4 items (2 overt and 2 relational aggression items). Items
for peer aggression were: “I tease some classmates, calling
them nasty nicknames, threatening or offending them,” “I
exclude some classmates from the group or I do something
so that they are isolated,” “I am aggressive towards my class-
mates, I hit or push some of them,” “I spread rumors about
some classmates or I say mean things about other students
behind their back” (CFA: χ2 (2) =16.93, p=0.0003; CFI=0.98;
GFI=0.99; SRMR=0.03). Items for defending were: “I help
or comfort classmates who are excluded from the group and
isolated,” “I defend classmates who are targeted by gossip or
false rumors that are said behind their back,” “I defend the
classmates who are hit or attacked hard,” “I defend classmates
who are threatened or offended” (CFA: χ2 (2) =14.94, p=
0.001; CFI=0.99; GFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02). Items for pas-
sive bystanding were: “When a classmate is hit or pushed, I
stand by and I mind my own business,” “When I hear nasty
rumors or mean things said about other students behind their
back I mind my own business,” “If a classmate is teased or
threatened I do nothing and I don’t interfere,” “If I know that
someone is excluded or isolated from the group I act as if
nothing has happened” (CFA: χ2 (2) =5.59, p=0.06; CFI=
0.99; GFI=1.00; SRMR=0.02).
Participants were asked to rate how often (with reference to
the current school year) they had enacted the behavior de-
scribed in each item on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5
(almost always). For each participant, responses to the 4 items
of each scale were averaged to obtain a score for aggression
(Cronbach’s alpha=0.66, McDonald’s ω=0.67, greatest low-
er bound = 0.71), defending (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79,
McDonald’s ω=0.80, greatest lower bound=0.82) and pas-
sive bystanding (Cronbach’s alpha=0.65, McDonald’s ω=
0.66, greatest lower bound=0.68). We have also performed
a confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor structure for
the peer-related aggressive behaviors, with aggressive (4
items), defending (4 items) and passive bystanding (4 items)
behaviors as latent factors. Results for the three-factor model
showed an adequate fit to the data (χ2 (51)=272.66, p<0.001,
CFI=0.95, GFI=0.95, SRMR=0.05) and confirmed that com-
puting the score for each of the three behaviors was justified.

