AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 37, pages 133–144 (2011)

Moral Disengagement in Self-Reported

and Peer-Nominated School Bullying
Marie-Louise Obermann

Department of Psychology, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
This study examined the relation between moral disengagement and different self-reported and peer-nominated positions in school
bullying. The aims of this study were to (1) investigate moral disengagement among children for whom self-reported and peer-
nominated bully status diverged and (2) compare levels of disengagement among self-reported and peer-nominated pure bullies,
pure victims, bully–victims, and children not involved in bullying. A sample of 739 Danish sixth grade and seventh grade children
(mean age 12.6) was included in the study. Moral disengagement was measured using a Danish version of the Moral
Disengagement Scale and bullying was measured using both self-reports and peer nominations. Results revealed that both self-
reported and peer-nominated bullying were related to moral disengagement, and that both pure bullies and bully–victims displayed
higher moral disengagement than outsiders. Discrepancies between self-reported and peer-nominated bullying involvement
indicates that a person’s social reputation has a stronger association with moral disengagement than so far expected. Implications
are discussed, highlighting the importance of further research and theory development. Aggr. Behav. 37:133–144, 2011. r 2010
Wiley-Liss, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Keywords: moral disengagement; bullying; self-reports; peer-nominations

INTRODUCTION Pershing, 2003; Piquero et al., 2005; Sykes and

Matza, 1957] or the moral hypocrisy paradigm
People often behave contrary to their overall
[Batson et al., 1997, 1999, 2002; Valdesolo and
beliefs without perceiving such behaviors as immoral.
DeSteno, 2007], also demonstrate that legitimization
This paradox plays a pivotal role in understanding
of immoral behavior is commonly used when people
how people are able to commit detrimental conduct
are committing aggressive, antisocial, and criminal
and aggression [Tsang, 2002]. The social cognitive
acts.
theory of moral disengagement offers an explana-
However, so far the specific relation between
tion of how social cognitive mechanisms allow
moral disengagement and different positions in
individuals to engage in self-serving harmful beha-
school bullying has only been investigated to some
viors that contradict their moral principles, whereas
extent [Gini, 2006; Hymel et al., 2005; Menesini
at the same time continuing to advocate these
et al., 2003]. The aim of this study is to further
principles without incurring self-evaluative emotional
investigate and clarify the relation between moral
reactions, such as guilt [Bandura, 1986, 1990, 1999,
disengagement and bullying.
2002].
Many studies have shown that moral disengage-
ment correlates positively with general aggressive- Moral Disengagement
ness toward others [Aquino et al., 2007; Bandura The theory of moral disengagement is understood
et al., 1996, 2001; Carmak and Blatney, 1995; within the frame of social cognitive theory [Bandura,
Grussendorf et al., 2002; McAlister, 2000, 2001;
McAlister et al., 2006; Osofsky et al., 2005; Paciello Correspondence to: Marie-Louise Obermann, Department of
et al., 2008; Pelton et al., 2004; Pornari and Wood, Psychology, Nobelparken, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 4, 8000 Aarhus C,
2010]. Research within theoretically related para- DK. E-mail: mariloui@psy.au.dk
digms, such as the neutralization paradigm [Copes, Received 1 September 2009; Accepted 1 October 2010
2003; Cromwell and Thurman, 2003; Evans and Published online 23 November 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wiley
Porche, 2005; Khoo and Oakes, 2000; Minor, 1984; onlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20378

r 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

134 Obermann

1986]. Moral disengagement refers to the use of consequently, something one is not personally
different legitimization mechanisms conducive to a responsible for. Previous research has shown that
selective disengagement of moral censure. According people become willing to commit hurtful acts if a
to Bandura [1999, 2002], the gap between moral legitimate authority takes responsibility for such acts
beliefs and immoral behavior is covered by eight [Bandura et al., 1975; Milgram, 1974; Zimbardo,
different disengagement mechanisms belonging to 2004].
one of four major domains, namely (1) reconstruc- The third domain of disengagement involves
tion of immoral behavior, (2) obscuration of minimizing the negative consequences of one’s
personal responsibility, (3) misrepresentation of transgressions. Distortion of consequences is a
injurious consequences, and (4) blaming the victims disengagement mechanism that operates in this
(illustrated in Fig. 1). domain. Through selective inattention toward the
The first set of disengagement mechanisms focuses negative outcomes of one’s transgressions or by
on the cognitive construal of immoral behavior. focusing on the possible positive outcomes one’s
Detrimental conduct is made personally as well as transgression may produce for recipients, it becomes
socially acceptable through processes of moral easier to convince oneself that an act does not
justification, i.e. by viewing transgressions as a involve immoral aspects.
means to serve higher ends. Moral justification The fourth and final set of disengagement
seems to be widely used in different kinds of mechanisms focuses on the recipients of detrimental
legitimization of harmful behavior [Baumeister and behavior. Mistreating others involves a risk of
Vohs, 2004; Kelman and Hamilton, 1989; Rapoport personal distress. One way of relieving or avoiding
and Alexander, 1982]. By masking transgressions in such distress is through the process of dehumaniza-
euphemisms, immoral activities are downplayed and tion. This mechanism involves viewing victims as
seemingly in agreement with moral standards. subhuman creatures unable to experience feelings
Advantageous comparison means comparing one’s common to ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘real’’ people. In this way,
own transgressions to worse inhumanities com- the conventional moral codex is suspended, as it
mitted by others; by doing so, one’s own transgres- only applies to ‘‘real people.’’ Previous studies have
sions will seem less harmful or even insignificant. found that dehumanization facilitates harmful
The second set of disengagement mechanisms behavior toward others [e.g. Bandura et al., 1975;
involves personal responsibility through minimiza- Zebel et al., 2008]. Disengagement, focusing on the
tion and obscuration processes. Diffusion of respon- recipients of detrimental behavior, furthermore
sibility refers to how, when part of a group, involves believing or stating that victims themselves
individuals are able to disclaim personal responsi- are to blame for being mistreated [Bar-Tal, 2000;
bility. Displacement of responsibility involves seeing Haslam, 2006; Kelman, 1976]. Attribution of blame
the causes for one’s transgressions as the result of refers to how individuals come to view their
situational pressures or other people’s demands and, transgressions as reactions to provocations or as

Overall Moral
Disengagement Moral Disengagement

Four Disengagement
Domains Reconstructing Obscuring Misrepresenting Blaming the
Immoral Personal Injurious Victims
Behavior Responsibility Consequences

Eight
Dehumanization
Displacement of

Consequences
Advantageous

Responsibility
Responsibility

Attribution of
Distortion of

Disengagement
Euphemistic

Comparison
Justification

Diffusion of
Labeling

Mechanisms
Moral

Blame

Fig. 1. The three levels in the moral disengagement theory.

