The Roles of Moral Disengagement and Perceived Anti-Bullying Norms in the Aggression of American and South Korean Victimized Youth

Abstract

Peer victimization may lead to aggression among youth in the United States and South Korea. Moral disengagement (MD), a social-cognitive process justifying antisocial actions, may develop from victimization experiences and promote aggression. While MD could explain the victimization-aggression relation, this has not been tested cross-culturally, nor with American or Korean samples. Additionally, the potential buffering effect of anti-bullying classroom norms remains unexplored. We tested whether MD explains the relation between victimization and aggression in American and Korean youth, comparing cross-cultural effect sizes. We also examined if perceived anti-bullying classroom norms buffered against increases in MD or aggression. Using a cross-sectional design, we recruited American (N = 292, 60% female, M_age = 13.59, SD_age = 0.65) and Korean (N = 462, 50% female, M_age = 13.67, SD_age = 0.58) 7th and 8th graders. Participants self-reported victimization experiences, aggressive behaviors, MD, and perceived anti-bullying classroom norms. After testing measurement invariance, we used multiple group structural equation modeling of moderated mediation to compare the groups. MD partially explained the victimization-aggression link in both groups with similar effect sizes. Anti-bullying norms did not moderate any effects but were negatively related to MD. MD appears to explain why victims become aggressive similarly across cultural contexts. Classroom anti-bullying norms reduce MD but do not moderate the negative impacts of victimization.

Keywords

moral disengagement aggression victimization adolescence norms bullying

Peer victimization, whether overt (e.g., physical or verbal violence) or relational (e.g., social exclusion or rumor spreading), is a negative peer experience that adolescents in both the U.S. (Lebrun-Harris et al., 2019; Nansel et al., 2001) and South Korea (henceforth also “Korea”; Kim et al., 2004; Yun & Kim, 2016) contend with. Both forms of victimization are associated with various deleterious outcomes in both countries, including anxiety, depression, low self-worth (Yang et al., 2022), physical health deterioration (Fekkes et al., 2006; Lee, 2018), school achievement difficulties (Laith & Vaillancourt, 2022; Seo et al., 2017), and substance abuse (Kelly et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2018). Notably, research has shown that victimization is linked to increases in aggression within both cultural contexts (Cho, 2019; Walters, 2021). An important avenue for understanding this link is moral disengagement (MD), which has been suggested as a key explanatory mechanism between victimization and aggression (Dou et al., 2020; Falla et al., 2020; Luo & Bussey, 2022). In this study, we explored whether this victimization-MD-aggression relationship can be consistently observed cross-culturally by comparing youth samples from the U.S. and South Korea. Additionally, we examined whether perceived anti-bullying classroom norms moderate the link at either the victimization-MD or MD-aggression stages, potentially serving as a protective factor.

The Developmental Context of South Korea

Korean adolescents develop within a cultural context that is distinct from that of their American counterparts (Kim & Choi, 2014; Yun & Kim, 2016). Korean culture emphasizes collectivist values more than American culture (Kim & Choi, 2014), which may augment the risk and impact of peer victimization. Yun and Kim (2016) argue that adolescents in collectivist cultures are more primed to detect nonconforming individuals and more liable to employ group-based social hostilities, such as rumor spreading or ostracism. Victims, in turn, may feel especially psychologically distressed from disrupting group harmony and being excluded from the collective. Korean terms for victimizing acts, such as “bullying,” reflect this narrative, loosely meaning “group isolation” or “group harassment” (Koo et al., 2008).

Korea's educational structure may further reinforce these dynamics. Unlike U.S. middle schoolers, who typically change classes throughout the day, Korean students stay in a single homeroom class with the same peers for the academic year as teachers rotate between classrooms. The fixed peer environment provides little opportunity for relief from group-based victimization, and the majority of bullies in Korea belong to the same homeroom as the victim (Koo et al., 2008). Given these features of the Korean context and their potential implications for peer victimization processes, comparisons with culturally distinct American youth can inform comprehensive and culturally sensitive theory and internvetion efforts.

Victimization and Aggression in Adolescence

Peer victimization during adolescence can precipitate a variety of negative outcomes, including the often overlooked consequence of victims also developing aggression. Prospective studes have illustrated the link between victimization and subsequent aggression in the U.S. and South Korea (Choi & Park, 2018; Walters & Espelage, 2018), with meta-analyses supporting this relation across diverse cultural contexts (e.g., Cook et al., 2010; Walters, 2021).

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1979) provides a theoretical foundation for understanding this link. SCT highlights how individual cognitions, including observations, self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and moreal values influence behavior within broader social contexts such as norms and institutional regulations. Within this framework, victimized youth may be aggressive due to cognitive changes resulting from victimization experiences, with classroom norms serving as a contextual factor that may shape this process.

Could Moral Disengagement Explain the Victimization-Aggression Link?

A central mechanism within SCT that may explain the victimization-aggression link is MD. MD is a social cognitive process of selectively applying one's moral code of conduct (Bandura, 1990), which functions to protect oneself from guilt when causing harm to others (Bandura, 2016). MD is consistently associated with engaging in various forms of youth aggression, including bullying perpetration in both Eastern and Western samples (e.g., Shin et al., 2017; Thornberg & Jungert, 2014; Wang et al., 2020).

