Bullying at school crosses all social and cultural divides. According to Caravita, Gini, and Pozzoli (2012), bullying has a negative impact on victims, including low self-esteem, increased anxiety and fear, decreased self-efficacy, depression, and occasionally suicide. Furthermore, bullying behavior reveals deviant or skewed moral perceptions on the part of the aggressor. Based on Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, this essay explores the relationship between bullying behavior and moral growth in middle childhood. It also applies Kohlberg’s methodology to a particular anti-bullying initiative that has been implemented in educational settings.
Middle Childhood Moral Development
The middle childhood period (6–12 years) is characterized by the development of fundamental reading abilities and an awareness of social behavior, both of which are essential for later social cognitions to be successful (Cam, Cavdar, Seydoogullari, &Cok, 2012). At this age, the child’s personality also starts to emerge. In middle childhood, a child’s moral thinking is related to the consequences of misbehavior or misbehavior.
At this point, submission to the parent’s physical dominance is all that obedience is valued for—rather than as a virtue. At this point, punishment-obedience orientation is the focal point of moral thinking, or heteronomous morality in Kohlberg’s terminology (Mossler& Ziegler, 2016). During this period, the child’s overall understanding is that laws are static, according to Cam et al. (2012). Additionally, the young begins to feel that wrongdoing is punishable, indicating a greater concern for self-oriented outcomes than for moral considerations of his/her actions. He/she also develops basic differentiation between deliberate and unplanned rule violations.
The fundamental capacity to discern between moral and conventional standards is another stage of moral development that occurs in middle childhood (Cam et al., 2012). Furthermore, the youngster obtains quick grasp of other people’s states, which leads to the development of empathy and “needs-oriented moral reasoning” (Cam et al., 2012, p. 1223). He or she consequently becomes less physically aggressive and more capable of resolving conflicts.
But during this phase, verbal aggressiveness continues (Cam et al., 2012). In middle childhood, the moral growth trajectory is determined by the quality of parent-child relationships. Early-onset behavior issues are more likely to occur when disciplinary procedures are absent (Cam et al., 2012). The youngster is highly likely to exhibit antisocial conduct at this crucial age, which may persist throughout adolescence and adulthood.
Moral analysis and reasoning in regard to bullying by peers
It is thought that teenage moral growth hinges on the shift from the immature to the mature level. A major risk factor for delinquency, violence, and other forms of antisocial conduct is a developmental delay in reaching the mature level (Gibbs et al., Citation2007; Stams et al., Citation2006). Bullying is characterized by an interpersonal dynamic of systematic abuse and power imbalance, which sets it apart from other forms of violent behavior (Olweus, Citation 1993; Smith, Citation 2014). In schools, peer bullying usually occurs in groups, with students taking on one or more roles in the behavior. In addition to victims and bullies (perpetrators), spectators play a third role. These witnesses typically see bullying incidents (Jones et al., Citation2015), but even those who are not present are usually aware of the abusive relationship. Some bystanders (bully-allies) participate by joining or encouraging the bully or bullies, and some stay passive (and do nothing), whereas others actively defend the victim (Patrick et al., Citation2019; Salmivalli et al., Citation1996). Bully-victims are individuals who across different situations take the role of bully or are themselves a victim.
There has been conflicting evidence in the literature about the connection between bullying behavior in teenagers and moral thinking (Levasseur et al., Citation2017; Patrick et al., Citation2019; Thornberg&Jungert, Citation2013). According to Gini et al. (Citation2011), bullies had a higher degree of moral thinking than victims, but they lacked moral empathy. Competence in moral reasoning and aggressive roles in bullying were found to be negatively correlated by Von Grundherr et al. (Citation 2017). According to Patrick et al. (Citation2019), there is a negative correlation between spectators’ antisocial reactions in bullying scenarios and their degree of moral thinking.
Moral reasoning may have a positive correlation with actions like volunteering, supporting, or standing up for someone who is being bullied, despite its negative association with antisocial behavior like bullying (e.g., Carlo, Citation2014; Goethem et al., Citation2012). Research on the close connection betweenThe results of applying moral reasoning to behavior defense have been inconsistent; some studies (Pozzoli et al., Citation2017; van Noorden et al., Citation2015) have shown positive relationships, while others (Patrick et al., Citation2019; van der Ploeg et al., Citation2017; von Grundherr et al., Citation2017) have shown negative or no relationships. The use of various instruments to measure moral reasoning in these studies may be partially to blame for the inconsistent results. These instruments include the Sociomoral Reflection Measure—Short Form (SRM-SF, Gibbs et al., Citation1992), the Prosocial Moral Reasoning Measure (PROM, Carlo et al., Citation1992), and the Moral Competence Test (MCT, von Grundherr et al., Citation2017; cf., Lind, Citation2002). These instruments measure slightly distinct constructs and come from different theoretical frameworks.
Very few research looked on the connection between bullying and moral assessment. According to research by Thornberg et al. (Citation2016), primary school students believed that bullying behavior in hypothetical contexts was ethically wrong regardless of the norms of the school. Thornberg et al. (Citation2017) discovered further in a follow-up study that non-bullies thought bullying was more wrong than bullying.
Moral detachment and self-serving cognitive errors in connection to bullying
Sociological neutralization theory, not cognitive-developmental theory (Sykes &Matza, Citation1957; cf., Barriga et al., Citation2000; Paciello et al., Citation2013), is the source of SSCD and moral disengagement (Bandura, Citation 2016). The same cognitive processes or mechanisms are captured by SSCD, moral disengagement, and neutralization strategies, claim Ribeaud and Eisner (Citation 2010). These processes are categorized differently, though. One definition of cognitive distortions is “inaccurateor skewed methods of paying attention to or giving meaning to experiences (Barriga et al., Citation 2001). When these distortions are used to excuse externalizing behaviors like aggressiveness, they are called self-serving (Barriga et al., Citation2000). A bully might, for instance, minimize or mislabel their hostility by saying something like, “It was just a joke.” There are four different forms of SSCD, but only one overall mean score makes sense because to the strong relationships between the distortions (cf., Barriga et al., Citation2001).
Boys scored higher on the SSCD than girls, according to recent reports by Patrick et al. (Citation2019) and van der Meulen et al. (Citation2019), who found higher levels of the disorder among bullies and bully-victims compared to victims and non-involved pupils. Owens et al. (Citation 2014) discovered comparable results in adolescents aged 13 to 16. But gender wasn’t discovered to be a moderator in the relationship between SSCD and bullying.
current research
This study had two main objectives. The first was to find out if there were differences in the moral judgment and reasoning levels of adolescents who participated in peer bullying scenarios. According to our hypothesis (e.g., Patrick et al., Citation2019; Thornberg et al., Citation2017), defenders would exhibit the highest levels of moral reasoning and evaluation among all participant roles, while bullies would display the lowest. The second goal was to ascertain how teenagers’ involvement in peer bullying is related to moral judgment and reasoning in addition to SSCD. Our hypothesis was that the contributions of SSCD and moral judgment and reasoning would vary based on the involvement of teenagers in bullying. Because the participant roles exhibit varying behaviors, the degree to which the underlying mechanisms of moral judgment and SSCD should also differ
Conclusion
Bullying has adverse effects on academic and behavioral outcomes of the victim. Kohlberg’s theory provides a framework for understanding the relationship between moral cognition and externalized anti-social or aggressive behavior in children. The evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying program shows that adequate laws and peer support can reinforce good morality to help curb bullying in schools.