Aggr. Behav.

defense against the victim’s initial norm violation.
Blame attribution is widely used as a means of
legitimization among perpetrators, both in case of
atrocities, such as genocide [see Monroe, 2008] and
in everyday-life situations, i.e. when children who
bully others understand their bullying as a reaction
to the victim’s initial provocation [Boulton and
Underwood, 1992].
By using these eight disengagement mechanisms,
individuals become able to act contrary to their
moral beliefs while still upholding the experience of
behaving morally.
Many studies have shown associations between
high levels of moral disengagement and children’s
and adolescents’ use of different kinds of aggression
[Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Carmak and Blatney,
1995; Paciello et al., 2008; Pelton et al., 2004].
Adolescents with a high moral disengagement
acceptance tend to be more irritable, more prone
to vengeful rumination, more inclined toward
physical and verbal aggression, and more frequently
involved in violent episodes. They are also less
troubled by anticipatory feelings of guilt owing to
injurious conduct; the higher the moral disengage-
ment acceptance, the weaker the felt guilt caused by
aggressive conducts [Bandura et al., 1996].
Several studies have found males (adults as well as
children) to be more prone to moral disengagement
than females [Bandura et al., 1996; Carmak and
Blatny, 1995; Grussendorf et al., 2002; McAlister
et al., 2006]. In their longitudinal study, Paciello et al.
[2008] found that moral disengagement decreases
during adolescence, with the biggest decrease taking
place between 14 and 16 years of age. Thus, age as well
as gender may influence disengagement acceptance.
The Moral Disengagement Scale [MDS; developed
by Bandura et al., 1996] is a commonly used tool in
empirical studies conducted on the relation between
moral disengagement and aggression among school
children. A number of these studies found that the
eight mechanisms of moral disengagement can be
traced back to one latent variable, making indivi-
duals more or less inclined to employ mechanisms of
moral disengagement, with Cronbach’s coefficient
ranging between .82 and .93 [Bandura et al., 1996,
2001; Paciello et al., 2008; Pelton et al., 2004].
Different Contributions From Self-Reports
and Peer Nominations
All the aforementioned studies investigated moral
disengagement in relation to aggression in general.
Bullying, however, is understood as a particular
kind of aggressive behavior that involves additional
Moral Disengagement in Bullying 135
criteria [Roland and Idsøe, 2001]. Bullying is defined
as repeated aggression by one or more individuals
who intend to harm or disturb another person
physically, verbally, or psychologically [Boulton and
Underwood, 1992; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1991,
1993; Veenstra et al., 2005; Wolke et al., 2001]. One
central way of distinguishing bullying from aggres-
sion in general, then is by looking at repetition over
time. Unequal power balances, i.e. when victims are
unable to defend themselves from the bully/bullies
[Roland and Idsøe, 2001], constitute another criter-
ion that qualifies aggressive behavior as bullying.
There are two reasons why the study of moral
disengagement in relation to school bullying is
particularly interesting. First, because of the
unequal power balance, bullying may be considered
highly immoral and much more unfair than other
kinds of peer aggressions, and it may therefore be
argued that bullying is a particularly relevant subject
in the study of moral disengagement. This assump-
tion is supported by the fact that some studies
indicate that the majority of children report negative
attitudes toward bullying [Boulton and Underwood,
1992; Menesini et al., 1997].
Second, studies of moral disengagement in school
bullying usually measure bullying based on either
self-reports [Hymel et al., 2005] or other reports,
such as reports from parents, teachers, or peers [e.g.
Gini, 2006; Malti et al., 2009; Menesini et al., 2003].
However, although moral disengagement is shown
to be associated with both other and self-reported
bullying, so far the consistency between other and
self-reports has not been investigated with regard to
moral disengagement. If we are to reach a better
understanding of the social as well as personal
aspects of moral disengagement, such an investiga-
tion will provide the much-needed information.
An overview of different studies investigating the
relationships between self-reported and peer-nomi-
nated aggression shows moderate correlations ran-
ging between r 5 .2 and .4 [Caprara and Pastorelli,
1993; Juvonen et al., 2001; Österman et al., 1994;
Pellegrini, 2001; Strohmeier et al., 2008]. The litera-
ture reflects an ongoing discussion for and against
the use of self-reports and peer nominations when
measuring aggressive behavior and bullying among
school children. Self-reported bullying might be
biased owing to social desirability which might
lead to over- or under-reporting [Menesini and
Camodeca, 2008; Österman et al., 1994; Pellegrini,
2001; Perry et al., 1988]. On the other hand, self-
reports are the only way to obtain information
about individual experiences of being bullied
[Graham et al., 2007]. Peer nominations might be
Aggr. Behav.
136 Obermann
biased by friendship, misattribution, and prejudice,
and hence social reputations might be resistant to
change and children may tend to interpret their
peers’ behavior in the light of experiences lying way
back in time [Graham et al., 2007; Menesini and
Camodeca, 2008; Peets and Kikas, 2006]. On the
other hand, peer nominations are the best way of
measuring the reputation of or the attitudes toward
the subject from the group. Graham et al. [2007]
suggest that both measures be combined when
studying bullying and victimization, in order to
decrease the risk of overlooking important differ-
ences between groups for whom self- and peer views
diverge. Juvonen et al. [2001] argue that self-reports
measure personal experiences of being an aggressor
or a victim from the child’s personal frame of
reference, whereas peer nominations reflect the
social reputation (that is, to which degree peers
agree on an individual’s social standing as aggressor
or victim) and suggest that two different, yet related,
constructs are measured when using self-reports and
peer nominations, respectively.
From a moral disengagement perspective, the
combination of peer-nominated and self-reported
bullying is very interesting. The disengagement
theory states that moral disengagement is based on
the individual’s own judgments about his or her acts.
It, furthermore, states that these personal moral
standards have been adopted from and are influ-
enced by the social norms of the surroundings
[Bandura, 1986, 1999]. However, the theory is not
explicit as to what happens when a discrepancy
exists between the individual’s and the surrounding’s
evaluation of whether an act is potentially immoral
or not. Previous studies support the notion that
personal standards of right and wrong are influ-
enced by the norms and acceptance of the surround-
ings [see Zimbardo, 2004]. However, the question
remains to what extent children that are being
judged as bullies by peers, but who do not see
themselves as such, would show high moral disen-
gagement. Do they resemble or differ from the
children who view themselves as bullies or from the
children who are neither viewed as bullies by their
peers nor by themselves? This investigation would
provide us with a better understanding of the social
aspects of moral disengagement.
Aims and Hypotheses
The first aim of the study was to investigate moral
disengagement with regard to the relation between
self-reported and peer-nominated bullying. Do
children who are regarded as bullies by their peers
Aggr. Behav.
only differ in disengagement levels from (a) children
who are neither seen as bullies by themselves nor by
their peers, (b) children who are only regarded as
bullies by themselves, and (c) children who are
regarded as bullies by both peers and themselves?
Previous research based on either self-reports
[Hymel et al., 2005] or peer nominations [Gini,
2006; Menesini et al., 2003] suggest that both self-
reported and peer-nominated bullying relates to
moral disengagement. This study thus hypothesized
that children, who were either regarded as bullies by
themselves, their peers, or both, would show higher
levels of disengagement than children who were not
viewed as bullies at all.
The second aim of the study was to investigate
potential differences in the display of moral disen-
gagement between groups that differ with regard to
bully status measured by self-reports and peer
nominations, respectively. Previous studies on dif-
ferences between bullies, victims, and outsiders
based on either self-reports [Hymel et al., 2005] or
peer-nominations [Gini, 2006; Menesini et al., 2003]
have consistently found bullies to display higher
levels of disengagement than outsiders and victims.
This study thus predicted that self-reports and peer
nominations would show similar differences between
outsiders, pure bullies, and pure victims. The
disengagement theory [Bandura, 1999] is not explicit
as to how the status of being both aggressor and
victim affects moral disengagement. Rather, the
theory broadly assumes that all types of aggressors
will need to disengage morally. Based on this
assumption, both bully–victims (children who were
both bullies and victims) and (pure) bullies were
expected to display higher disengagement levels than
pure victims and outsiders.
METHOD
Participants
Seven hundred and thirty-nine sixth and seventh
graders from 38 different classes in eight Danish
state schools participated in the study. The inclusion
criteria were state schools because the majority of
Danish children (about 90%) attend these schools.
Private and special schools were excluded from the
project. The participating schools were located in
(higher/lower) middle class urban communities. In
all, 677 children filled in a questionnaire. Sixty-two
(9%) were absent on the day when the researchers
visited their class, and therefore no self-report
measures were collected for these participants,
only peer reports. Of the children filling in the