SCT suggests MD may result from victimization through various pathways. Victims often develop self-blaming attributions in both Eastern and Western samples (Chen & Chen, 2019; Schacter et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2022), which constitutes a form of victim blaming, a known mechanism of MD (Runions et al., 2019). Additionally, prolonged victimization could lead to MD through desensitization (Luo & Bussey, 2022), creating perceptions that victimizing behaviors are acceptable and normative. This process may relate to the “pro-bullying paradox” (Marsh et al., 2023), whereby victims are more likely than non-victimized peers to endorse victimizers and their behaviors.

While an alternative hypothesis might posit that MD explains why aggressive youth become victimized, longitudinal evidence indicates that MD predicts increased aggression over time, but not vice-versa (Sticca & Perren, 2015; Wang et al., 2017). Accordingly, several recent studies have examined MD as a mediator linking victimization to aggression. Research from China and Australia suggests that MD may link cybervictimization to cyberaggression (Dou et al., 2020; Luo & Bussey, 2022), while Falla et al. (2020) found MD mediated prospective links between victimization and aggression in Spanish adolescents.

Despite these promising findings, the need for additional cross-cultural studies has been noted (Falla et al., 2020). The victimization-MD-aggression pathway has not been examined in Korean samples nor tested in cross-national designs. While evidence from Korean samples suggests MD is related to aggression (Han & Choi, 2019; Jung & Park, 2020), and victimization to MD (Schwartz et al., 2002; Song & Oh, 2018), cultural variation between the U.S. and South Korea could make concrete predictions difficult withot direct empirical testing.

Perceptions of Classroom Norms, Aggression, and Moral Disengagement

In addition to cultural context, perceived classroom norms toward antisocial behaviors may serve as an important moderator in the victimization-aggression pathway. Classroom norms represent shared expectations among peers about acceptable behaviors and become particularly salent during adolescence, playing a critical role in shaping adolescents’ social relationships (Shin, 2017) and aggressive behaviors (e.g., Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Sentse et al., 2015). When classroom aggression norms are strong, especially when endorsed by popular students, they can increase aggression and contribute to cyclical patterns of victimization and aggression over time (Mercer et al., 2009; Velásquez et al., 2021).

However, not all norms promote aggression; some can be protective. Henry et al. (2000) demonstrated that in classrooms with strong anti-bullying norms, aggression decreased over time. Teng et al. (2020) showed that a positive school climate can buffer the link between MD and bullying, suggesting that supportive environments may disrupt the processes that lead from MD to aggressive behaviors. Moreover, a positive classroom climate has been associated with decreased MD as well (Wang et al., 2021).

Norm salience is also an important factor to consider (Menesini et al., 2015; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), as it appears to be independent of the norms themselves and plays an important role in the behaviors and adjustment of the students (Dijkstra & Gest, 2015). This may be particularly pertinent in cross-cultural research, as norms tend to be more pronounced in collectivist cultures (Koo et al., 2008).

We expected that perceived anti-bullying classroom norms could moderate the relation between victimization and MD, as well as between MD and aggression, potentially serving as a buffer at both stages. In examining the moderations, we also controlled for norm salience.

Present Study

The present study aimed to further understand the association between aggression and victimization in adolescents by examining explanatory role of MD in a cross-national sample of American and Korean middle schoolers. We examined overt and relational forms of victimization and aggression separately, as these may vary across cultures in their prevalence and associations with other constructs (Voulgaridou & Kokkinos, 2023), and prior studies linking these constructs to MD within single cultural contexts have not made this distinction. We also expected perceived class anti-bullying norms as an important protective factor, potentially moderating how victimization and aggression would be related to MD. We also sought to test cross-cultural similarities or differences in our proposed model. Americans and Koreans develop in distinct cultural contexts, but some research has suggested similar processes may emerge in both countries. Still, given these two alternatives, our investigation of cultural differences was exploratory.

Method

Participants

Participants were 7th and 8th graders recruited from Christian private schools in the southeastern U.S. (N = 292, 60.3% girls, M_age = 13.59, SD_age = 0.65) and from public schools in three well-populated suburban cities of Gyeonggi-do in South Korea (N = 462, 50.2% girls, 1.5% unspecified gender, M_age = 13.67, SD_age = 0.58). In both countries, initial letters describing the study and asking for parental informed consent were sent out to parents of students enrolled at cooperating schools. Students with parental consent were then asked for assent to participate in the study on the first day of data collection at all sites. Students in the Korean sample predominantly identified as ethnically Korean (> 96%), with a minority identifying as Southeast Asian, multiracial, or another race. Most of the students in the American sample identified as White (79.5%), with other children identifying as Black (4.8%), Hispanic (3.8%), Asian (< 1%), American Indian or Alaska Native (1%), or another race (1.4%), with 8.2% indicating a preference to not answer or leaving the question blank.

Study Procedure

Ethical approval of all study procedures was given by the Institutional Review Board in the U.S. and South Korea. The study questionnaire was administered in school settings during group or classroom sessions, over two days in the U.S. and in one day in Korea. Adolescents with parental informed consent were read an assent script and given the option to participate. Those who assented completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires and received a small gift as compensation.

