Journal of Relationships Research, Volume 8, e15, 1–15 c The Author(s) 2017. doi 10.1017/jrr.2017.15 An Examination of Differences in Moral Disengagement and Empathy Among Bullying Participant Groups Aaron D. Haddock and Shane R. Jimerson Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA This study examines how different roles in school bullying (e.g., bullies, victims, defenders) vary in cognitive and affective empathy and moral disengagement. Findings from this study revealed that levels of empathy and moral disengagement differed significantly among bullying groups for 702 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students in the United States. An analysis of variance showed differential patterns between bullying groups and outcome variables (i.e., cognitive and affective empathy and moral disengagement). In addition, the correlation between moral disengagement and empathy was statistically significant and negative. Affective empathy and cognitive empathy both significantly predicted moral disengagement; with every one unit increase in moral disengagement, affective empathy decreased by .38 and cognitive empathy decreased by .39. Students who scored higher in moral disengagement tended to score lower in empathy. The current findings confirm and extend the literature on the relation between moral disengagement, empathy, prosociality, and victimising behaviour. This information can inform school-wide and targeted intervention efforts. Keywords: moral disengagement, empathy, bullying, bullying groups, aggression, victimisation, protective factors, risk factors, peer relationships Long before the advent of experimental science, wisdom schools (Bryn, 2011;Osher,Dwyer,Jimerson,&Brown, traditions around the world cautioned against instru- 2012). mental aggression due to its deleterious effects for the Bullying is a subcategory of interpersonal aggression victim, the aggressor, and the social order. Recognising traditionally defined as ‘unwanted, intentional, aggres- blatantly aggressive and exploitative behaviour as critical sive behavior that involves a real or perceived power impediments to the systems of reciprocity necessary for imbalance that is often repeated over time’ (American communal living, a key function of society and the state Educational Research Association [AERA], 2013,p.5; has been to institute and enforce social norms and laws Olweus 1993, 1994, 2010; Smith & Morita, 1999;Vail- aimed at curbing violence and promoting self-restraint lancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003; Vaillancourt et al., (Elias & Jephcott, 1982; Pinker, 2011). Indeed, the 2008). Bullying takes a variety of forms, including phys- regulation of such behaviour resides at the core of social ical aggression, verbal aggression, and social or relational contracts and constitutional law. Harmful, aggressive, aggression, such as exclusion and humiliation, with the and violent behaviour have been topics of interest for the ‘systematic use and abuse of power’ distinguishing bul- human sciences since their inception, and investigating lying from other forms of aggressive behaviour (AERA, the psychosocial factors at play has motivated some of 2013,p.5;Espelage,2012; Hymel & Swearer, 2015;Vail- the field’s most well-known studies (e.g., Haney, Banks, lancourt et al., 2008). As such, bullying is best understood & Zimbardo, 1973;Milgram,1963;Sherif,1958; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). In recent decades, the persistent prevalence of school bullying has ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Aaron D. Haddock, prompted modern social science to focus on these issues Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, Uni- (e.g., Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006)inanefforttostem versity of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106–9490, USA. Email: this pernicious problem and create safer, more supportive [email protected] 1 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.22, on 01 Oct 2021 at 09:09:22, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2017.15 AARON D. HADDOCK AND SHANE R. JIMERSON as a component of the broader phenomenon of violence and underdeveloped feelings of empathy for others (Gini, in schools and communities (AERA, 2013). Bullying is a Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe,` 2007; Jolliffe & Farrington, widespread problem that negatively affects youth around 2011) are particularly predisposed to utilising aggressive the globe, with some research indicating the prevalence behaviour instrumentally to achieve their goals. Rather of bullying behaviour peaking in the middle school years than being reactive aggressors with social skills deficits (Neiman, Devoe, & Chandler, 2009;Olweus,1991, (Crick & Dodge, 1994), some children who frequently 2010). The aim of this study was to examine