questionnaire, 355 were boys and 322 girls. The age
of the children ranged between 11 and 14 years, the
mean age being 12.6 years.
Procedure
The research followed a stringent consent proce-
dure including approvals from headmasters, school
councils, and teachers. Furthermore, parents and
children were given the choice of participation or
nonparticipation. No parents disallowed their chil-
dren’s participation in the study. One child chose
not to participate owing to severe dyslexia.
Questionnaires were distributed approximately 2
months into the school year. The author and an
assistant visited each class for one lesson (45 min).
Before the questionnaires were handed out, the
participants were reseated to prevent them from
viewing each other’s answers. Tables were rearranged
and screens were set up between the tables. The
participants were then introduced to the study
and told how to complete the questionnaire. The
researchers made a point of underlining the fact that
no peers, parents, or teachers would have access to the
filled-in questionnaires and that the data would be
treated anonymously. The reseachers further stressed
there being no right or wrong answers, and that
each child’s personal evaluation of his or her current
experiences and opinions would be of interest to
the study.
During the data collection, teachers were present
in the classroom. In case the children had questions
regarding items or regarding how to fill in the
questionnaire, the researcher and her assistant dealt
with those questions. The teachers remained in the
back of the classroom and did not intervene. This
procedure was followed to ensure that all partici-
pants were given the same explanation on questions
concerning the same item, and to prevent the teacher
from viewing the children’s answers as promised in
the introduction.
Instruments
Moral disengagement. Moral disengagement
acceptance was measured using a Danish version of
the MDS, originally developed by Bandura et al.
[1996]. The MDS has been used in several studies
investigating moral disengagement with regard to
overall aggression [e.g. Bandura et al., 1996, 2001;
Pelton et al., 2004]. However, existing studies on
moral disengagement in bullying employ different
methodologies when measuring moral disengagement.
Consequently, the MDS has not been used in bullying
research. Menesini et al. [2003] assessed moral
Moral Disengagement in Bullying 137
disengagement by analyzing children’s reported moral
emotions (guilt and shame vs. pride and indifference)
while in the hypothetical role of a bully. Hymel
et al. [2005] developed a scale specifically designed
to measure levels of moral disengagement in bullying
situations, and Gini [2006] applied a MDS developed
by Caprara et al. [1995] designed for primary
school children. In order to compare findings on
moral disengagement in bullying to studies measuring
moral disengagement in overall aggression, this study
thus aimed at applying the MDS to the field of
bullying.
The MDS was translated/retranslated from Eng-
lish to Danish by the author and a colleague. Before
finishing the final Danish version of the question-
naire, the translation was discussed with native
English speakers who also spoke Danish. The scale
consists of 32 items, 4 items measuring each of the
eight disengagement mechanisms. The scale items
encompass different kinds of harmful behavior, such
as verbal abuse, physically injurious and destructive
conduct, deception and theft in different contexts:
educational, familial, community, and peer relations
[Bandura et al., 2001]. Examples of different items
are: ‘‘It is all right to fight to protect your friends’’
(moral justification), ‘‘Damaging property is no big
deal when you consider that others are beating
people up’’ (advantageous comparison), ‘‘If kids
fight and misbehave in school, it is their teacher’s
fault’’ (displacement of responsibility), ‘‘Kids who
get mistreated usually deserve it’’ (attribution of
blame), and ‘‘Some people deserve to be treated like
animals’’ (dehumanization) [see Bandura et al.,
1996].
For each of the 32 items, the children rated their
degree of endorsement or repudiation of moral
exonerations of detrimental conduct. Their
responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Low scores signify a low level of moral
disengagement acceptance and high scores signify a
high level of moral disengagement acceptance.
According to previous studies, the MDS has a high
internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s a reported of
.82–.86 [Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Pelton et al.,
2004]. In this study, Cronbach’s a was .85.
Self-assessed bullying. This study used a
Danish abbreviated version of the Norwegian and
English versions of the Olweus Bully Victim Ques-
tionnaire (OBVQ) [Olweus, 1996]. The OBVQ is
a psychometrically sound instrument measuring
two separate aspects of bullying (bullying and
victimization), which has been used in many studies
of bullying in different countries [see Kyriakides
Aggr. Behav.
138 Obermann
et al., 2006; Solberg and Olweus, 2003]. The
questionnaire was translated/retranslated by the
author and a colleague, and discussed with native
Norwegian and English speakers before the final
version of the questionnaire was made.
Before completing the questionnaire, the partici-
pants were given a definition of bullying stating
the intent to harm, the repetition over time, and
the power imbalance between the involved parts. It
was also emphasized that bullying might include
physical, verbal, as well as relational kinds of
aggression.
The initial question of the victim subscale asked
for an overall estimation of if and how often the
children had experienced being victimized since the
beginning of the school year (2 months). Subse-
quently, participants were asked whether they had
been exposed to different kinds of physical, verbal,
or relational bullying. Answers ranged from 1 (low
characteristic/never happened) to 5 (high character-
istic/happens several times a week).
The initial question of the bully subscale asked for
an overall estimation of how often the children,
during the last 2 months, had taken part in bullying
other pupils. Again, children were subsequently
asked whether they had exposed others to different
kinds of physical, verbal, or relational bullying.
Answers ranged from 1 (low characteristic/never
happened) to 5 (high characteristic/happens several
times a week).
Cronbach’s a for the ten items in the bully
subscale was .82 and for the ten items in the victim
subscale was .83.
Both continuous as well as dichotomized variables
for bullying and victimization were created based on
the bullying and the victimization subscales. When
creating the dichotomized variables, participants
were assigned to one of four self-reported bully
statuses, depending on whether or not the partici-
pants reported having bullied others or having been
victimized themselves two or more times over the
course of the last 2 months (the initial overall
question from the bully and victims subscales,
respectively). Being bullied two or more times
during the last couple of months has previously
been shown to be a reasonable and useful lower
bound cut-off point, when dichotomizing children
into groups of bullies/victims and nonbullies/non-
victims [see Solberg and Olweus, 2003]. The group
called pure victims (N 5 99) consisted of participants
who experienced being bullied by others but who did
not identify themselves as bullies. The group of
pure bullies (N 5 101) consisted of children who
recognized having bullied others, but who had not
Aggr. Behav.
been subjected to bullying themselves. The bully–
victim group (N 5 78) consisted of children who
both recognized themselves as bullies and felt
subjected to bullying themselves. The group of
outsiders (N 5 387) consisted of children who neither
perceived themselves as bullies nor as victims of
bullying. When creating the continuous variables,
scores on the ten bully questions and scores on the
ten victimization questions, respectively, were
summed. On each scale, scores were ranging from
10 (no bullying) to 50 (different kinds of bullying
happening several times a week).
Peer-nominated bullying. The children were
asked to nominate those of their classmates who
they currently regarded as bullies and victims,
respectively: ‘‘In your opinion, which of your
classmates are bullying others/being bullied by
others?’’ The children were further asked to describe
the kind of bullying behavior displayed by the
bullies. When the questionnaire was introduced, the
children had been instructed to put ‘‘nobody’’ if
none of the classmates were bullies or victims, in
order to minimize the number of false positive
answers. In Danish state schools, children spend
most of their school hours with the same classmates,
ensuring high familiarity among peers. Thus, peer
reports from classmates were considered a reliable
instrument in this study.
The children nominated an average of .96 bullies
and .83 victims, the minimum number of nomina-
tions given for both bullies and victims was 0 and
the maximum was 13. For each child, a bully and a
victim peer nomination score was calculated: the
number of nominations for each child was summed,
divided by the number of classmates completing the
questionnaire and multiplied by a hundred. Thus,
the nomination scores show the percentage of
classmates who nominate an individual as a bully
or a victim—the higher the scores, the higher/
stronger the peer reputation(s) as a bully or victim.
The bully nomination scores ranged from 0 to 59%
of the classmates, and the mean score was 4.3%. The
victim nomination score ranged from 0 to 65% of
the classmates, and the mean score was 4.6%.
Participants were assigned to one of four peer-
nominated bully statuses, depending on whether or
not two or more of their classmates had nominated
them as bullies and victims. The pure victims
(N 5 93) group consisted of children who had less
than two bully nominations and two or more victims
nominations. The pure bullies (N 5 102) group
consisted of children who had two or more bully
nominations and less than 2 victim nominations.
The bully– victim group (N 5 18) consisted of