Individual Moral Disengagement The adolescent version of
the moral disengagement scale (Bandura et al. 1996), validat-
ed for Italian students, was used (Caprara, Pastorelli, and
Bandura 1995). Participants rated the strength of their en-
dorsement of moral exoneration of negative conduct on a 5-
point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Examples of the 24 items are the following: “it is alright to
fight to protect friends,” “it is okay to insult a classmate
because beating him/her is worse,” “it is unfair to blame a
child who had only a small part in the harm caused by a
group.” Even though the items measure the different disen-
gagement mechanisms, studies that have used this scale have
consistently found that its items load on a single factor and
have thus used a single mean score of moral disengagement
(Gini et al. 2014a). Therefore, following other research in this
field, in this study individual moral disengagement scores
were computed for each student by averaging their responses
across all items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.88, McDonald’s ω=
0.88, greatest lower bound=0.92); the higher the score, the
higher their proneness to morally disengage.
Collective Moral Disengagement We used a scale recently
designed and validated for the adolescent population (Gini
et al. 2014a). The authors developed an initial set of 30 items
based on the individual moral disengagement scale (Bandura
et al. 1996) to cover the eight moral disengagement mecha-
nisms. Through exploratory factor analysis, a final list of 17
items was retained that described moral disengagement mech-
anisms (e.g., “it is alright to beat someone who bad mouths
your family;” “if kids fight and misbehave in school it is their
teacher's fault;” “children do not mind being teased because it
shows interest in them;” “kids who get mistreated usually do
things that deserve it”) that can be shared by classroom
members (see Gini et al. 2014a, for the full list of items).
For each item students rated “In your classroom, how many
kids think that… [item]” on the following 5-point scale:
“None,” “About a quarter (25 %),” “About a half (50 %),”
“About three quarters (75 %),” and “Everyone.” In the vali-
dation study (Gini et al. 2014a), the unidimensional structure
of the scale was demonstrated through CFA (mean item load-
ing=0.49); configural, metric and scalar invariance was con-
firmed across gender groups. Furthermore, the scale scores
showed good criterion validity.
Following the original procedure, for each participant item
scores were averaged to form a student perceived collective
moral disengagement score (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85,
McDonald’s ω=0.85, greatest lower bound=0.90), to be used
at the individual level. This score represents students’ percep-
tion of the degree to which moral disengagement mechanisms
are shared by peers in their classroom. The aggregate score of
this scale at the class level—that is, the average score of all
classroom members—provides a measure of classroom
J Abnorm Child Psychol
collective moral disengagement. Importantly, in the validation
study, this class score proved to perform better than the mere
aggregate of the individual moral disengagement scores as a
measure of the group-level characteristic, both in terms of the
amount of class variance explained (that is, the variability that
is attributable to class characteristics rather than to individual
students) and in terms of estimated reliability with which
classes can be distinguished.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables
Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1.
Gender differences in mean scores were tested through a series
of t-tests. Effect sizes are expressed as Cohen’s d. Boys scored
higher than girls on aggression, passive bystanding and both
individual and collective moral disengagement, whereas girls
reported greater defending behavior than did boys. Individual
and student perceived collective moral disengagement were
moderately correlated with each other; moreover, they were
both positively related to aggression and passive bystanding
behavior, whereas individual moral disengagement was neg-
atively associated with defending.
Overview of the Multilevel Analyses
A multilevel analysis for each aggression-related behavior was
performed (HLM 6.04 Software; Raudenbush and Bryk
2002). At the individual level we tested the role of individual
moral disengagement and student perceived collective moral
disengagement engagement in explaining each behavior after
controlling for age, gender (boy=0, girl=1) and the other two
behaviors.1 The interaction between individual and student
perceived collective moral disengagement was significant
only in the model predicting aggressive behavior adding a
significant amount of variance over and above main effects.
Consequently, this interaction was excluded from analyses on
defending and passive bystanding. At the class level, we tested
the predictive role of classroom collective moral disengage-
ment on the between-class variability of the three behaviors,
controlling for the proportion of boys in the classroom. The
interaction between these two variables was not significant
and it was removed from analyses. (For equations see Online
Supplement material).
1
The interactions between age and gender and the two forms of moral
disengagement were also entered to test for moderations. None of the
interactions with age and gender were significant, so they were excluded
from the final models.
J Abnorm Child Psychol

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Study Variables

Full sample Boys Girls

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. M SD M SD M SD t d

1. Aggression – 1.66 0.60 1.75 0.63 1.54 0.55 5.51** 0.35

2. Defending –0.22** – 3.09 0.86 2.99 0.87 3.23 0.83 –4.24** –0.28
3. Passive bystanding 0.28** –0.51** – 2.61 0.82 2.67 0.82 2.53 0.81 2.65* 0.17
4. Individual MD 0.45** –0.16** 0.20** – 2.33 0.63 2.48 0.62 2.15 0.59 8.03** 0.54
5. Student perceived collective MD 0.40** –0.09* 0.19** 0.55** – 2.25 0.59 2.34 0.59 2.14 0.56 5.34** 0.35

* p<0.01, ** p<0.001

To evaluate improvement of fit between models, AIC
(Akaike Information Criterion; Akaike 1974) indices were
compared: the smaller the index, the better the model fit.
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients
First, the null model was estimated to obtain the intraclass
correlation coefficient for each dependent variable. Results
showed that a significant portion of the variance for aggres-
sion (13 %, χ2 (48) =176.69), defending (6 %, χ2 (48) =
102.43) and passive bystanding (4 %, χ2 (48) =84.79) was
explained by school classes (all p<0.001).
classes (56 % for aggression, 11.6 % for defending, and
34.3 % for passive bystanding). As hypothesized, classroom
collective moral disengagement was positively associated
with aggressive behavior and passive bystanding, and nega-
tively associated with defending behavior. For each outcome
behavior, the AIC index showed that the latter model fit the
data better than the previous one, in which only individual
variables were considered (see Table 2).
Discussion