Measures

All measures were originally developed in English. Korean versions were created using forward and back-translation by two independent translators fluent in both English and Korean. Unless otherwise noted, scale composite scores were computed by averaging item responses.

Moral Disengagement Toward Bullying (MD)

Students’ MD toward bullying were assessed using a 13-item scale developed by Hymel et al. (2005). Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 4 = Strongly agree) and included statements such as “Kids get bullied because they are different.” A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed two items as weak indicators in both samples. Consequently, “Bullying is a criminal offense” (American λ = .17; Korean λ = .32) and “It's my responsibility to intervene or do something when I see bullying” (American λ = .26; Korean λ = .16) were excluded from the scale. Additionally, two items with low factor loadings in at least one sample, “In my group of friends, bullying is okay” (American λ = .38) and “Bullying gets kids to understand what is important to the group” (Korean λ = .41), were removed. Internal consistency for the remaining 9 items was acceptable for the American (α = .74) and Korean (α = .83) samples.

Overt and Relational Victimization Experiences

Peer victimization was measured with 10-items from the Children's Social Experiences Questionnaire-Self Report (CSEQ-SR; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). Students responded to overt and relational subscales (5 items each), such as “How often do you get hit by another kid at school?” (overt) and “How often do other kids leave you out on purpose when it is time to play or do an activity?” (relational), using a scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (All the time). Internal consistency was satisfactory for both samples (U.S.: overt α = .81, relational α = .86; Korea: overt α = .80, relational α = .76).

Overt and Relational Aggressive Behavior

Self-reported aggressive behavior was assessed using 6 overt and 6 relational aggression items from the Forms and Functions of Aggression Measure developed by Little et al. (2003). Examples included “I’m the kind of person who often fights with others” (overt) and “I’m the kind of person who tells my friends to stop liking someone” (relational), rated from 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Completely true). Internal consistency was adequate for both samples (U.S.: overt α = .70, relational α = .80; Korea: overt α = .72, relational α = .69).

Perceived Anti-Bullying Classroom Norms and Bullying Norm Salience

Perceptions and salience of classroom bullying norms were assessed using the classroom norms measure developed by Salmivalli and Voeten (2004). Students indicated how their classmates would react to various pro-bully or anti-bully actions during a bullying situation, such as befriending the victim, telling the teacher, or joining the bully. Classmates’ anticipated reactions were one of seven possible choices, which were coded as 0 if students indicated there would be no normative reaction from their classmates, 1 if their classmates would react positively (i.e., their classmates would think this person is nice, approve of this behavior, or admire them), and −1 if their classmates would react negatively (i.e., others would avoid them, disapprove of their behavior, or think they are stupid). Accordingly, actions coded as 1 are considered compliant with group norms, 0 as neither breaking nor adhering to norms, and −1 as violating the norms.

As outlined by Salmivalli and Voeten (2004), these response types are categorically distinct and should not be interpreted as a continuous or ordinal scale. As the authors suggest, homogeneity analysis by optimal scaling (HOMALS; Gifi, 1990) can be used to extract continuous factor dimensions from categorical response patterns (please see Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004 for a more detailed explanation of this approach for this measure).

Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) originally extracted two factors. The first factor was labeled as “anti-bullying norms” where higher scores reflected the tendency to react positively to pro-victim actions and negatively to pro-bully actions, whereas lower scores signify more negative reactions to anti-bully actions and positive reactions to pro-bully actions. The second extracted factor represented bullying norm salience, where higher scores reflected a tendency to indicate a normative reaction (whether positive or negative, e.g., coded as −1 or 1), and lower scores represented the tendency to respond that there would be no normative reaction (e.g., coded as 0).

In the current study, HOMALS was conducted separately for the American and Korean samples, yielding two factors analogous to those found by Salmivalli and Voeten (2004). Scores for perceived anti-bullying norms and bullying norm salience (M = 0, SD = 1) were assigned to each participant. Further methodological details can be found in the supplemental materials.

Results

Means and standard deviations of the variables of interest are presented in Table 1. Variable intercorrelations by country can be found in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, anti-bullying norms were negatively correlated with MD, overt and relational victimization, and overt and relational aggression for Americans. Findings were similar for Koreans, except that perceived anti-bullying norms did not significantly correlate with overt aggression and victimization. MD, overt and relational victimization, and overt and relational aggression were generally positively intercorrelated in both samples.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Continuous Variables by Country.

	Americans		Koreans
	M	SD	M	SD
Overt victimization	1.52	0.59	1.26	0.45
Relational victimization	2.02	0.85	1.35	0.52
Moral disengagement	1.50	0.40	1.63	0.50
Overt aggression	1.20	0.28	1.20	0.28
Relational aggression	1.33	0.41	1.15	0.25

Table 2.

Intercorrelations of Variables by Country.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Overt Victimization	—	.65*	.26*	.29*	.09	−.11	−.04
2. Relational Victimization	.41*	—	.23*	.27*	.25*	−.23*	.05
3. Moral disengagement	.26*	.21*	—	.41*	.39*	−.18*	−.01
4. Overt Aggression	.37*	.21*	.28*	—	.47*	−.09	.00
5. Relational Aggression	.27*	.24*	.28*	.57*	—	−.15*	−.02
6. Anti-bullying norms	−.10*	−.21*	−.15*	−.13*	−.09*	—	.00
7. Normative influence	−.03	−.10*	−.23*	−.11*	−.07	−.09	—

*p < .05.