children who had two or more bully and victim
nominations. The group of outsiders (N 5 456)
consisted of children who had less than two bully
and victim nominations.
Categorization based on self/peer consistency.
Participants were assigned to one of four groups,
depending on the consistency between self-reported
and peer-nominated bullying status. The first group,
the double identified bullies (N 5 53) constituted
individuals viewed as bullies by themselves as well as
their classmates. The second group, the self-identified
bullies (N 5 127), were those who viewed themselves as
bullies, but were not viewed as bullies by their
classmates. The third group, the peer-identified bullies
(N 5 67), did not view themselves as bullies; however,
they were viewed as bullies by their classmates. The
fourth group (N 5 425) were neither viewed as bullies
by themselves nor by their classmates.
Missing Data
Participants answering less than 90% of items on
a scale were excluded from the subsequent analyses.
Based on this criterion, five participants were
excluded from the bully subscale, one was excluded
from the victim subscale, and seven from the MDS.
In the rest of the sample, missing data were imputed
using the Expectation Maximization algorithm, a
widely used and well-accepted method for dealing
with missing data [Shafer and Graham, 2002].
RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
Validation of sample. In order to investigate
whether there was a difference in the number of bully
and victim nominations between the group of children
being present in class (N 5 677) and the children being
absent from school on the day of completing the
questionnaires (N 5 62), a chi-square for independence
was conducted. No significant relation was found
between number of bully and victim nominations and
absence from school (Bully: Pearson chi 5 0.003,
Po.998, df 5 2, V 5 .034, P 5 .998, N 5 739. Victim:
Pearson chi 5 2.071, df 5 2, P 5 .335, V 5 .053,
P 5 .335, N 5 739) indicating that absentees are not
particularly involved in bullying (at least from their
peers’ point of view). This finding suggests that the
absentees might be missing at random. The finding also
indicates that the children do not forget to nominate
those of their classmates who are absent in the test
situation. Thus, bias owing to the absence does not
seem to pose a problem in this study.
Moral Disengagement in Bullying 139
Confounding variables. Previous research
shows that age and gender may influence the level
of moral disengagement acceptance [e.g. Bandura
et al., 1996; Paciello et al., 2008], hence the relation
between moral disengagement gender and age was
investigated. A one-way analysis of variance revealed
no significant age difference (F(3,659) 5 0.883,
P 5 .449). An independent sample t-test revealed a
significant difference in level of disengagement
acceptance among boys (M 5 85.7, SD 5 14.3,
N 5 349) and girls (M 5 78.0, SD 5 14.7, N 5 321);
t(668) 5 6.82, P 5 .001. According to Cohen (1988),
the effect size was moderate (d 5 .065). Gender, but
not age, was therefore included as a covariate in the
subsequent analyses.
Factor structure of the moral disengagement
scale. In line with the results of earlier research,
Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that a one
factor structure provided a reasonable fit for the MDS
(S-B w2(464) 5 1,671.72, P 5 .000, RMSEA 5 0.067,
90% CI [.064–.070], CFI 5 .85, SRMR 5 .88).
Dependent and independent variables. Accord-
ing to the theory of moral disengagement, the
relationship between moral disengagement and detri-
mental behavior develops in a constant self-regulatory
interplay between (1) a person’s behavior, (2) the
conditions under which it occurs, (3) the judgment of
the behavior in relation to moral principles, and (4)
perceived circumstances as well as the consequences the
behavior may have for the individual [Bandura, 1986,
1999]. Thus, it is not possible to claim that disengage-
ment per se anticipates detrimental behavior or vice
versa. This indicates that disengagement and bullying
can both be used as dependent and independent
variables. Depending on the purpose of the studies used,
previous research has both employed moral disengage-
ment [e.g. Hymel et al., 2005] and aggression [e.g.
Bandura et al., 1996, 2001] as dependent variables. In the
subsequent analyses, however, moral disengagement was
chosen as the dependent variable, because the purpose of
the study was to investigate whether moral disengage-
ment levels differ among different groups of bullies
and victims.
Moral Disengagement in Self-Reported and
Peer-Nominated Bullying
The correlations between moral disengagement
and the bullying variables are shown in Table I.
In order to further investigate the relation between
peer-nominated and self-reported bullying on the one
hand and victimization and moral disengagement on
the other, a standard multiple regression analysis was
carried out. Both peer-nominated and self-reported
Aggr. Behav.
140 Obermann

