Exploring Relationships Between Adolescents' Moral Reasoning and Anticipated Action Choices in Response to Witnessed Bullying

• In Event: Moral Development in Broad Contexts

Abstract

In this study, 574 high-school students rated potential reasons for intervention in a bullying scenario, then chose which of four actions they would most likely take if they witnessed the situation themselves. They also provided open-ended responses explaining why they chose that action. Using a domain theory lens, endorsement of moral reasoning positively predicted choosing direct intervention, while choosing indirect intervention was marginally positively predicted by endorsement of conventional reasoning. The domains invoked in the open-ended responses showed similar patterns in relation to anticipated actions: most who chose direct intervention cited moral reasons, many who chose indirect intervention cited conventional reasons, and almost all who chose bystanding cited personal or prudential reasons. Implications for bullying prevention will be discussed.

Author

• Emily J. Campbell, University of California - Berkeley