Note. Intercorrelations for Koreans are shown below the diagonal; those for Americans are shown above the diagonal.

A series of t tests compared boys and girls on the variables of interest within each country. American boys reported higher levels of MD, t(239) = 2.832, p = .005, overt victimization, t(278) = 3.435, p < .001, and overt aggression, t(261) = 2.883, p = .007 and lower levels of relational aggression, t(254) = −2.738, p = .003 than did American girls. On the other hand, Korean boys only reported higher levels of MD compared to Korean girls, t(445) = 2.593, p = .010.

Prior to analyses, MD, overt and relational victimization, and overt and relational aggression were tested for measurement invariance (MI). Acceptable MI would allow for direct comparisons between the American and Korean samples. The analyses indicated that MD and overt victimization and aggression displayed acceptable MI, whereas relational victimization and aggression did not. A detailed report of these analyses and results can be found in the supplemental materials.

With the MI results, we investigated a model where MD explains the relation between overt victimization and overt aggression and directly compared the model between the U.S. and Korean samples. Then, we analyzed models for MD explaining the link between relational victimization and relational aggression separately for each country without direct comparison.

Path Model and Mediation Analyses

A path analysis using multiple group structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to test a model where overt victimization predicts MD, which predicts overt aggression in both groups simultaneously. Bullying norm salience and gender (dichotomized) were controlled as covariates. Following a model-building approach, the main effect of anti-bullying norms was included in the model, but the addition of its interaction term was tested separately below.

Individual paths coefficients were constrained, one at a time, in order of increasing coefficient differences between the two groups to test whether culture moderated relations among variables. Each constraint was compared to the unconstrained model to assess whether model fit significantly decreased. A significant decrease in model fit occurs when the CFI decreases by more than .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) and shows that the coefficients are unequal in both groups, suggesting cultural moderation.

A total of six parameters were able to be constrained to equality without a significant decrease in model fit (ΔCFI = −.000) and had good overall fit (CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, SRMR = .011). Most of the constrained parameters were covariates; the only path of interest constrained to equality between both groups was the path from overt victimization to MD. As can be seen in Figure 1, overt victimization was positively related to MD equally across both groups. Anti-bullying norms related to decreased MD as a main effect in both groups. MD was positively associated with overt aggression, although this relation was stronger for Koreans. In both groups, there continued to be a residual positive direct effect of overt victimization on overt aggression, though the direct effect was stronger for Koreans. Anti-bullying norms were unrelated to overt aggression in both groups.

We tested whether MD explained the relation between overt victimization and overt aggression using a bootstrapped approach. Because the path from MD to overt aggression differed between Americans and Koreans, the indirect effect was computed separately for each group. The indirect effect was significant for Americans (IE = 0.047, bootstrapped SE = 0.016, p = .003) and Koreans (IE = 0.021, bootstrapped SE = 0.009, p = .025). Though these estimates are based on a MD-overt aggression path differing between both groups, a bootstrapped difference test showed their difference was not significantly different from zero (p = .072). Consequently, overt victimization was positively associated with overt aggression with higher MD partially explaining this relation similarly for Americans and Koreans.

Moderation Analyses

We sought to build upon the above model by investigating whether perceived anti-bullying classroom norms could buffer either the overt victimization-MD path or the MD-overt aggression path. The simultaneous addition of these two product terms into the model drastically reduced model fit, dropping the CFI to .103. Both interaction terms (overt victimization × anti-bullying norms and MD × anti-bullying norms) were not significant in both groups.

Exploring the Role of Moral Disengagement in Relational Victimization and Aggression

Because relational victimization and aggression did not display acceptable MI, we analyzed the relations among these variables and MD separately by sample. While the specific effect sizes cannot be directly compared between the two groups, general observations of direction and significance of relations can be discussed, keeping in mind that the measures of relational victimization and aggression may be capturing slightly different constructs in both samples (Sauerwein & Theis, 2021). Because these models are exploratory and do not need metrics of model fit for effect comparison, PROCESS model 58 (Hayes, 2017) was run in each sample to assess MD's explanatory role in the relation between relational victimization and aggression, with anti-bullying norms moderating both the victimization → MD path and the MD → aggression path.

In the American sample, relational victimization was positively associated with MD, b = 0.100, t(186) = 2.591, p = .010. While higher perceived anti-bullying norms were related to less MD, b = −0.068, t(186) = −2.211, p = .028, these perceptions were not a significant moderator of victimization's effect. MD was positively related to relational aggression, b = 0.327, t(185) = 4.540, p < .001. Relational victimization had a residual, positive association with relational aggression, b = 0.080, t(187) = 2.309, p = .022. Anti-bullying norms did not significantly associate with nor moderate MD's effect on relational aggression. Lastly, mediation analyses revealed MD served as a significant explanatory variable for the link between relational victimization and aggression, IE = 0.033, bootstrapped 95% CI [.007, .068]. These findings are analogous to what emerged in the American sample with overt victimization and aggression, that is, a significant but partial indirect effect.