TABLE I. Correlations Between Moral Disengagement, Peer-Nominated and Self-reported Bullying and Victimization

Peer-nominated Peer-nominated Self-reported Overall moral

victimization bullying victimization disengagement

Peer-nominated victimization .028 .341 .033

Peer-nominated bullying .028 .082 .200
Self-reported victimization .341 .082 .158
Self-reported bullying .131 .305 .474 .280
Pearson correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
Pearson correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

TABLE II. Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and Girls on Overall Moral Disengagement Across Four Categories of
Self/Peer Consistency

Girls Boys Total

Self/peer consistency Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N

Double assigned bully 87.25 (20.45) 12 91.28 (10.29) 40 90.35 (13.19) 52

Self bully only 86.57 (13.17) 49 87.15 (13.98) 78 86.93 (13.63) 127
Peer bully only 80.46 (17.9) 26 87.98 (14.88) 41 85.06 (16.41) 67
Not assigned bully 75.44 (13.48) 234 82.98 (14.61) 185 78.77 (14.46) 419
Total 77.99 (14.75) 321 85.48 (14.32) 344 81.87 (14.99) 665

TABLE III. Means and Standard Deviations in Overall Moral Disengagement for Boys and Girls in Four Self-Reported and
Peer-Nominated Bullying Positions

Girls Boys Total

Status Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N

Self-status Pure bully 86.27 (15.478) 26 88.88 (13.661) 75 88.21 (14.118) 101
Pure victim 79.45 (14.141) 55 88.55 (15.799) 44 83.49 (15.502) 99
Bully-victim 87.03 (14.282) 35 87.98 (11.750) 43 87.55 (12.869) 78
Outsider 75.00 (13.874) 205 82.75 (14.306) 182 78.65 (14.584) 387
Total 77.99 (14.745) 321 85.48 (14.315) 344 81.87 (14.989) 665
Peer status Pure bully 81.90 (18.680) 29 88.47 (12.053) 73 86.60 (14.463) 102
Pure victim 80.19 (15.124) 43 83.88 (14.182) 50 82.17 (14.662) 93
Bully-victim 98.78 (15.377) 9 98.78 (15.377) 9 91.83 (18.684) 18
Outsider 84.57 (14.684) 240 84.57 (14.648) 217 80.52 (17.733) 457
Total 77.99 (14.745) 321 85.65 (14.316) 349 81.98 (15.009) 670