Multilevel Modeling In keeping with the view of peer aggression in school as a

Level 1: Student-Level Analysis Results of the multilevel
analyses are summarized in Table 2. At the individual level,
aggressive behavior was higher among boys, whereas
defending was higher among girls. Moreover, aggression
was positively associated with passive bystanding, whereas
defending was negatively predicted by passive bystanding.
Once the other variables were controlled for, individual moral
disengagement positively predicted aggressive behavior,
whereas it was not significantly associated with either type
of bystander behavior. Perceived collective moral disengage-
ment was positively associated with both aggression and
defending behavior, but not with passive bystanding. Further-
more, as hypothesized perceived collective moral disengage-
ment moderated the association between individual moral
disengagement and aggressive behavior, which was signifi-
cant when the moderator was high (+1SD; b=0.37, SE=0.05,
t=7.56, p<0.001), but not when it was low (−1 SD; b=0.08,
SE=0.05, t=1.61, p=0.11; see Fig. 1). Individual predictors
explained 24.5 % of variance for aggression, 26 % for
defending and 28.1 % for passive bystanding.
Level 2: Class-Level Analysis The results of the second model,
in which variables at the class level were entered, showed that
classroom collective moral disengagement explained a signif-
icant percentage of the variability of behaviors across school
complex social phenomenon (Espelage and Swearer 2004;
Salmivalli 2010) and the recent research focus on moral
correlates of aggressive behavior in youth (Hymel et al.
2010), this study was the first to test the role of both individual
and collective moral disengagement in peer aggression and
bystander behaviors with a multilevel design. Consistent with
previous research and our hypotheses, after controlling for
age, gender and the other two aggression-related behaviors,
both individual moral disengagement and student perceived
collective moral disengagement were uniquely associated
with aggressive behavior enacted toward peers. Notably, the
latter moderated the link between individual moral disengage-
ment and aggression, which was significant only for higher
levels of the moderator. This is a new and interesting result
because it suggests that aggressive behavior is more likely
when students are personally prone to use disengaged justifi-
cations and also believe that such justifications are common in
their classroom. This perception may lead youths to think, or
may render them aware of the fact, that their peers view
aggression as ‘normal’ and an acceptable way of interacting
with others to gain social rewards without suffering negative
consequences (Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, and Salmivalli
2009). This belief, in turn, increases the likelihood of
aggressing against others. Although some studies have shown
that the link between moral disengagement and aggressive
behavior is significant even after controlling for other relevant
 J Abnorm Child Psychol