In the Korean sample, relational victimization was positively linked to MD, b = 0.168, t(430) = 3.640, p < .001. While higher perceived anti-bullying norms were related to less MD, b = −0.050, t(430) = −2.021, p = .044, these perceptions were not a significant moderator of victimization's effect. MD was positively associated with relational aggression, b = 0.120, t(429) = 4.944, p < .001. Relational victimization showed a residual positive link to aggression, b = 0.093, t(429) = 4.057, p < .001. Anti-bullying norms did not significantly associate with relational aggression, nor was it a significant moderator. Bootstrapped mediation analyses revealed that MD was a significant explanatory variable, IE = .020, bootstrapped 95% CI [.004, .051]. Results for this model were similar to results from the overt model for Korean youth and reflect the same direction and significance of effects as was found in the relational model for Americans.

Discussion

The present study investigated MD as an explanatory variable in the victimization-aggression link using a cross-national sample of American and Korean adolescents and examined the potential moderating role of perceived anti-bullying classroom norms. We found evidence that MD explains the relation between overt victimization and aggression, consistent with SCT and replicating previous findings in Spain (Falla et al., 2020), China (Dou et al., 2020), and Australia (Luo & Bussey, 2022). Importantly, we were able to directly compare the effect sizes of the relations among overt victimization, MD, and overt aggression between American and Korean middle schoolers, which revealed that these constructs mostly appear to relate similarly to one another across American and Korean cultural contexts. Additionally, analogous findings emerged in the separate relational victimization-aggression models, even though measurement non-invariance precluded direct comparison. This replication of previous results in Korean and American youth provides further evidence on the generalizability of MD as an explanatory mechanism for the victimization-aggression link in various cultural contexts.

Moral Disengagement Explains Aggression in Victims

Our results provide evidence that MD partially explains why victimized youth may display aggression, particularly in the case of overt victimization and aggression. That is, victimized youth may be experiencing atypical cognitions from being targets of overt victimization. These atypical cognitions might include self-blame, desensitization to aggression, and ultimately acceptance or endorsement of such behaviors (Luo & Bussey, 2022; Runions et al., 2019). In turn, these maladaptive alterations appear to enhance victim's likelihood of engaging in the same behaviors of which they are victims. Drawing on SCT (Bandura, 1979), other social-cognitive factors may also account for this relation besides MD. These may include emotion dysregulation (O'Connor et al., 2019) coupled with a desire for retaliation or “getting even” (O'Connor, 2021; Runions et al., 2018). Through the lens of social learning theory, another popular social-cognitive theory, victims may also be aggressive simply through social learning from their aggressive peers (Lawrence & Wojciechowski, 2025), especially popular or well-accepted ones (Menesini et al., 2015). Future research could explore these alternative pathways to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the links between victimization and aggression.

Overt Versus Relational Antisocial Behavior Across Cultures

Previous studies examining MD and antisocial behavior did not separate victimization or aggression into overt and relational forms, nor were cross-cultural MI analyses conducted. It is interesting that we were able to establish measurement invariance for overt victimization and aggression, but not for their relational counterparts. The MI results signified that the latent configurations of relational victimization and aggression are similar in both cultural contexts, but the relative importance (i.e., factor loadings) of certain aspects of these constructs appears to differ. This may underscore the Western-designed measures’ inefficiency in capturing relational-based aggression in other cultural contexts despite accurate translations. Because acceptable MI was established for overt forms of victimization and aggression, these physical behaviors are possibly more universally understood and recognized as antisocial behavior. As Korea is a collectivist culture where relational forms of aggression prevail (Koo et al., 2008), it is important for future work to investigate whether a more generalizable latent construct for this can be established.

That said, these cultural differences are also likely a reflection of reciprocal determinism, a facet of SCT that emphasizes that behavior both shapes and is shaped by internal (attitudes, beliefs) and environmental (peer, school, culture) factors. The nature of this dynamic reciprocity may make a truly “universal” index of aggression and victimization (especially in a relational form) difficult to achieve. As a first step, it would be prudent for future cross-cultural research to attend to and account for the relevant personal and environment factors that differ between groups (such as attitudes on conformity and schoolwide policies on aggression).

The Role of Perceived Anti-Bullying Classroom Norms

In past research, perceived anti-bullying class norms were associated with adaptive social relationships and development (Chang, 2004) and SCT emphasizes the importance of social norms in shaping indiviudal cognition and behavior. Thus, we investigated whether these norms would disrupt the associations of victimization with MD and MD with aggression. We found main effects, such that these norms were negatively related to MD in both samples, but there was no significant moderation. Anti-bullying norms may not have moderated how victimization was related to MD or how MD was related to aggression, perhaps because the links between these constructs may be robust enough to be unaffected by a healthy environment. Still, the main effect of anti-bullying norms in potentially reducing MD could be a promising avenue for future research.

Limitations and Future Directions

While our investigation yielded promising findings, our methodology had some limitations. First, the theoretical model behind our study is causal in nature and supported by previous longitudinal studies (e.g., Falla et al., 2020). However, our cross-sectional data cannot speak to causal direction of the relations investigated. While our ability to make cause-and-effect claims about our findings is limited, it is still an important contribution to the field to know that the victimization-aggression link is observable within a single timepoint and with culturally distinct groups. Future investigations could incorporate longitudinal study designs with cross-cultural samples to further investigate the causal relation MD has with aggression and victimization and elucidate the role of classroom norms when developing interventions.

