Moral Disengagement and Fear of Retaliation: Why Adolescents Choose to be Passive Bystanders to School Bullying
(2025) PSYP01 20251Department of Psychology
- Abstract
- This study examines the potential overlap between fear of retaliation and moral disengagement as explanations for peer bystander inaction in school bullying. Although typically seen as distinct barriers to peer intervention, the study investigates whether fear of retaliation can function as a moral disengagement mechanism, and whether fear-based and disengagement-based justifications are empirically distinguishable. 163 students aged 15 to 16 completed an online questionnaire involving hypothetical school bullying scenarios. Participants rated their willingness to defend victims and then justified their decisions using items assessing endorsements of fear of retaliation, moral disengagement, downplaying of personal risk, and moral... (More)
- This study examines the potential overlap between fear of retaliation and moral disengagement as explanations for peer bystander inaction in school bullying. Although typically seen as distinct barriers to peer intervention, the study investigates whether fear of retaliation can function as a moral disengagement mechanism, and whether fear-based and disengagement-based justifications are empirically distinguishable. 163 students aged 15 to 16 completed an online questionnaire involving hypothetical school bullying scenarios. Participants rated their willingness to defend victims and then justified their decisions using items assessing endorsements of fear of retaliation, moral disengagement, downplaying of personal risk, and moral engagement. The study employed a within-subjects design across two phases (initial and justification shift) and used linear mixed-effects models to account for methodological considerations like hierarchical data. Results showed convergence between fear-based and disengagement-based justifications: ratings of fear-based justifications remained stable across phases, while those for disengagement-based justifications increased over time, indicating a functional overlap. Inconsistent patterns of positive correlations between justification ratings and corresponding dispositional measures for fear and disengagement imply that these justifications are not strongly trait-driven. Gender differences were observed, with females persistently rating fear-based justifications higher than males. Additionally, participants preferred moral engagement justifications after deciding to intervene, indicating that moral reasoning motivates intervention more than personal safety concerns. These findings refine theoretical models of bystander behaviour and suggest that anti-bullying interventions should address fear of retaliation and moral disengagement simultaneously, to foster moral courage and peer intervention. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9203735
- author
- Goh, Changjun LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- PSYP01 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- school bullying, bystander behaviour, moral disengagement, fear of retaliation
- language
- English
- id
- 9203735
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-23 10:16:43
- date last changed
- 2025-06-23 10:16:43
@misc{9203735,
abstract = {{This study examines the potential overlap between fear of retaliation and moral disengagement as explanations for peer bystander inaction in school bullying. Although typically seen as distinct barriers to peer intervention, the study investigates whether fear of retaliation can function as a moral disengagement mechanism, and whether fear-based and disengagement-based justifications are empirically distinguishable. 163 students aged 15 to 16 completed an online questionnaire involving hypothetical school bullying scenarios. Participants rated their willingness to defend victims and then justified their decisions using items assessing endorsements of fear of retaliation, moral disengagement, downplaying of personal risk, and moral engagement. The study employed a within-subjects design across two phases (initial and justification shift) and used linear mixed-effects models to account for methodological considerations like hierarchical data. Results showed convergence between fear-based and disengagement-based justifications: ratings of fear-based justifications remained stable across phases, while those for disengagement-based justifications increased over time, indicating a functional overlap. Inconsistent patterns of positive correlations between justification ratings and corresponding dispositional measures for fear and disengagement imply that these justifications are not strongly trait-driven. Gender differences were observed, with females persistently rating fear-based justifications higher than males. Additionally, participants preferred moral engagement justifications after deciding to intervene, indicating that moral reasoning motivates intervention more than personal safety concerns. These findings refine theoretical models of bystander behaviour and suggest that anti-bullying interventions should address fear of retaliation and moral disengagement simultaneously, to foster moral courage and peer intervention.}},
author = {{Goh, Changjun}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Moral Disengagement and Fear of Retaliation: Why Adolescents Choose to be Passive Bystanders to School Bullying}},
year = {{2025}},
}