Perceived Moral Norms in an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting University Students’ Bystander Intentions toward Relational Bullying
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theory of Planned Behavior
1.2. Extension to the Theory of Planned Behavior
1.3. Present Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Procedure
2.2. Vignette
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Standard Theory of Planned Behavior Variables
2.3.2. Perceived Moral Norms as an Additional Variable
2.3.3. Sociodemographic Variables and Covariates
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations
3.2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis
3.3. Mediation Analyses
4. Discussion
4.1. Moralistic Bias in Quantitative Research on Bystander Intentions
4.2. Standard Theory of Planned Behavior Antecedents Related to Bystander Intentions
4.3. Moral Norms as an Additional Predictor of Bystander Intentions
4.4. Limitations and Further Research
4.5. Implications
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gini, G.; Pozzoli, T. Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2009, 123, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pörhölä, M.; Cvancara, K.; Kaal, E.; Kunttu, K.; Tampere, K.; Torres, M.B. Bullying in university between peers and by personnel: Cultural variation in prevalence, forms, and gender differences in four countries. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2020, 23, 143–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olweus, D. Bullying at school. Basic facts and an effective intervention programme. Promot. Educ. 1994, 1, 27–31, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cowie, H.; Myers, C.-A. What we know about bullying and cyberbullying among university students. In Bullying Among University Students: Cross-National Perspectives; Cowie, H., Myers, C.-A., Eds.; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–14. ISBN 978-1-315-75013-2. [Google Scholar]
- Lund, E.M.; Ross, S.W. Bullying perpetration, victimization, and demographic differences in college students: A review of the literature. Trauma Violence Abus. 2017, 18, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buglass, S.L.; Abell, L.; Betts, L.R.; Hill, R.; Saunders, J. Banter versus bullying: A university student perspective. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2021, 3, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, I. Mobbing i høyere utdanning, fleip eller fakta? In Bullying in Higher Education, Joke or Fact? Rapport 2017; Universitetet i Agder, Pedagogisk Utviklingssenter—PULS Fakultet for Humaniora og Pedagogikk: Kristiansand, Norway, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, K.D.; Govan, C.L. Reacting to ostracism: Retaliation or reconciliation? In The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion; Abrams, D., Marques, J.M., Hogg, M.A., Eds.; Psychology: Hove, UK, 2013; pp. 47–62. ISBN 9780415651813. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, S.E.; Norman, R.E.; Suetani, S.; Thomas, H.J.; Sly, P.D.; Scott, J.G. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J. Psychiatry 2017, 7, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leary, M.R. Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2015, 17, 144–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, P.-Y.; Wang, G.-F.; ** interventions. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 11, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branscum, P.; Rush-Griffin, S.; Hackman, C.L.; Castle, A.; Katague, M.; Rush-Griffin, S. The role of moral norms as a determinant of intentions to engage in bystander intervention to prevent sexual assault. J. Community Psychol. 2023, 51, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hübner, G.; Kaiser, F.G. The moderating role of the attitude-subjective norms conflict on the link between moral norms and intention. Eur. Psychol. 2006, 11, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambe, L.J.; Craig, W.M. Peer defending as a multidimensional behavior: Development and validation of the Defending Behaviors Scale. J. Sch. Psychol. 2020, 78, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mayhew, M.J.; Lo, M.A.; Dahl, L.S.; Selznick, B.S. Assessing students’ intention to intervene in a bystander situation. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2018, 59, 762–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauman, S.; Yoon, J.; Iurino, C.; Hackett, L. Experiences of adolescent witnesses to peer victimization: The bystander effect. J. Sch. Psychol. 2020, 80, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eisenberg, N.; Spinrad, T.L. Multidimensionality of Prosocial Behavior: Rethinking the Conceptualization and Development of Prosocial Behaviour. In Prosocial Development: A Multidimensional Approach; Padilla-Walker, L.M., Carlo, G., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 17–39. ISBN 9780199964772. [Google Scholar]
- Mulvey, K.L.; Gönültaş, S.; Irdam, G.; Carlson, R.G.; DiStefano, C.; Irvin, M.J. School and teacher factors that promote adolescents’ bystander responses to social exclusion. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 581089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brüggemann, A.J.; Forsberg, C.; Colnerud, G.; Wijma, B.; Thornberg, R. Bystander passivity in health care and school settings: Moral disengagement, moral distress, and opportunities for moral education. J. Moral Educ. 2019, 48, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlop, W.L.; Walker, L.J.; Matsuba, M.K. The development of moral motivation across the adult lifespan. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 10, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krettenauer, T.; Colasante, T.; Buchmann, M.; Malti, T. The development of moral emotions and decision-making from adolescence to early adulthood: A 6-year longitudinal study. J. Youth Adolesc. 2014, 43, 583–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malti, T.; Ongley, S.F. The development of moral emotions and moral reasoning. In Handbook of Moral Development, 2nd ed.; Killen, M., Smetana, J.G., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 163–183. ISBN 9780203581957. