Hypothesis 1 stated that DL was significant and positively related to bullying behavior.

The result shows that DL is

positively related to bullying behavior (β 5 0.10, p < 0.001), which supports our hypotheses 1. Hypothesis 2 stated that
DL has a positive effect on moral emotions. The result reveals that DL is significant and positively related to moral
emotions (β 5 0.32, p < 0.001), which supports our hypotheses 2. Hypothesis 3 stated that moral emotions are
positively related to bullying behavior. The finding indicates that moral emotions are significant and positively related
to bullying behavior (β 5 0.12, p < 0.001), which supports our hypotheses 3. In support of hypothesis 4, DL has a
positive indirect effect on bullying behavior via moral emotions (β 5 0.04, p < 0.001). Table 2 also shows the results of
the indirect effect supported with the help of bootstrapping and Sobel test techniques. For substantiating mediation
effect, we prefer the Sobel test and bootstrapping techniques instead of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approaches because
with the help of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach we are just able to identify about the full partial and no mediation,
but we are unable to identify the exact effect of mediating variable as a mediator. Thus, we preferred the Sobel test and
bootstrapping techniques, where we can identify the indirect effect of a mediator. The formal two-tailed significance
test assuming a normal distribution demonstrated that the indirect effect was positive and significant for bullying
behavior (Sobel effect 5 0.04, z 5 2.56, p < 0.01). Bootstrap results confirmed the Sobel test, with a bootstrapped 95%
confidence interval (CI) around the indirect effect not containing 0 for unethical behavior (0.009, 0.07). Thus,
hypothesis 4 was supported.