scholarly journals Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Thornberg ◽  
Tomas Jungert
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 11307
Author(s):  
Roberta Fida ◽  
Marinella Paciello ◽  
Irene Skovgaard-Smith ◽  
Claudio Barbaranelli ◽  
Gian Vittorio Caprara

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Na Deng ◽  
Hongyan Bi ◽  
Wenjuan Zhang

Although recent researchers of school bullying have focused on peer bystander behavior, they have assessed the link between family-level correlates and bystander behavior to a lesser degree. We examined whether and how family functioning and moral disengagement affect four types of bystander behavior in school bullying. Data were collected from 1,035 early adolescents at two junior high schools in China, who completed scales measuring family functioning, moral disengagement, and bystander behavior. Results show that healthier family functioning was associated with a higher level of bystander defending behavior and a lower level of bystander assisting, reinforcing, and outsider behavior. These associations were partly mediated by adolescents' moral disengagement. Our findings have important implications for the understanding and reduction of school bullying.


2020 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay Bussey ◽  
Aileen Luo ◽  
Sally Fitzpatrick ◽  
Kimberley Allison

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Björn Sjögren ◽  
Robert Thornberg ◽  
Linda Wänström ◽  
Gianluca Gini

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (22) ◽  
pp. 3480-3501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda E. Borsky ◽  
Karen McDonnell ◽  
Monique Mitchell Turner ◽  
Rajiv Rimal

Encouraging bystanders to intervene safely and effectively in situations that could escalate to violence—known as bystander behavior programs—is a growing yet largely untested strategy to prevent dating violence. Using a quasi-experimental design, we evaluate a low-resource, low-intensity intervention aimed at preventing dating violence among college students. The integrated behavioral model (IBM) was used to guide the evaluation. We also assess which IBM variables were most strongly associated with bystander behaviors. Participants were drawn from two Virginia colleges that predominantly train females in the health profession sciences. The intervention group ( n = 329) participated in a university-wide bystander behavior intervention consisting of a 30-min presentation on dating violence at new-student orientation and a week-long “red flag” social marketing campaign on campus to raise awareness of dating violence. Controlling for changes at the comparison university, results showed an increase in bystander behaviors, such as encouraging a friend who may be in an abusive relationship to get help, after the intervention and adjusting for potential confounders (increase of 1.41 bystander behaviors, p = .04). However, no significant changes were found for bystander intentions, self-efficacy, social norms, or attitudes related to dating violence from pre- to post-intervention. Self-efficacy had a direct relationship with bystander behaviors. Results suggest that low-resource interventions have a modest effect on increasing bystander behaviors. However, higher resource interventions likely are needed for a larger impact, especially among students who already demonstrate strong baseline intentions to intervene and prevent dating violence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (9) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Robert A. C. Stewart ◽  
Sarah L. Krivan

We note, with sadness, the passing of Dr Albert Bandura, pioneer of the theories of social learning and of self-efficacy, and of the concept of moral disengagement, whose research contributions informed current understanding of human behavior. Since 1992, Dr Bandura was a member of the Board of Consulting Editors of Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal.


Author(s):  
Rhea-Katharina Knauf ◽  
Heike Eschenbeck ◽  
Michael Hock

The Bystander Intervention Model by Latané and Darley (1970) describes the stages necessary for a bystander to intervene in an emergency and can be used to explain bystander behavior in the case of bullying. Social-cognitive and affective reactions to bullying such as empathy with the victim, moral disengagement, feelings of responsibility, defender self-efficacy and outcome expectancy are supposed to determine whether a bystander passes through all stages of the intervention model and are thereby crucial for the behavioral response. These mental reactions were compared between school bullying and cyberbullying in a sample of 486 German students (56% girls, age: M = 12.95) from 28 classes with a newly developed questionnaire covering the five Social-Cognitive and Affective Reactions to Bullying (SCARB) for school context and cyber context separately. Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit and internal consistency coefficients were acceptable to good. In line with our hypotheses, for cyberbullying as compared to school bullying students reported higher moral disengagement and lower feelings of responsibility and self-efficacy. However, no significant difference was found for empathy. The level of negative outcome expectations was lower for cyberbullying than for school bullying. Results confirm that the context of bullying matters for the social-cognitive and affective reactions of bystanders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document