Moral Disengagement: A Framework for Understanding Bullying Among Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined whether the construct of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999, 2002; Bandura, 2001) contributes to our understanding of bullying among adolescents. Canadian students in grades 8-10 (N = 494) completed questionnaires about their experiences with bullying and victimization and their attitudes about bullying. Eighteen items were identified (post hoc) as reflecting major categories of moral disengagement. Results indicated high levels of frequent victimization and bullying (i.e., 12% and 13% of students, respectively). Reported positive attitudes and beliefs about bullying were significantly more likely among students who engaged in bullying, with 38% of the variance in reported bullying accounted for by the students’ endorsement of strategies for moral disengagement. Interestingly, reported experiences of victimization were also related to moral disengagement, but only for those students who reported moderate levels of bullying. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for school-based interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".