fei75766_ch17_534-568.indd 562  02/24/20 10:49 AM
Part VI    Learning-Cognitive Theories562
Other studies haveexplored howbullying canbecarried outnotjustbyindividu -
alsbut,more typically, bygroups offriends. Thisisknown ascollective moral disen -
gagement, where classmates orteammates influence eachother inapuzzling way;
somehow thegroup moral disengagement isgreater thanalltheindividuals’ perspec -
tivesadded together. Forinstance, Gini, Pozzoli, andBussey (2015) studied 49Italian 
public school 6thto10thgrade classes located inbothurban andsuburban areas. The
totalsample ofindividual middle- andhigh-school students was918.Students com-
pleted individual measures oftheirownaggressive behavior, defending andpassive 
bystanding behavior, aswellastheMDS. Inaddition, theauthors assessed collective 
moral disengagement byasking thechildren torate17items using theframing “In
yourclassroom, howmany kidsthink that….” Some items included “itisalright tobeat
someone upwhobadmouths yourfamily”; “kids whogetmistreated usually dothings 
thatdeserve it”(Gini, Pozzoli, &Bussey, 2014).
Theresults ofthisstudy showed thatbothindividual andstudent-perceived col-
lective moral disengagement wereuniquely predictive ofaggressive behavior toward 
peers. They found thatbullying ismore likely when students arebothindividually 
liable tousedisengaged justifications oftheirtreatment ofvictims (e.g., thevictim 
“deserved” orsomehow brought ontheirownsuffering) andalsobelieve thatothers 
intheirclassroom commonly engage inthese same justifications. Furthermore, and
fascinatingly, onlyweak associations werefound between individual moral disengage -
ment anddefending orpassive bystander behaviors. Instead, asignificant positive 
relationship wasfound between collective moral disengagement anddefending onthe
partofbystanders. Individual students weremore likely todefend victims ofaggres -
sivebullying iftheyperceived thattheirclassmates tended tomorally disengage. Gini
etal.(2015) suggest thatyoung people whostepuptodefend victims against bullies 
areabletoresist thecollective pressure tobepassive andaccept orevenjustify the
bullying behavior. Somehow defenders feelmore personal responsibility forstanding 
uporcalling outthebadbehavior because others arenot.Finally, classroom level
collective moral disengagement predicted greater bullying andpassive bystanding, 
whereas victim-defending wasmore frequent inclassrooms withlower shared moral 
disengagement. 
Unfortunately, active intervention onthepartofpeers toprotect ordefend 
victims ofbullying isquite rare, butstillother work from Bandura’s perspective 
hasrevealed thatnotallbystanders arecreated equal. Thornberg andJungert 
(2013), forexample, studied over300teenagers inSweden andfound thatstu-
dents’ levels ofmoral disengagement predicted howtheyresponded towitness -
ingbullying. Those whoscored particularly highonmoral disengagement went 
beyond passive bystanding andactually were more likely toapplaud orencourage 
bullies. Incontrast, young people whoviewed thetreatment ofvictims asrepre -
hensible were more likely tocome totheir aid.Thiswasespecially trueamong 
bystanders whohadhighfeelings ofself-efficacy regarding their capacity toactas
amediator andtoquiet bullies’ rage. 
Bandura’s mechanisms ofmoral disengagement andtheory ofefficacy onboth
theindividual andthecollective levelprovide anexcellent foundation forcreating 
intervention efforts toputanendtobullying. Anambitious anti-bullying program 
todosoinNorway addressed theissue attheindividual student, parent, classroom, Final PDF to printer