Risk factors for the development of aggressive behavior toward peers have been studied for decades (Lansford,
2018). Personal correlates of youth’s aggressive behavior include multiple factors in the cognitive, emotional, motivational, and moral domains. Related to the latter, aggressive behavior is inherently “immoral”, because it causes harm to the victim; it is therefore not surprising that interest in the moral correlates of peer aggression has increased during the last two decades. However, research gaps still exist, especially with a lack of integration of different moral correlates into a single model that allows testing the relative strength of each moral dimension as well as their interactive effects. Another important gap in this literature relates to the very limited analysis of class-level moral dimensions, especially in a longitudinal design. To begin to fill these gaps, the present study combined two moral constructs that have been rarely analyzed together in the aggression literature involving adolescents, namely moral identity and moral disengagement. Adopting a longitudinal, multilevel approach, this study aimed to test the prospective associations of adolescents’ moral identity and moral disengagement, the latter measured both as an individual trait-like characteristic and as a class-level, collective dimension, with adolescents’ aggressive behavior over six months. Finally, another noteworthy research gap is that previous studies have usually adopted general measures of aggressive behavior, without distinguishing different types based on the underlying motivation (i.e., whether the aggression is reactive or proactive), or focused only on particular categories of aggressive behavior such as school bullying. Therefore, to further expand the current research on youth’s morality and aggression, the present study included both reactive and proactive aggression as outcomes.
Reactive and Proactive Aggression
Considering the underlying purposes that aggression may serve, two functions of aggressive behavior can be distinguished, namely reactive and proactive aggression (Little et al.,
2003). Briefly, reactive aggression is defensive or retaliatory, and occurs in response to real or perceived provocation. Conversely, proactive aggression is unprovoked and is used to attain a goal, such as social dominance and status (Hubbard et al.,
2010). Of course, there is a significant overlap between the two types of aggression, but they are also conceptually distinguishable and can have somewhat different correlates (e.g., Polman et al.,
2007). Quite surprisingly, little research has explicitly focused on moral aspects of the reactive versus proactive distinction (e.g., Arsenio & Gold,
2006), and even less in adolescence. Disentangling the role of different moral components in the two forms of aggression could contribute to the theories about the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression (e.g., Arsenio et al.,
2009), on one hand, and could have important implications for more targeted intervention efforts, on the other hand. Hence, the present study aimed to explore whether the combination of the moral dimensions under study had similar or different longitudinal associations with adolescents’ reactive and proactive aggression. We focused specifically on adolescence because in this developmental period most youth have internalized a suite of moral rules (Marshall & Marshall,
2018) and developed a moral identity (Krettenauer & Victor,
2017); moreover, the association between moral disengagement and aggressive behavior is stronger among adolescents than among children (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel,
2014).
Moral Identity and Aggressive Behavior
In this study, morality is defined as conceptions of human welfare, justice and rights, and regulation of actions that affect others in these terms (Nucci,
2001). While children’s moral reasoning tends to be based on the need for approval, during adolescence adherence to moral decisions that prescribe what is right and wrong becomes progressively more internalized (Gibbs,
2003). During development, understanding of moral elements also changes, so that children tend to emphasize visible, physical harm, while adolescents become able to understand more abstract issues of unfairness, including equitable treatment of all people (Nucci,
2001). Adolescents’ moral development also includes the understanding of what impacts human welfare and principles of justice (Turiel,
2002).
Specifically, moral identity refers to a person’s perception of how important moral qualities are to their self-concept or, stated in other terms, the degree to which being a moral person is important to an individual’s identity (Hardy et al.,
2020). Moral identity is usually conceptualized as something that is relatively stable across situations—like a personality trait or chronically accessible moral schema (Narvaez et al.,
2006) that may be more or less activated in particular situations (Aquino et al.,
2009). It also develops over time (Moshman,
2011) and is an important part of identity formation that occurs during adolescence. For some adolescents it is a more central aspect of their self than for others. In addition, there may be individual differences in labeling certain actions as moral (Hardy & Carlo,
2011) and, to some extent, what “being a moral person” means may vary among particular subgroups of people (Maitra et al.,
2018). Nonetheless, consistent with the long tradition of research on moral development, in this study moral identity is conceptualized and measured according to the above definition of morality, thus considering individuals with high moral identity those who endorse moral values such as being honest, compassionate, fair, and generous are central for defining their personal identity (Hertz & Krettenauer,
2016).