Table 2 Multilevel Modeling Predicting the Three Behaviors

Student-level Student-level and Class-level

C SE t p r C SE t p r

Aggression
Level-1
Gender –0.07 0.04 –1.86 0.06 0.06 –0.07 0.04 –1.67 0.09 0.06
Age –0.004 0.02 –0.19 0.85 0.01 –0.004 0.02 –0.19 0.85 0.01
Defending –0.04 0.03 –1.66 0.10 0.06 –0.04 0.03 –1.68 0.09 0.06
Passive bystanding 0.09 0.03 3.38 0.001 0.11 0.09 0.03 3.38 0.001 0.11
Individual MD 0.23 0.04 5.29 <0.001 0.17 0.23 0.04 5.33 <0.001 0.18
Student perceived collective MD 0.16 0.04 4.30 <0.001 0.14 0.16 0.04 4.31 <0.001 0.14
Individual MD x Student perceived collective MD 0.25 0.04 5.45 <0.001 0.18 0.25 0.04 5.46 <0.001 0.18
Level-2
Proportion of boys –0.11 0.24 –0.46 0.64 0.07
Classroom collective MD 0.61 0.10 6.09 <0.001 0.67
AIC 1407.52 1383.64
Defending
Level-1
Gender 0.13 0.06 2.10 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.06 1.79 0.07 0.06
Age –0.01 0.04 –0.28 0.77 0.01 –0.01 0.04 –0.29 0.77 0.01
Aggression –0.08 0.06 –1.42 0.16 0.05 –0.08 0.06 –1.44 0.15 0.05
Passive bystanding –0.51 0.04 –11.69 <0.001 0.36 –0.51 0.04 –11.73 <0.001 0.36
Individual MD –0.08 0.05 –1.33 0.18 0.04 –0.08 0.05 –1.40 0.16 0.05
Student perceived collective MD 0.13 0.07 2.01 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.07 2.00 0.05 0.07
Level-2
Proportion of boys –0.37 0.30 –1.23 0.23 0.18
Classroom collective MD –0.32 0.13 –2.49 0.02 0.34
AIC 2072.54 2067.45
Passive bystanding
Level-1
Gender 0.003 0.05 0.07 0.95 0 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.89 0
Age –0.09 0.04 –2.35 0.02 0.08 –0.09 0.04 –2.34 0.02 0.08
Aggression 0.18 0.04 4.06 <0.001 0.13 0.18 0.04 4.06 <0.001 0.13
Defending –0.45 0.04 –12.58 <0.001 0.39 –0.45 0.04 –12.58 <0.001 0.39
Individual MD 0.03 0.05 0.64 0.52 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.64 0.52 0.02
Student perceived collective MD 0.09 0.06 1.47 0.14 0.05 0.09 0.06 1.47 0.14 0.05
Level-2
Proportion of boys –0.31 0.24 –1.30 0.20 0.19
Classroom collective MD 0.52 0.11 4.59 <0.001 0.56
AIC 1962.49 1952.34

C=coefficient estimate from the population-average models with robust standard errors; r=effect size computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (1984)
formula: r=square root (t2 /(t2 +df))
Variables at level 1 (except gender) are centered around the class mean; variables at level 2 are centered around the grand mean