We have argued why victimization leads to MD, which then leads to aggression, and not the other way around. However, we also discussed that aggression is linked to victimization cross-sectionally and longitudinally (i.e., Walters, 2021). Accordingly, a mechanism for how aggression leads to victimization merits exploration as well. A potential explanation could be that aggressive youth tend to have fewer supportive peer relationships (Casper et al., 2020; Swit et al., 2024), which can make them easier targets for victimization (Sentse et al., 2017). Understanding the mechanism linking aggression to victimization will aid the field's understanding of aggression cycles and better inform intervention strategies.

Implications and Conclusions

Overall, the findings from our analyses have several implications for developmental theories of peer aggression and school-based bullying interventions. First, we provide evidence that victimization and MD operate similarly as correlates of aggression across various cultures. This indicates that an intervention designed to reduce aggression and bullying through reducing MD (by encouraging peer accountability, empathy, and shifting blame away from victims) may be easily transferable to various cultures. These findings largely support SCT in demonstrating that experiences and changes in cognition relate to behavior. Our results also imply that norms-based interventions (e.g., Perkins et al., 2011) remain a fruitful avenue for combatting moral disengagement in schools, which may then reduce aggression as well. Lastly, our results call for a need to continue to pay special attention to the modality (overt vs. relational) of aggression in future empirical research and interventions. Measuring and tracking aggression in both of these forms, or potentially other culturally-relevant forms, will give a more accurate illustration of students’ experiences, especially in cultures where the aggression may manifest in different ways.

To conclude, this study contributed to the field's growing understanding of MD, further emphasizing its role in the relation between victimization and aggression in adolescents both in the U.S. and Korea. Classroom and peer norms may play a role in helping reduce the occurrence of MD as well. Applied research in school settings should consider the cultural context when designing programs that target decreasing MD and fostering anti-bullying norms.

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-1-dev-10.1177_2192001X261428709 - Supplemental material for The Roles of Moral Disengagement and Perceived Anti-Bullying Norms in the Aggression of American and South Korean Victimized Youth

Supplemental material, sj-doc-1-dev-10.1177_2192001X261428709 for The Roles of Moral Disengagement and Perceived Anti-Bullying Norms in the Aggression of American and South Korean Victimized Youth by Daniel R Mack, Joo Young Yang, Sunmi Seo, Mi Yeon Park, Hyoun K Kim and Kristina L McDonald in International Journal of Developmental Science

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-2-dev-10.1177_2192001X261428709 - Supplemental material for The Roles of Moral Disengagement and Perceived Anti-Bullying Norms in the Aggression of American and South Korean Victimized Youth

Supplemental material, sj-doc-2-dev-10.1177_2192001X261428709 for The Roles of Moral Disengagement and Perceived Anti-Bullying Norms in the Aggression of American and South Korean Victimized Youth by Daniel R Mack, Joo Young Yang, Sunmi Seo, Mi Yeon Park, Hyoun K Kim and Kristina L McDonald in International Journal of Developmental Science

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Daniel R Mack

Joo Young Yang

Sunmi Seo

Mi Yeon Park

Hyoun K Kim

Kristina L McDonald

Ethical Considerations

All procedures for this investigation were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Alabama (ID 18-08-1415) and Yonsei University (approval number 7001988-201912-HR-469-06) in 2018.

Consent to Participate

Parent or legal guardian written informed consent for their child's participation was obtained, and all children with parental informed consent had the opportunity to provide assent to participate.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available upon reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Daniel R. Mack is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Alabama studying Developmental Science. His research interests focus on the roles of cognitions, attitudes, beliefs, and developmental contexts of children, adolescents, and emerging adults in shaping their adustment and relationships with peers, friends, and family members.

Joo Young Yang is an Assistant Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her major research interests include peer relations and peers’ involvement in racial ethnic socialization during adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Sunmi Seo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Bowie State University. Her research interests include adolescents’ social development, behavior, goal setting, morality, and peer treatment.

Mi Yeon Park is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Child and Family Studies at Yonsei University in South Korea. Her research interests center on bullying-related youth adjustment, with a focus on social support from families, peers, and teachers, as well as classroom norms, as protective factors. She is also interested in socioemotional adjustment in peer and school contexts, including internalizing problems (e.g., depression and anxiety) and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression).

Hyoun K. Kim is a Professor of Child and Family Studies in South Korea. Her research focuses on youth development in contemporary digital ecologies, with particular emphasis on stress-regulation systems as key mechanisms shaping adjustment outcomes. Her work examines family- and peer-context risk and protective processes using dyadic and longitudinal designs and advanced quantitative methods to inform prevention and intervention efforts for youth and families.

Kristina L. McDonald is an Associate Professor of Developmental Science at the University of Alabama. Her research expertise is in the social development and peer relationships of older children and adolescents, specifically the social cognitive processes underlying problematic peer interactions and how context may affect peer interactions.

References

Bandura

(1979). The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In Toch

(Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice (pp. 198–236). Waveland Press.