bullying displayed significant relations to overall moral
disengagement (Peer: b 5 0.240, SE 5 .07, b 5 .133,
P 5 .001. Self: b 5 1.153, SE 5 .234, b 5 .217, P 5 .000),
whereas self-reported and peer-nominated victimi-
zation did not (Self: b 5 0.178, SE 5 .161, b 5 .049,
P 5 .267. Peer: b 5 0.013, SE 5 .06, b .008, P 5 .83).
The next step was to investigate possible differences in
moral disengagement between self-reported and peer-
nominated bullying. Means and standard deviations for
boys and girls in the four groups of self-peer consistency
are shown in Table II. A four (self/peer consistency) by
two (gender) analysis of variance was conducted.
A significant main effect for both self/peer consistency
(F(3) 5 13.9, P 5 .000, Z2 5 .060) and gender (F(1) 5 9.1,
P 5 .014, Z2 5 .014) occurred. There was no inter-
action effect between gender and self/peer evaluation
(F(3) 5 2.0, P 5 .112, Z2 5 .009). Bonferroni post
hoc comparisons revealed that the group of children,
who were neither seen as bullies by their peers nor
by themselves, had a significantly lower disengage-
ment level than the three groups who were viewed as
bullies by themselves, their classmates, or both.
Moral Disengagement in Different Bully
Statuses
Table III shows mean and standard deviations in
overall moral disengagement between boys and girls
in the four self-reported and the four peer-nominated
bully statuses.
A two (gender) by four (self-reported bully status)
between groups analysis of variance was conducted

Aggr. Behav.

to investigate the relation between self-reported
bully status and level of moral disengagement.
A statistically significant main effect occurred for
self-reported bullying status (F(3,567) 5 14.86,
P 5 .000, Z2 5 .06). The analysis also revealed a
statistically significant main effect for gender
(F(1.567) 5 13.535, P 5 .000, Z2 5 .02), indicating
that boys had a higher moral disengagement
acceptance. The interaction effect between gender
and self-reported bully status was not significant
(F(3.657) 5 2.01, P 5 .110). Multiple comparisons,
using the Bonferroni post hoc test, indicated a
significantly lower disengagement score for the
outsiders than the scores of all the actively involved
groups. No significant difference was detected
between the three actively involved groups, indicat-
ing that bullies, victims, and bully–victims did not
differ in level of overall disengagement acceptance.
To investigate the impact of peer-nominated
bullying status and gender on moral disengagement
acceptance, a two (gender) by four (peer-nominated
bully status) between groups analysis of variance
was conducted. Results showed a statistically
significant main effect for peer-nominated bullying
status (F(3) 5 5.318, P 5 .001, Z2 5 .024) and gender
(F(1) 5 15.207, P 5 .000, Z2 5 .022). The interaction
effect between gender and peer-nominated bullying
status was not significant (F(3) 5 0.841, P 5 .472,
Z2 5 .004). Multiple comparisons, using the Bonfer-
roni post hoc test, indicated that the peer-nominated
outsider group had a significantly lower disengage-
ment score than the peer-nominated pure bullies and
bully–victims. No significant difference between the
three actively involved groups occurred, indicating
that pure bullies, pure victims, and bully–victims did
not differ in level of overall disengagement accep-
tance.
DISCUSSION
This study investigated the relation between
different kinds of bullying involvement on moral
disengagement acceptance. The main findings of
the study were (1) that peer-identified and
self-identified bullies displayed the same levels of
moral disengagement, (2) that children identified
as bullies by either themselves, their peers, or
both displayed higher disengagement levels
than the children who were neither viewed as bullies
by themselves nor by their peers, and (3) that pure
bullies and bully–victims displayed higher levels of
moral disengagement than the outsiders.
Moral Disengagement in Bullying 141
The findings of the study showed moral disen-
gagement to be related to both the personal
experience of being directly involved in bullying
and peer nomination of someone as a bully. Most of
the findings confirmed the initial hypotheses. How-
ever, the study yielded a few unexpected findings.
Peer-identified bullies displaying the same levels of
disengagement as self-identified bullies proves parti-
cularly interesting. Not only does this finding
suggests that attitudes present in the ambient
environment relate indirectly to moral disengage-
ment through the influence of an individual’s self-
evaluation of whether she/he is a bully, as suggested
by the disengagement theory [Bandura, 1999]; the
finding further indicates that moral disengagement
directly relates to the peer reputation of being a
bully, and that individuals may need to legitimize
aggressive behavior even in situations where they
themselves do not experience that they are acting
immorally. Future research and theory development
might seek a better understanding of the social
influence on moral disengagement, in circumstances
when the individual does not him- or herself
recognize his or her own behavior as immoral or
as being likely to be interpreted by others as
immoral.
In accordance with previous findings [e.g. Caprara
and Pastorelli, 1993; Strohmeier et al., 2008;
Österman et al., 1994], this study not only found
that some convergence between self- and peer-
experienced bullying exists, but also demonstrated
that different points of view come into play.
As suggested by Juvonen et al. [2001], a possible
explanation of this self/peer discrepancy might be
found in the observation that self-reports and peer
nominations measure different, yet related, con-
structs (private experience/social reputation) which
will make them correlate, however, only to a limited
extent.
In the analysis conducted on the four bully
statuses findings on both peer-nominated and self-
reported data supported the initial hypothesis that
pure bullies and bully–victims would be more prone
to moral disengagement than outsiders. Based on
the theoretical assumption that individuals behaving
aggressively will experience the need to disengage
whether or not they themselves are simultaneously