variables (e.g., Barchia and Bussey 2011a; Caravita et al.
2012; Pelton et al. 2004), little is known about how moral
disengagement interacts with other individual risk factors.
Overall, the individual and contextual factors that may buffer
or exacerbate the relationship between moral disengagement
and peer aggression remains unclear (Gini et al. 2014b). This
moderation effect can be seen as an initial contribution to fill
this gap.
Even though in our sample individual moral disengage-
ment had statistically significant zero-order correlations with
J Abnorm Child Psychol
Student perceived collective moral disengagement
5.0
Low (-1SD) High (+1SD)
2.0
1.9
Aggressive behavior
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
0 influence peer aggression in school classrooms. Indeed, it is
Low (-1SD) High (+1SD)
Individual moral disengagement
Fig. 1 Effect of student perceived collective moral disengagement on the
relation between individual moral disengagement and aggressive
behavior
defending and passive bystanding, it did not significantly
contribute to explain these behaviors in the multilevel models
after controlling for all the other variables. This result is
consistent with the few studies that have analyzed this rela-
tionship so far. Most of those studies have reported weaker
associations between individual moral disengagement and the
two bystander behaviors compared with the link to aggressive
behavior (e.g., Caravita et al. 2012; Gini et al. 2011;
Obermann 2011b). This may suggest that individual moral
disengagement alone is not the strongest factor that underlies
defending and passive bystanding behaviors, which are more
likely to be explained by a complex pattern of personal and
contextual variables (Pöyhönen et al. 2010; Pozzoli and Gini
2013; Thornberg and Jungert 2013). Interestingly, however, a
positive association between perceived collective moral dis-
engagement and defending emerged. That is, students were
more likely to defend if they thought that their classmates
tended, on average, to morally disengage. Although this find-
ing requires replication, it suggests that youths who defend are
able to resist negative normative pressure to passively observe
the aggressive behavior. Instead, defenders feel more person-
ally responsible to stand up against aggressive behavior when
others do not intervene. This requires empathic and social
skills competencies (Pöyhönen et al. 2010; Pozzoli and Gini
2010, 2013). Another, not necessarily alternative possible
explanation of this result is that in classrooms where students
perceive higher levels of moral disengagement amongst their
peers there is indeed a greater need to defend targets of peer
victimization.
As far as classroom collective moral disengagement is
concerned, aggression and passive bystanding were more
frequent in school classes characterized by higher levels of
collective moral disengagement. Conversely, defending was
more frequent in classrooms with lower levels of shared
disengagement mechanisms. This confirms our hypothesis
and reflects the fact that, at the class level, collective moral
disengagement represents a good measure able to differentiate
between school classes with different descriptive behavioral
norms (e.g., high mean levels of aggressive behavior,
defending or passive bystanding). Social psychological re-
search has shown that diffusion of responsibility, victim
blame, dehumanization, and similar processes can lead mem-
bers of societies or small groups to enact, overtly support, or
silently approve harmful behavior (e.g., Haslam 2006). This
study shows that these group mechanisms may also operate to
not uncommon to see youths refusing to take responsibility for
their actions when they act in a group context or attributing
their behavior to group pressure. Thus, it is likely that the
more aggressive youth (and their followers) aggress against
others as a group, the less they feel responsible for their
harmful behavior. Along the same line, aggressive behavior
and passive bystanding may be more likely (and defending
less likely) in those classrooms where a victimized child is
progressively perceived by peers as someone deserving of
aggression, perhaps because of personal characteristics, or
partially responsible for his/her own victimization.
Previous studies have confirmed the positive association of
individual moral disengagement with both general peer ag-
gression and bullying (Gini et al. 2014b). While there is
considerable overlap between peer aggression and bullying
at school, bullying constitutes a subtype of peer aggression
and some scholars have argued that differential power is the
central defining factor that distinguishes bullying from other
types of peer victimization (Olweus 2010). Because this study
applied the construct of collective moral disengagement for
the first time to the aggression literature, we have adopted a
broader scope for this study by addressing general peer-
directed aggression. It would be worthwhile, in future studies,
to explore the role of collective moral disengagement in the
specific case of bullying, with the presence of a clear power
imbalance between the perpetrator and his/her victim within
the classroom. For example, it would be interesting to test
whether the level of collective moral disengagement increases
with the increase of the power differential between bullies and
victim.
Limitations and Implications for Interventions
The main limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature
of our data. It is theoretically sound to hypothesize that class
level variables, such as the classroom collective moral disen-
gagement, affect students’ behavior. However, it may also be
that frequent aggressive behavior increases collective moral
disengagement over time. A longitudinal design is required to