Bandura

(1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00270.x

Bandura

(2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers.

Casper

D. M.

Card

N. A.

Barlow

(2020). Relational aggression and victimization during adolescence: A meta-analytic review of unique associations with popularity, peer acceptance, rejection, and friendship characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 80, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.012

Chang

(2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children's social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.691

Chen

W.-R.

Chen

L.-M.

(2019). Self-blame tendency of bullied victims in elementary and secondary schools. Educational Studies, 45(4), 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1509772

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Cho

(2019). Bullying victimization-perpetration link during early adolescence in South Korea: Applying the individual trait approach and opportunity perspective. Journal of School Violence, 18(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1483246

Choi

Park

(2018). Who becomes a bullying perpetrator after the experience of bullying victimization? The moderating role of self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(11), 2414–2423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0913-7

10.

Cook

C. R.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

Kim

T. E.

Sadek

(2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020149

11.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1996). Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400007148

12.

Dijkstra

J. K.

Gest

S. D.

(2015). Peer norm salience for academic achievement, prosocial behavior, and bullying: Implications for adolescent school experiences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614524303

13.

Dou

Xiang

Sun

Chen

(2020). Link between cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among undergraduates: Mediating effects of trait anger and moral disengagement. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 13, 1269–1276. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S286543

14.

Falla

Ortega-Ruiz

Runions

Romera

E. M.

(2020). Why do victims become perpetrators of peer bullying? Moral disengagement in the cycle of violence. Youth & Society, 54(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X20973702

15.

Fekkes

Pijpers

F. I. M.

Fredriks

A. M.

Vogels

Verloove-Vanhorick

S. P.

(2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117(5), 1568–1574. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0187

16.

Gifi

(1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis (Vol. 8). Wiley Chichester.

17.

Han

S.-Y.

Choi

(2019). The effect of adolescents’ callousness on reactive and proactive aggression through moral disengagement. Korean Journal of Childcare and Education, 15(6), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.14698/jkcce.2019.15.06.077

18.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

19.

Henry

Guerra

Huesmann

Tolan

VanAcker

Eron

(2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005142429725

20.

Hymel

Rocke-Henderson

Bonanno

R. A.

(2005). Moral disengagement: A framework for understanding bullying among adolescents. Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/t50825-000

21.

Jung

D. Y.

Park

J. H.

(2020). Effect of moral disengagement on cyberbullying perpetration in middle school students and the moderating role of self-control. Family and Environment Research, 58(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.6115/fer.2020.005

22.

Kelly

E. V.

Newton

N. C.

Stapinski

L. A.

Slade

Barrett

E. L.

Conrod

P. J.

Teesson

(2015). Concurrent and prospective associations between bullying victimization and substance use among Australian adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 154, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.012

23.

Kim

D. H.

Hong

J. S.

Wei

H.-S.

Lee

J. M.

Hahm

H. C.

Espelage

D. L.

(2018). Pathways from bullying victimization to alcohol and tobacco use in South Korean adolescents: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(3), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1086/699187

24.

Kim

Choi

S.-H.

(2014). Individualism, collectivism, and child development: A Korean perspective. In Greenfield

P. M.

Cocking

R. R.

(Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (1st ed, pp. 227–257). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315746555

25.

Kim

Y. S.

Koh

Y.-J.

Leventhal

B. L.

(2004). Prevalence of school bullying in Korean middle school students. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(8), 737–741. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.8.737

26.

Koo

Kwak

Smith

P. K.

(2008). Victimization in Korean schools: The nature, incidence, and distinctive features of Korean bullying or wang-ta. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220801974084

27.

Laith

Vaillancourt

(2022). The temporal sequence of bullying victimization, academic achievement, and school attendance: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 64, 101722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101722

28.

Lawrence

T. I.

Wojciechowski

(2025). Developmental pathway from associating with antisocial peers to cyber and traditional bullying. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 17(S1), S22–S30. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001843

29.

Lebrun-Harris

L. A.

Sherman

L. J.

Limber

S. P.

Miller

B. D.

Edgerton

E. A.

(2019). Bullying victimization and perpetration among US children and adolescents: 2016 national survey of children’s health. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(9), 2543–2557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1170-9

30.

Lee

J. H.

(2018). Victimization by bullying and physical symptoms among South Korean schoolchildren. The Journal of School Nursing, 34(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840517696962

31.

Little

T. D.

Jones

S. M.

Henrich

C. C.

Hawley

P. H.

(2003). Disentangling the ‘whys’ from the ‘whats’ of aggressive behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000128

32.

Luo

Bussey

(2022). Mediating role of moral disengagement in the perpetration of cyberbullying by victims and bystanders. Journal of Adolescence, 94(8), 1142–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12092

33.

Marsh

H. W.

Guo

Parker

P. D.

Pekrun

Basarkod

Dicke

Parada

R. H.

Reeve

Craven

Ciarrochi

Sahdra

Devine

E. K.

(2023). Peer victimization: An integrative review and cross-national test of a tripartite model. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09765-x

34.

Menesini

Palladino

B. E.

Nocentini

(2015). Emotions of moral disengagement, class norms, and bullying in adolescence: A multilevel approach. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61(1), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.1.0124

35.

