Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What's ... - DPSS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Different studies showed a positive relation between aggressive behavior and the activation of one or more of these mechanisms in both adults and children (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 1995; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Vicino, & Bandura, 1996; Yadava, Sharma, & Gandhi, 2001). In particular, Caprara and colleagues (1995) confirmed the strong link between moral disengagement and physical and verbal aggression, both self- and peer-evaluated, especially in male children. More recently, Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, and Regalia (2001) have replicated these results. They found a positive relation between moral disengagement and transgressive behavior, and a negative relation between moral disengagement and self-regulatory efficacy and prosocial behavior. The above mentioned studies actually referred to aggressive individuals, but a similar pattern of data has been found in school bullying research, as well. Bacchini, Amodeo, Ciardi, Valerio, and Vitelli (1998) and Menesini, Fonzi, and Vannucci (1997), for example, found that male bullies utilized the moral disengagement mechanisms more than did other peers and, most of all, they seemed to use the mechanisms of Dehumanization and Moral Justification. A confirmation of these results emerged in a cross-national study, involving Italy and Spain, conduced by Menesini and colleagues (Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, & Cowie, 2003), who assessed moral reasoning of bullies, victims and children who assumed the role of the defender, using the Scan Bullying test (Almeida, del Barrio, Marques, Gutierrez, & van der Meulen, 2001). These authors confirmed the tendency of bullies to show higher levels of moral disengagement, and the presence of a profile of egocentric reasoning in these pupils. 8
Quite recently, the “traditional” classification of schoolchildren into bullies, victims and controls has been criticized and several authors stressed the importance of considering bullying a group process (Sutton & Smith, 1999). The empirical confirmation of the importance of peer ecology applied to bullying phenomenon derives from several observational studies carried out during periods of free interaction among children in unstructured contexts, such as during recess and outdoor play. These studies, in fact, consistently found that peers are involved in 85% of bullying episodes (Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Craig & Pepler, 1997; Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Pepler & Craig, 1995). Moreover, Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, and Kaukiainen (1996) identified six different participant roles taken by individual children in the bullying process (i.e. victim, bully, reinforcer of the bully, assistant to the bully, defender of the victim, and outsider). Another study by Salmivalli, Huttunen, and Lagerspetz (1997) has also revealed a strong influence of how the members of a group behave in bullying situations on an individual child’s behavior in such situations. In line with this approach that considers bullying as a group phenomenon, all distinct roles within the class were considered in the present study. Not only bullies and victims participated, but also those pupils who, in different ways, act important roles in reinforcing bullying behavior (the so-called “Followers”: the Assistants of the bully and the Reinforcers) or, in contrast, intervene to defend the victim (the Defenders). Finally, Outsiders, that is children not directly involved in the phenomenon, were considered. 9
Page 1 and 2: Social cognition and moral cognitio
Page 3 and 4: Social cognition and moral cognitio
Page 5 and 6: mind task). The relevance of these
Page 7: eal conduct, which may not necessar
Page 11 and 12: emotion as an expression of what is
Page 13 and 14: divided into six scales, which refe
Page 15 and 16: emotions (happiness, sadness, anger
Page 17 and 18: especially for younger children. Th
Page 19 and 20: in which the reference to mental st
Page 21 and 22: level of moral disengagement than b
Page 23 and 24: not suggest a direct application of
Page 25 and 26: that is their thoughts, beliefs and
Page 27 and 28: emotional abilities, having psychos
Page 29 and 30: Boulton, M., & Smith, P. K. (1994).
Page 31 and 32: Gini, G., Albiero, P., & Benelli, B
Page 33 and 34: Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Ö
Page 35 and 36: Sharp, S., & Smith, P. K. (1994). T
Page 37 and 38: Table I. Distribution of Participan
Page 39 and 40: Table III. Participant Roles and me
Page 41: Figure 1. Participant Roles and Mor

Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What's ... - DPSS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?