and fur- bully appear to possess a well-developed understanding of ther clarify the relation between differences in levels of social cues, moral norms, and the factors that guide moral empathy (cognitive and affective) and levels of moral dis- judgments and adherence to moral norms (e.g., beliefs, engagement, and different roles in school bullying (e.g., values, impact on others; Dolan & Fullam, 2010; Gini, bullies, defenders, victims), as well as to examine the 2006; Gini, Pozzoli, & Hauser, 2011; Sutton, Smith, relation between levels of empathy and levels of moral & Swettenham, 1999). However, these social skills and disengagement. moral reasoning abilities appear to be possessed in con- junction with low levels of empathy for victims’ suffering (Gini et al., 2011) and a lack of motivation to act on Theoretical Perspective that knowledge (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2001). From this In recent years, the social-ecological conceptualisation perspective, bullies are conceptualised as aggressive chil- of bullying as occurring within the broader social con- dren who value instrumental goals more highly than rela- text has gained purchase in the fields of psychology and tional goals and utilise their social knowledge and skills in education (Espelage & Swearer, 2004, 2010). It is a the- conjunction with aggressive behaviour for personal gain oretical perspective that understands bullying behaviour (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2001;Polmanetal.,2007). It is as influenced by both individual characteristics and the believed that such traits may facilitate bullying behaviour multilayered, proximal, and distal systems of families, due to the lack of salience of others’ distress cues and a schools, key caregivers, peer groups, neighbourhoods, concomitant lack of empathy and guilt (Beauchaine & cultural expectations, society, and the reciprocal inter- Hinshaw, 2016; Frick, 2006). actions among and across these systems (Benbenishty & Empathy, like other moral emotions (e.g., shame and Astor, 2005; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Espelage & Swearer, guilt), has been seen as a mediator of moral standards and 2010). Individuals’ participation in bullying situations behaviour (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). Moral can include victimising others, being victimised, and emotions appear to enable individuals to anticipate how cooperating (i.e., defending the victim, staying unin- moral transgressions will lead to deleterious outcomes, volved, or helping the bully; Rigby & Slee, 1993). In which assists in altering behaviour for a more positive response to research examining bullying as a group phe- result (Malti, Gasser, & Buchmann, 2009). Empathy in nomenon, Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist,¨ Osterman,¨ particular has been shown to be a factor that can inhibit and Kaukiainen (1996) developed the participant role antisocial behaviour (Cohen & Strayer, 1996; Hoffman, approach, which organises individuals involved in the 2000; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). The construct of empa- bullying process into six distinct groups: victim, bully, thy has been defined in a variety of ways, but an inclusive reinforcer, assistant, defender, and outsider. definition conceptualises the construct as ‘the ability to Research has suggested a variety of individual and understand and share in another’s emotional state or con- group-level risk factors related to bullying participation text’ (Cohen & Strayer, 1996, p. 988). Defined in this (Barboza et al., 2009). Risk for involvement in bully- way, empathy is regarded as both a cognitive process and ing is associated with prior victimisation, poor school an affective capacity. The cognitive dimension connotes climate, parents and teachers with low expectations for the ability to understand another’s emotional state or academic achievement, and a lack of academic and emo- perspective, whereas the affective dimension of empathy tional support from parents, teachers, and peers (Barboza is characterised by the ability to share another’s emo- et al., 2009). While some studies indicate that bullies have tional state or experience feelings of concern or sympathy poor social problem-solving skills (Slee, 1993;Warden& toward others (Davis, 1994). At present, this multidi- Mackinnon, 2003), other studies indicate that bullies mensional model of empathy is generally employed (e.g., are perceived as having high social intelligence (Kauki- Davis, 1994; Hoffman, 2001) with the understanding ainen et al., 1999) and as being popular (Vaillancourt that while the cognitive and affective components of et al., 2003). Bullying behaviour is consistently associ- empathy can be studied in isolation, an accurate and ated with anger, aggression, and externalising problems comprehensive