The importance of moral identity in the more general, subjective sense of personal identity can vary among people. Some people conceive morality as essential to define who they are, whereas others consider other characteristics or competencies (e.g., in the cognitive or athletic domain) as more important than moral qualities in defining their identity (e.g., Blasi,
1993). People with a higher moral identity have stronger moral motivation to behave accordingly (i.e., prosocially) and to avoid immoral behavior (i.e., antisocial and aggressive behavior), so that there is consistency between their behaviors and self-image (Hardy et al.,
2020). In other words, the link between moral identity and moral/immoral behavior may be explained in terms of the individual’s striving for self-consistency, as described in Blasi’s Self Model (
1983). According to this model, morality can represent a driving force in guiding behavior for people who consider being a moral person as a central part of their self.
Research has indeed shown that high centrality of moral characteristics for defining one’s self is positively associated with prosocial behavior, whereas it is negatively associated with the enactment of aggressive and antisocial behavior (Hertz & Krettenauer,
2016). In a cross-sectional study with a sample of American adolescents, moral identity—in terms of the moral ideal self—was found to be negatively associated with aggressive behavior (Hardy et al.,
2014). More recently, the role of adolescents’ moral identity has been analyzed especially in the context of school bullying. For example, in a cross-sectional study with Italian adolescents (Pozzoli et al.,
2016), moral identity was negatively associated with bullying behavior, even after accounting for individual levels of moral disengagement in the same model. A similar negative association between moral identity and bullying behavior has subsequently been found in a Chinese sample (Teng et al.,
2020). However, bullying is not the sole type of aggressive behavior among adolescents and research on the role of moral identity in youth’s reactive and proactive aggression is certainly warranted, especially in a longitudinal design and in conjunction with other moral dimensions. In the present study, therefore, adolescents’ moral identity was included as one key individual predictor of reactive and proactive aggression. Even though the lack of studies explicitly testing the role of moral identity in the two forms of aggressive behavior makes it difficult to formulate specific a-priori hypotheses about possible differences, there are not conceptual reasons to hypothesize that high moral identity is a protective factor for one form of aggression but not for the other one. Instead, youth who define their identity based on moral qualities should be equally less likely to engage in either form of aggressive behavior than peers with lower moral identity.
Individual Moral Disengagement and Aggressive Behavior
Acting against one’s moral standards typically brings self-condemnation in the form of discomforting feelings such as guilt or shame (Bandura,
2002). However, according to the social cognitive theory of moral agency, people can use psychological strategies to avoid the self-sanctions that could follow immoral conduct, thus preserving one’s self-concept as a moral person and psychological wellbeing (Bandura,
2016). These strategies include framing the negative behavior in a positive light and diminishing its severity, obscuring or minimizing one’s responsibility, minimizing or distorting the consequences of one’s action, or dehumanizing or blaming the victim (Bandura,
2016).
In the last three decades, the concept of moral disengagement has been proposed as a risk factor for the enactment of a variety of youth’s negative conduct, including general aggressive behavior, bullying, and other violent behavior. Findings within this literature are quite consistent and support the notion that individuals’ tendency to morally disengage is positively associated with different types of peer aggression among children and adolescents (Killer et al.,
2019). Importantly, the results of one meta-analysis showed that the association between moral disengagement and adolescents’ aggressive behavior is almost twice as strong as that of children (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel,
2014), indicating that adolescence is a stage of life in which this link becomes particularly important and suggesting the need to further analyze developmental changes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of studies have used a cross-sectional design, whereas the longitudinal association between moral disengagement and aggressive behavior during adolescence has been analyzed to a lesser extent. For example, in a short-term longitudinal study with Australian adolescents (Barchia & Bussey,
2011a), moral disengagement was found to predict aggression 8 months later. Moreover, moral disengagement was found to predict bullying perpetration 6 months later among American adolescents (Wang et al.,
2017). Similar findings about the predictive role of moral disengagement in the context of school bullying have been reported in other studies across different countries, such as Sweden (Bjärehed et al.,
2021) and Switzerland (Sticca & Perren,
2015). In a study that employed person-centered analyses, adolescents who maintained constant medium-high levels of moral disengagement over the course of 6 years reported the highest levels of physical and verbal aggressive behavior (Paciello et al.,
2008). Despite the majority of available studies having confirmed a positive association between moral disengagement and bullying or general aggression over time, a few studies have failed to find a significant longitudinal association when moral disengagement was included in a more complex model with other predictors (Orue & Calvete,
2019). It is therefore important to continue to study whether and under what circumstances moral disengagement constitutes a longitudinal risk factor for aggressive behavior in adolescence.