test this hypothesis directly. Moreover, this finding may also
raise another research question. Given the common distinction
in the literature between descriptive and injunctive norms, we
may ask whether these norms and disengaged justifications or
“pro-aggression behaviors”, that is, behaviors from the ag-
gressor’s clique that somehow approve and support aggres-
sion toward peers (e.g., helping the aggressor’s attack,
laughing, inciting, etc.),2 are more important in influencing
aggressive behavior. Unfortunately, in this study we did not
collect data about these types of behaviors that may support
aggression; therefore we were not able to test whether con-
trolling for those behaviors could partially reduce the strength
of the association between collective moral disengagement
and aggression we have found. Future studies on the complex
interplay between different norm types and different types of
aggression-related behaviors in the classroom are needed.
We are also aware that there is a complex pattern of
relations between personal characteristics, contextual vari-
ables and individual behavior and that other contextual factors
must be considered in order to explain not only aggressive
behavior but also bystanders’ behavior in peer aggression
situations. For instance, onlookers’ responses to peer aggres-
sion might vary depending on who is being victimized (e.g., a
same vs. opposite sex peer, a member of the ingroup or of the
outgroup; Huitsing and Veenstra 2012). Future research
should compare defending and passive bystanding under dif-
ferent contextual conditions.
Another limitation is that our sample was restricted to
adolescents. Future studies should include elementary school
classes to see when collective moral disengagement begins to
play a role in the classroom. Furthermore, given the medium-
level reliability of two of the scales used to measure
aggression-related behaviors and the fact that we used only
self-reports, future research replicating these findings with
different instruments, particularly peer nominations, could
reduce problems of shared method variance and could
strengthen our results. These limitations notwithstanding, the
current findings add important knowledge to the growing
literature on the role of moral disengagement in aggression
and bystander behaviors, and they also have potential impli-
cations for designing interventions more focused on morality.
For example, it would be important to address distortions in
morality in order to favor youths’ moral engagement and
promote the understanding of responsibility. This could be
achieved by regularly engaging students in discussions about
moral issues, about what it means to be a caring, fair, and
responsible person (Oser 1986). We could expect that mitigat-
ing the effect of self-justifying mechanisms would contribute
to decreasing the likelihood of aggressive behavior, while
increasing the likelihood of active intervention in support of
victimized peers. Moreover, our results provide further
2
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
evidence of the significant role of the class group in school
aggression and indicate the need to adopt a more ecologically
valid approach to prevention, which addresses not only the
individuals involved, but also their peer group and the school
community at large (Espelage and Swearer 2004; Kärnä et al.
2011; for a meta-analysis see Polanin et al. 2012). For exam-
ple, assertiveness training and social skills training (e.g.,
through role-play exercises), often used with victims, may
be especially useful for passive bystanders. Indeed, assertive
strategies can help students to intervene even when this is not
what other pupils in the class expect or do. Moreover, other
useful strategies at the group-level might include the use of
curricular activities during regular lessons aimed at raising
students’ awareness about aggressive behavior toward peers
and about their own role in the class dynamics. These lessons
could also aim to progressively changing their attitudes to-
wards aggression and their understanding of the victim’s
perspective (Kärnä et al. 2011). Particularly important could
be helping students to recognize, reflect on, and minimize the
role of moral disengagement mechanisms, as well as similar
cognitive processes (e.g., self-serving cognitive distortions;
Gibbs 2010, 2014), in their everyday relationships.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest
References
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). “What, me ashamed?” Shame
management and school bullying. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 41, 269–294. doi:10.1177/0022427804266547.
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723. doi:10.
1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action.
In W. M. Kurtines & G. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral
behavior and development: theory, research and applications (Vol.
1, pp. 71–129). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of
moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119. doi:10.
1080/0305724022014322.
Bandura, A. (2004). Selective exercise of moral agency. In T. A.
Thorkildsen & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Nurturing morality (pp. 37–
57). Boston: Kluwer.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996).
Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agen-
cy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364.
Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011a). Individual and collective social
cognitive influences on peer aggression: Exploring the contribution
of aggression efficacy, moral disengagement, and collective effica-
cy. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 107–120. doi:10.1002/ab.20375.
Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011b). Predictors of student defenders of
peer aggression victims: Empathy and social cognitive factors.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 1–9. doi:10.
1177/0165025410396746.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C., & Bandura, A. (1995). La misura del
disimpegno morale in età evolutiva [Measuring age differences in
moral disengagement]. Età Evolutiva, 51, 18–29.
Caprara, G. V., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A.
(2004). Assessment of filial, parental, marital, and collective family
efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20,
247–261. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.20.4.247.
Caravita, S. C. S., Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2012). Main and
moderated effects of moral cognition and status on bullying
and defending. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 456–468. doi:10.
1002/ab.21447.
Caravita, S. C. S., Sijtsema, J. J., Rambaran, A. J., & Gini, G. (2013). Peer
influences on moral disengagement in late childhood and early
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. doi:10.1007/