victimized [Bandura, 1999], bullies and bully–victims
were not expected to differ significantly from each
other with regard to moral disengagement. Thus, the
findings of this study were in line with the
disengagement theory.
The regression analysis conducted for continuous
data confirmed the initial hypothesis that bullying
Aggr. Behav.
142 Obermann
was associated with moral disengagement, whereas
(self-reported as well as peer-nominated) victimiza-
tion was not associated with moral disengagement
when controlling for bullying. However, some of the
findings regarding moral disengagement among pure
victims were neither consistent with previous re-
search [Gini, 2006; Menesini et al., 2003] nor the
initial hypothesis that pure victims would display
significantly lower levels of disengagement than pure
bullies and bully–victims: Neither the self-reported
nor the peer-nominated pure victims displayed
significantly lower levels of moral disengagement
than the pure bullies as expected, and the self-
reported pure victims even showed significantly
higher disengagement levels than the outsiders. To
further test the possibility that recipients of aggres-
sion need to disengage, future research may aim at
investigating moral disengagement among recipients
of aggressive behavior.
There were some limitations in this study. The
cross-sectional design of the research made it
difficult to interpret the causal relation between
moral disengagement and bullying; it is impossible
to determine whether bullying precedes moral
disengagement or vice versa. Future research will
need to aim at longitudinal investigations of the
theoretically assumed reciprocal interplay between
moral disengagement and bullying over time for a
clarification of the causal effects.
Moreover, when interpreting the results of the
study, the possible biases involved in the self-
reported as well as the peer-reported measures must
be considered possible limitations. Social desirability
and other self-report biases may influence the
so-called outsiders, making them underreport their
actual disengagement acceptance as well as their
actual involvement in active bullying and victimiza-
tion. Likewise, the peer nomination measure may be
biased by reputations, likes, and dislikes, as well as
the wish not to speak ill of one’s friends.
In summary, this study contributes significantly to
the field of research on moral disengagement and
bullying. It is the first published study on moral
disengagement that considers discrepancies between
self-reported and peer-nominated bullying. The
findings indicate that a person’s social reputation
has a more direct influence on moral disengagement
than so far theorized.
The findings of the study further point to the need
for future research to consider using a combination
of peer nominations and self-reports when investi-
gating moral disengagement in relation to peer
aggression and bullying, as the two methods offer
slightly different contributions.
Aggr. Behav.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge the participation of the
students, teachers, and headmasters who made this
project possible. I also thank Bo Sommerlund
(Aarhus University) and Mark Shevlin (University
of Ulster) for statistical advice, and Ole Steen
Kristensen (Aarhus University) for helpful com-
ments.
REFERENCES
Aquino K, Reed A, Thau S, Freeman D. 2007. A grotesque and dark
beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disen-
gagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war.
J Exp Soc Psychol 43:385–392.
Bandura A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action:
A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura A. 1990. Selective activation and disengagement of moral
control. J Soc Issues 46:27–46.
Bandura A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of
inhumanities. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 3:193–209.
Bandura A. 2002. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of
moral agency. JME 31:101–119.
Bandura A, Underwood B, Fromson ME. 1975. Disinhibition of
aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumaniza-
tion of victims. J Res Pers 9:253–269.
Bandura A, Barbarnelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. 1996. Mechan-
isms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Pers
Soc Psychol 71:364–374.
Bandura A, Caprara GV, Barbarnelli C, Pastorelli C, Regalia C.
2001. Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing
transgressive behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:125–135.
Bar-Tal D. 2000. Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social Psychological
Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Batson CD, Kobrynowitcz D, Dinnerstein J, Kampf HC, Wilson AD.
1997. In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy.
J Pers Soc Psychol 72:1335–1348.
Batson CD, Thompson ER, Seuferling G, Whitney H, Strongman JA.
1999. Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being
so. J Pers Soc Psycholy 77:525–537.
Batson CD, Thompson ER, Chen H. 2002. Moral hypocrisy:
Addressing some alternatives. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:330–339.
Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. 2004. Four roots of evil. In: Miller AG
(ed.). The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York:
Guilford Press, pp 85–101.
Boulton MJ, Underwood K. 1992. Bully/victim problems among
middle school children. Br J Educ Psychol 62:73–87.
Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. 1993. Early emotional instability,
prosocial behaviour, and aggression: Some methodological
aspects. Eur J Psychol 7:19–36.
Caprara GV, Pastorelli C, Bandura A. 1995. La misura del
disimpegno morale in età evolutiva (Measuring age differences
in moral disengagement). Età Evol 51:18–29.
Carmák I, Blatný M. 1995. Personality indicators of aggression and
moral disengagement. Studia Psychologica 37:199–201.
Cohen JW. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural
Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Copes H. 2003. Societal attachments, offending frequency, and
techniques of neutralization. Deviant Behav 24:101–127.
Cromwell P, Thurman Q. 2003. The devil made me do it: Use of
neutralizations by shoplifters. Deviant Behav 24:535–550.