Mercer

S. H.

McMillen

J. S.

DeRosier

M. E.

(2009). Predicting change in children's aggression and victimization using classroom-level descriptive norms of aggression and pro-social behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 47(4), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.001

36.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094–2100. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094

37.

O'Connor

K. E.

(2021). Psychosocial adjustment across aggressor/victim subgroups: A systematic review and critical evaluation of theory. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 24(3), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-021-00347-3

38.

O'Connor

K. E.

Farrell

A. D.

Kliewer

Lepore

S. J.

(2019). Social and emotional adjustment across aggressor/victim subgroups: Are aggressive-victims distinct? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(11), 2222–2240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01104-0

39.

Perkins

H. W.

Craig

D. W.

Perkins

J. M.

(2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210398004

40.

Runions

K. C.

Salmivalli

Shaw

Burns

Cross

(2018). Beyond the reactive-proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44(5), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21770

41.

Runions

K. C.

Shaw

Bussey

Thornberg

Salmivalli

Cross

D. S.

(2019). Moral disengagement of pure bullies and bully/victims: Shared and distinct mechanisms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(9), 1835–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01067-2

42.

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000488

43.

Sauerwein

Theis

(2021). New ways of dealing with lacking measurement invariance. In Oude Groote Beverborg

Feldhoff

Maag Merki

Radisch

(Eds.), Concept and design developments in school improvement research: Longitudinal, multilevel and mixed methods and their relevance for educational accountability (pp. 63–82). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69345-9_5

44.

Schacter

H. L.

White

S. J.

Chang

V. Y.

Juvonen

(2015). Why me?': Characterological self-blame and continued victimization in the first year of middle school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(3), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.865194

45.

Schwartz

Farver

J. M.

Chang

Lee-Shin

(2002). Victimization in South Korean children's peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014749131245

46.

Sentse

Prinzie

Salmivalli

(2017). Testing the direction of longitudinal paths between victimization, peer rejection, and different types of internalizing problems in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(5), 1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0216-y

47.

Sentse

Veenstra

Kiuru

Salmivalli

(2015). A longitudinal multilevel study of individual characteristics and classroom norms in explaining bullying behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(5), 943–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9949-7

48.

Seo

H.-J.

Jung

Y.-E.

Kim

M.-D.

Bahk

W.-M.

(2017). Factors associated with bullying victimization among Korean adolescents. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13, 2429–2435. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S140535

49.

Shin

(2017). Examining early adolescents’ peer climate using descriptive and status norms on academic engagement and aggressive behavior in the classroom. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18(3), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9494-5

50.

Shin

J. Y.

Davis

S. M.

DiBlasi

(2017). Moral disengagement and discrimination experiences as predictors of bullying among Korean-American adolescents. Medical Research Archives, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v5i9.1498

51.

Song

(2018). Factors influencing bystanders’ behavioral reactions in cyberbullying situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.008

52.

Sticca

Perren

(2015). The chicken and the egg: Longitudinal associations between moral deficiencies and bullying: A parallel process latent growth model. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.1.0085

53.

Swit

C. S.

Harty

S. C.

Pascoe

(2024). Relational and physical aggression in preschool-age children: Associations with teacher, parent, sibling, and peer relationship quality. Aggressive Behavior, 50(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22115

54.

Teng

Bear

G. G.

Yang

Nie

Guo

(2020). Moral disengagement and bullying perpetration: A longitudinal study of the moderating effect of school climate. School Psychology, 35(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000348

55.

Thornberg

Jungert

(2014). School bullying and the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 40(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21509

56.

Velásquez

A. M.

Saldarriaga

L. M.

Castellanos

Bukowski

W. M.

(2021). The effect of classroom aggression-related peer group norms on students’ short-term trajectories of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 47(6), 672–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21988

57.

Voulgaridou

Kokkinos

C. M.

(2023). Relational aggression in adolescents across different cultural contexts: A systematic review of the literature. Adolescent Research Review, 8, 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-023-00207-x

58.

Walters

G. D.

(2021). School-age bullying victimization and perpetration: A meta-analysis of prospective studies and research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020906513

59.

Walters

G. D.

Espelage

D. L.

(2018). From victim to victimizer: Hostility, anger, and depression as mediators of the bullying victimization–bullying perpetration association. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.12.003

60.

Wang

Ryoo

J. H.

Swearer

S. M.

Turner

Goldberg

T. S.

(2017). Longitudinal relationships between bullying and moral disengagement among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1304–1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0577-0

61.

Wang

Yang

Wang

Zhang

Xie

Lei

(2020). Deviant peer affiliation and bullying perpetration in adolescents: The mediating role of moral disengagement and the moderating role of moral identity. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 154(3), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1696733

62.

Wang

Zhao

Yang

Lei

(2021). School climate and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration: A moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and friends’ moral identity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17-18), 9601–9622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519860089

63.

Yang

J. Y.

McDonald

K. L.

Seo

(2022). Attributions about peer victimization in US and Korean adolescents and associations with internalizing problems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(10), 2018–2032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01622-4

64.

Yun

Kim

S.-G.

(2016). Bullying among South Korean adolescents: Prevalence and association with psychological adjustment. Violence and Victims, 31(1), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00138