s10964-013-9953-1.
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct
and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-
analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations
to maladjustment. Child Development, 79(5), 1185–1229. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.
Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & González, R. (2009). What do I care? Perceived
ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy
felt for the victim group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
12, 715–729. doi:10.1177/1368430209347727.
Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Classroom ecologies that
support or discourage bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M.
Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in american schools: A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 161–183). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Bullying in american schools:
A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention.
Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Espelage, D., Holt, M., & Henkel, R. (2003). Examination of peer-group
contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child
Development, 74, 205–220. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531.
Evers, K. E., Prochaska, J. O., Van Marter, D. F., Johnson, J. L., &
Prochaska, J. M. (2007). Transtheoretical-based bullying prevention
effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools. Journal of
E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a rc h , 4 9 , 3 9 7 – 4 1 4 . d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 /
00131880701717271.
Faris, R., & Ennett, S. (2012). Adolescent aggression: the role of peer
group status motives, peer aggression, and group characteristics.
Social Networks, 34, 371–378. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2010.06.003.
Forsberg, C., Thornberg, R., & Samuelsson, M. (2014). Bystanders to
bullying: fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their
reactions. Research Papers in Education. doi:10.1080/02671522.
2013.878375.
Gibbs, J. C. (2010). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories
of Kohlberg and hoffman (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications Inc.
Gibbs, J. C. (2014). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories
of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. New York
Gini, G. (2006). Bullying as a social process: the role of group member-
ship in students’ perception of inter-group aggression at school.
Journal of School Psychology, 44, 51–65. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.
12.002.
Gini, G. (2008). Italian elementary and middle school students’
blaming the victim of bullying and perception of school
moral atmosphere. Elementary School Journal, 108, 1–20.
doi:10.1086/528975.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic
problems: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132, 720–729. doi:10.1542/
peds.2013-0614.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of
adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in
bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93–105. doi:10.1016/j.
adolescence.2007.05.002.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hauser, M. (2011). Bullies have enhanced moral
competence to judge relative to victims, but lack moral compassion.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 603–608. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2010.12.002.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Bussey, K. (2014a). Collective moral disengage-
ment: initial validation of a scale for adolescents. European Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 11, 386–395. doi:10.1080/17405629.
2013.851024.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hymel, S. (2014b). Moral disengagement among
children and youth: a meta-analytic review of links to aggressive
behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 56–68. doi:10.1002/ab.21502.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Vieno, A., & Lenzi, M. (2014c). Bullying victim-
ization at school and headache: A meta-analysis of observational
studies. Headache, early view online. doi: 10.1111/head.12344
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: an integrative review. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/
s15327957pspr1003_4.
Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P., Van Acker, R., & Eron,
L. (2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary
school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology,
28, 59–81.
Hoffman, D. A. (2002). Issues in multilevel research: Theory, develop-
ment, measurement, and analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.),
Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 247–274). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: participant
roles from a social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 38,
494–509. doi:10.1002/ab.21438.
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, 197–209. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9358-5.
Hymel, S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Bonanno, R. A., Vaillancourt, T., &
Rocke Henderson, N. (2010). Bullying and morality. Understanding
how good kids can behave badly. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer,
& D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. An
international perspective (pp. 101–118). New York: Routledge.
Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., &
Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-
bullying program. Child Development, 82, 311–330. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2010.01557.x.
Lahelma, E. (2004). Tolerance and understanding? Students and teachers
reflect on differences at school. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 10, 3–19.
Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Pastore, M., Santinello, M.,
et al. (2014). Perceived teacher unfairness, instrumental goals and
bullying behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260513511694.
Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., & Griffiths, J. A. (2008).
Effects of group norms on children’s intentions to bully. Social
Development, 17, 889–907. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00475.
x.
Obermann, M. L. (2011a). Moral disengagement in self-reported and
peer-nominated school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 133–
144. doi:10.1002/ab.20378.
Obermann, M. L. (2011b). Moral disengagement among bystanders to
school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 239–257. doi:10.
1080/15388220.2011.578276.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some crit-
ical issues. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage
(Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international
perspective (pp. 9–34). Routledge: New York.