Evans RD, Porche DA. 2005. The nature and frequency of
medicare/medicaid fraud and neutralization techniques among
speech, occupational, and physical therapists. Deviant Behav
26:253–270.
Gini G. 2006. Social cognition in bullying: What’s wrong? Aggr
Behav 32:528–539.
Graham S, Bellmore A, Juvonen J. 2007. Peer victimization in
middle school: When self- and peer views diverge. In: Zins JE,
Elias MJ, Maher CA (eds). Bullying Victimization, and Peer
Harassment. A Handbook of Prevention and Intervention.
New York: The Hayworth Press, pp 121–141.
Grussendorf J, McAlister A, Sandström P, Udd L, Morrison TC.
2002. Resisting moral disengagement in support for war: Use of
the ‘‘Peace Test’’ scale among student groups in 21 nations.
J Peace Psychol 8:73–83.
Haslam N. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Pers Soc
Psychol Rev 10:252–264.
Hymel S, Rocke-Henderson N, Bonanno RA. 2005. Moral disen-
gagement: A framework for understanding bullying among
adolescents. J Soc Sci 8:1–11.
Juvonen J, Nishina A, Graham S. 2001. Self-views versus peer
perceptions of victims status among early adolescents. In:
Juvonen J, Graham S (eds). Peer Harassment in Schools. The
Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized. New York: The
Guilford Press, pp 105–124.
Kelman HC. 1976. Violence without restraint: Reflections on the
dehumanization of victims and victimizers. In: Kren GM,
Rappoport LH (eds). Varieties of Psychohistory. New York:
Springer, pp 282–314.
Kelman HC, Hamilton VL. 1989. Crimes of Obedience: Toward a
Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Khoo ACE, Oakes PJ. 2000. The variability of the delinquent self:
Anti-authority attitudes and endorsement of neutralizations
techniques among incarcerated delinquents in Singapore. Asian
J Soc Psychol 3:125–132.
Kyriakides L, Kaloyirou C, Lindsay G. 2006. An analysis of the
revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire using the Rasch
measurement model. Br J Educ Psychol 76:781–801.
Lagerspetz K, Björkqvist K, Berts M, King E. 1982. Group
aggression among school children in three schools. Scand J
Psychol 23:45–52.
Malti T, Gasser L, Buchmann M. 2009. Aggressive and prosocial
children’s emotion attributions and moral reasoning. Aggr Behav
35:90–102.
McAlister A. 2000. Moral disengagement and opinions on war with
Iraq. Int J Public Opin Res 12:191–198.
McAlister A. 2001. Moral disengagement: Measurement and
modification. J Peace Res 38:87–99.
McAlister AL, Bandura A, Owen SV. 2006. Mechanisms of moral
disengagement and support for military action: The impact of
Sept. 11. J Soc Clin Psychol 25:141–165.
Menesini E, Camodeca M. 2008. Shame and guilt as behaviour
regulators: Relationships with bullying, victimization and proso-
cial behaviour. Br J Dev Psychol 26:183–196.
Menesini E, Eslea M, Smith PK, Genta ML. 1997. Cross-national
comparison of children’s attitudes towards bully/victim problems
in schools. Aggr Behav 23:245–257.
Menesini E, Sanchez V, Fonzi A, Ortega R, Costable A, Feudo GL.
2003. Moral emotions and bullying: A cross-national comparison
of differences between bullies, victims and outsiders. Aggr Behav
29:15–530.
Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority. An Experimental View.
New York: Harper & Row.
Moral Disengagement in Bullying 143
Minor W. 1984. Neutralization as a hardening process: Considera-
tions in the modelling of change. Social Forces 62:995–1019.
Monroe KR. 2008. Cracking the code of genocide: The moral
psychology of rescuers, bystanders, and Nazis during the
holocaust. Polit Psychol 29:699–736.
Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B,
Scheidt P. 2001. Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence
and association with psychosocial adjustment. J Am Med Assoc
285:2094–2100.
Olweus D. 1991. Bully/victims problems among school children:
Basic facts and effects of a school bases intervention program. In:
Pepler D, Rubin K (eds). The Development and Treatment of
Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, pp 411–448.
Olweus D. 1993. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We
Can Do. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus D. 1996. The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire.
Mimeo.Bergen, Norway: Research Centro for Health Promotion
(HEMIL center) University of Bergen.
Osofsky MJ, Bandura A, Zimbardo PG. 2005. The role of moral
disengagement in the execution process. Law Hum Behav
29:371–393.
Österman K, Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, Kaukiainen A,
Huesmann LR, Fraczek A. 1994. Peer and self-estimated
aggression and victimization in 8-year-old children from five
ethnic groups. Aggr Behav 20:411–428.
Paciello M, Fida R, Tramontano C, Lupinetti C, Caprara GV. 2008.
Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impacts
on aggression and violence in late adolescence. Child Dev
79:1288–1309.
Peets K, Kikas E. 2006. Aggressive strategies and victimization
during adolescence: Grade and gender differences, and cross-
informant agreement. Aggress Behav 32:68–79.
Pellegrini AD. 2001. Sampling instances of victimization in
middle school. A methodological comparison. In: Juvonen J,
Graham S (eds). Peer Harassment in Schools. The Plight of the
Vulnerable and Victimized. New York: The Guilford Press,
pp 125–144.
Perry DG, Kusel SJ, Perry LC. 1988. Victims of peer aggression. Dev
Psychol 24:807–814.
Pershing JL. 2003. To snitch or not to snitch? Applying the concept
of neutralization techniques to the enforcement of occupational
misconduct. Soc Perspec 46:149–178.
Piquero NL, Tibbetts SG, Blankenship MB. 2005. Examining
the role of differential association and techniques of neu-
tralization in explaining corporate crime. Deviant Behav
26:159–188.
Pelton J, Gound M, Forehand R, Brody G. 2004. The moral
disengagement scale: Extension with an American minority
sample. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 26:31–39.
Pornari CD, Wood J. 2010. Peer and cyber aggression in secondary
school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile
attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggr Behav 36:
81–94.
Rapoport DC, Alexander Y. 1982. The Morality of Terrorism: Religious
and Secular Justification. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press.
Roland E, Idsøe T. 2001. Aggression and bullying. Aggr Behav
27:446–462.
Shafer JL, Graham JW. 2002. Missing data: Our view of the state of
the art. Psychol Methods 7:147–177.
Solberg ME, Olweus D. 2003. Prevalence estimation of schools
bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggr Behav
29:239–268.
Aggr. Behav.
144 Obermann
Strohmeier D, Spiel C, Grandinger P. 2008. Social relationships in
multicultural schools: Bullying and victimization. Eur J Dev
Psychol 5:262–285.
Sykes GM, Matza D. 1957. Techniques of neutralization: A theory
of delinquency. Am Sociol Rev 22:664–670.
Tsang JA. 2002. Moral rationalization and the integration of
situational factors and psychological processed in immoral
behavior. Rev Gen Psychol 6:25–50.
Valdesolo P, DeSteno D. 2007. Moral hypocrisy. Social groups and
the flexibility of virtue. Psychol Sci 18:689–690.
Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Oldehinkel AJ, de Winter AF,
Verhulst FC, Ormel J. 2005. Bullying and victimizations
Aggr. Behav.
in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/
victims and uninvolved preadolescents. Dev Psychol 41:
672–682.
Wolke D, Woods S, Stanford K, Schulz H. 2001. Bullying and
victimization of primary school children in England and Germany:
Prevalence and school factors. Br J Psychol 92:673–696.
Zebel S, Zimmermann AJ, Viki GT, Doosje B. 2008. Dehumaniza-
tion and guilt as distinct but related predictors of support for
reparation polices. Polit Psychol 29:193–219.
Zimbardo PG. 2004. A situationist perspective on the psychology of
evil. In: Miller A (ed.). The Social Psychology of Good and Evil.
New York: The Guilford Press, pp 51–84.