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, R.S. A meta-analysis of the outcomes of bullying prevention programs on subtypes of traditional bullying victimization: Verbal, relational, and physical. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2020, 55, 101485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinmetz, H.; Knappstein, M.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P.; Kabst, R. How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior?: A three-level meta-analysis. Z. Psychol. 2016, 224, 216–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlaanderen, A.; Bevelander, K.E.; Kleemans, M. Empowering digital citizenship: An anti-cyberbullying intervention to increase children’s intentions to intervene on behalf of the victim. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 112, 106459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundstrom, B.; Ferrara, M.; DeMaria, A.L.; Gabel, C.; Booth, K.; Cabot, J. It’s Your Place: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based bystander intervention campaign. Health Commun. 2018, 33, 1141–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Verseveld, M.D.A.; Fukkink, R.G.; Fekkes, M.; Oostdam, R.J. Effects of antibullying programs on teachers’ interventions in bullying situations. A meta-analysis. Psychol. Sch. 2019, 56, 1522–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meriläinen, M.; Puhakka, H.; Sinkkonen, H.-M. Students’ suggestions for eliminating bullying at a university. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 2015, 43, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, C.-A.; Cowie, H. University students’ views on bullying from the perspective of different participant roles. Pastor. Care Educ. 2013, 31, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.J.; Mccabe, J.M. Who Speaks and Who Listens: Revisiting the Chilly Climate in College Classrooms. Gend. Soc. 2021, 35, 32–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, E.D.; Fox, C.L.; Hulme, J.A. Student anti-bullying and harassment policies at UK universities. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2020, 42, 547–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoudi, M.; Keashly, L. Filling the Space: A Framework for Coordinated Global Actions To Diminish Academic Bullying. Angew. Chem. 2021, 133, 3378–3384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. INT | 1 | ||||||||||
2. Gender | 0.16 ** | 1 | |||||||||
3. Age | 0.14 ** | 0.09 | 1 | ||||||||
4. SDR (PQ+) | 0.21 ** | 0.03 | 0.06 | 1 | |||||||
5. SDR (NQ−) | −0.16 ** | −0.25 ** | −0.04 | −0.15 ** | 1 | ||||||
6. CA | 0.55 ** | 0.16 * | −0.01 | 0.14 * | −0.13 * | 1 | |||||
7. EA | 0.23 ** | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.09 | −0.01 | 0.24 ** | 1 | ||||
8. IN | 0.35 ** | 0.12 * | 0.02 | 0.17 ** | −0.07 | 0.40 ** | 0.08 | 1 | |||
9. DN | 0.42 ** | 0.08 | 0.10 * | 0.15 ** | −0.10 * | 0.38 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.51 ** | 1 | ||
10. PBC | 0.49 ** | 0.07 | 0.13 * | 0.22 ** | −0.10 * | 0.33 ** | 0.49 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.39 ** | 1 | |
11. PMN | 0.61 ** | 0.20 ** | 0.13 * | 0.27 ** | −0.27 ** | 0.57 ** | 0.17 ** | 0.56 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.52 ** | 1 |
M (SD) | 4.00 (0.84) | - | 22.76 (4.02) | 3.60 (0.72) | 1.81 (0.70) | 4.54 (0.93) | 3.28 (0.89) | 4.03 (0.73) | 3.91 (0.78) | 4.93 (1.03) | 5.13 (0.70) |
Reliability | α = 0.90 | - | - | α = 0.64 | α = 0.58 | α = 0.84 | α = 0.72 | ρ = 0.74 ** | ρ = 0.60 ** | α = 0.76 | α = 0.88 |
Variable | B | SE B | β | t | R2Adj | FChange |
Model 1 | 0.08 | 9.92 *** | ||||
Gender | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.12 * | 2.51 | ||
Age | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.11 * | 2.38 | ||
SDR (PQ+) | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.18 *** | 3.85 | ||
SDR (NQ−) | −0.11 | 0.06 | −0.09 | −1.89 | ||
Model 2 | 0.44 | 53.68 *** | ||||
Gender | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 1.21 | ||
Age | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.09 * | 2.27 | ||
SDR (PQ+) | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.06 | −0.99 | ||
SDR (NQ−) | −0.05 | 0.05 | −0.04 | −1.06 | ||
CA | 0.35 | 0.04 | 0.39 *** | 9.10 | ||
EA | −0.04 | 0.04 | −0.04 | −0.97 | ||
IN | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.28 | ||
DN | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.14 ** | 3.10 | ||
PBC | 0.24 | 0.04 | 0.30 *** | 6.33 | ||
Model 3 | 0.48 | 29.93 *** | ||||
Gender | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.89 | ||
Age | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 1.76 | ||
SDR (PQ+) | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.87 | ||
SDR (NQ−) | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.13 | ||
CA | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.29 *** | 6.47 | ||
EA | −0.01 | 0.04 | −0.01 | −0.27 | ||
IN | −0.07 | 0.05 | −0.07 | −1.41 | ||
DN | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.10 * | 2.30 | ||
PBC | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.21 *** | 4.44 | ||
PMN | 0.36 | 0.07 | 0.30 *** | 5.47 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brehmer, M. Perceived Moral Norms in an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting University Students’ Bystander Intentions toward Relational Bullying. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13, 1202-1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13070089
Brehmer M. Perceived Moral Norms in an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting University Students’ Bystander Intentions toward Relational Bullying. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2023; 13(7):1202-1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13070089
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrehmer, Mareike. 2023. "Perceived Moral Norms in an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting University Students’ Bystander Intentions toward Relational Bullying" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 13, no. 7: 1202-1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13070089