Oser, F. K. (1986). Moral education and values education: The discourse
perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed., pp. 917–941). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinet, 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01189.x.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying,
dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary
school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 20, 259–280. doi:10.1348/026151002166442.
Pelton, J., Gound, M., Forehand, R., & Brody, G. (2004). The Moral
Disengagement Scale: Extension with an American minority sam-
ple. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26,
31–39. doi:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007454.34707.a5.
Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence:
Naturalistic observations of aggressive children with remote audio-
visual recording. Developmental Psychology, 31, 548–553.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/dev/index.aspx.
Pfetsch, J., Steffgen, G., Gollwitzer, M., & Ittel, A. (2011). Prevention of
aggression in schools through a bystander intervention training.
International Journal of Developmental Science, 5, 139–149. doi:
10.3233/dev-2011-11078.
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of
school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander
intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to
defend the victimized peer? The interplay between personal and
social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 143–163. doi:10.
1353/mpq.0.0046.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the
victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in
bullying situations. Social Development, 21, 686–703. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x.
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding
behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and per-
ceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38,
815–827. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9.
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or
not? A multidimensional model. Journal of Early Adolescence, 33,
315–340. doi:10.1177/0272431612440172.
Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Vieno, A. (2012). The role of individual correlates
and class norms in defending and passive bystanding behavior in
bullying: A multilevel analysis. Child Development, 83, 1917–1931.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01831.x.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models
(2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes,
group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258. doi:10.1080/
01650250344000488.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., &
Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant
J Abnorm Child Psychol
roles and their relations to social status within the group.
Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter:
Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of
bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.
597090.
Sandstrom, M., Makover, H., & Bartini, M. (2012). Social context of
bullying: Do misperceptions of group norms influence children’s
responses to witnessed episodes? Social Influence, 8, 196–215. doi:
10.1080/15534510.2011.651302.
Sijtsema, J. J., Rambaran, J. A., Caravita, S. C. S., & Gini, G. (in
press). Friendship selection and influence in bullying and
defending: Effects of moral disengagement. Developmental
Psychology
Sijtsema, J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S. S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009).
Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, ag-
gression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 1–11. doi:10.1002/
ab.20282.
Smith, P. K. (2010). Bullying in primary and secondary schools:
Psychological and organizational comparisons. In S. R. Jimerson,
S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in
schools. An international perspective (pp. 137–150). New York:
Routledge.
Teräsahjo, T., & Salmivalli, C. (2003). ‘She is not actually bullied’: The
discourse of harassment in student groups. Aggressive Behavior, 29,
134–154.
Thornberg, R. (2013). School bullying as a collective action: Stigma
processes and identity struggling. Children & Society. doi:10.1111/
chso.12058.
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying
situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and de-
fender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 475–483. doi:10.
1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.003.
Thornberg, R., Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Jungert, T. (in press). Unique and
interactive effects of moral emotions and moral disengagement on
bullying and defending among school children. Elementary School
Journal
Tisak, M. S., Tisak, J., & Goldstein, S. E. (2006). Aggression, delinquen-
cy, and morality: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Killen & J.
Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Development (pp. 611–632).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Tr oop-G ordon, W. , & La dd, G. W. (2013). Teachers ’
victimization-related beliefs and strategies: Associations with
students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-
9840-y.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Losel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011).
The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later
offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal
studies. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 21, 80–89.
doi:10.1002/cbm.808.
White, J., Bandura, A., & Bero, L. (2009). Moral disengagement in the
corporate world. Accountability in Research, 16, 41–74. doi:10.
1080/08989620802689847.