Beyond the limited number of longitudinal studies compared to cross-sectional ones, another gap of the current literature is the lack of knowledge about the relative role of moral disengagement for reactive and proactive aggression. A meta-analysis that compared the strength of the link between moral disengagement and general aggression with that between moral disengagement and bullying (i.e., the most common form of proactive aggression among school-aged youth) reported comparable effect sizes (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel,
2014). However, the sample of studies included in that meta-analysis did not allow an explicit comparison between reactive and proactive aggression. Studies published in the following years have not filled this gap yet. In one of the few available studies, which employed a cross-sectional design, moral disengagement was positively and similarly associated with both reactive and proactive aggression in a sample of Italian adolescents (Gini et al.,
2015a). Therefore, to date it remains unclear whether we should expect a stronger longitudinal link for one type of aggression compared to the other, or whether moral disengagement is a general mechanism that functions equally in any type of aggressive behavior. Based on the limited empirical evidence available, it is expected to find comparable effects of individual moral disengagement on both forms of aggression over a period of 6 months.
Finally, although much research has focused on the main effects of moral disengagement on youth’s aggressive behavior, less is known about how moral disengagement interacts with other individual risk factors, particularly other moral characteristics, that increase the propensity of some youth to engage in aggression. For example, a few studies have showed the moderating role of moral disengagement in the relationship between low empathy and antisocial behavior among adolescents (Bussey et al.,
2015), or between psychopathic traits and reactive and proactive aggression (Gini et al.,
2015a). The only study that has tested the interaction between moral disengagement and moral identity among youth has found that aggression was higher for adolescents who had lower levels of moral identity and higher levels of moral disengagement (Hardy et al.,
2015). This finding indicates that not only both low moral identity and high moral disengagement increase the risk for aggressive behavior, but that their co-occurrence can have a negative synergistic effect. Because this effect was found in a cross-sectional study, this study aimed to replicate and expand this finding testing whether moral disengagement interacted with moral identity to longitudinally predict adolescents’ aggressive behavior. The lack of integrated models that test the interplay of moral disengagement with other moral dimensions, such as moral identity, is a clear gap in the literature that this study aims to fill.
Collective Moral Disengagement and Aggressive Behavior
Even though moral disengagement has been most frequently studied at the individual level, according to social cognitive theory (Bandura,
2016) moral behavior is determined by a combination of personal and social influences. Moral agency is cultivated and learned within the community in which individuals develop significant social relationships. Group processes can indeed facilitate (or inhibit) immoral behavior by virtue of the responsibility being shifted to the collective as opposed to the individual: for example, people are more likely to behave more cruelly in a group as opposed to when they are alone; likewise, group members can sometimes share a negative perception of the victim or blame the victim for his/her condition (Haslam,
2006). Specifically, referring to moral disengagement processes at the group-level,
collective moral disengagement has been defined as “an emergent group-level property arising from the interactive, coordinative, and synergistic group dynamics” (White et al.,
2009, p.43). This concept is embedded within the conceptual framework of social cognitive theory that includes not only personal agency but also collective agency as a key feature of the self-regulatory process (Bandura,
2002). As for other collective constructs, such as collective efficacy (Barchia & Bussey,
2011b), collective moral disengagement operates through similar processes to individual moral disengagement, differing only in the unit of agency. That is, collective moral disengagement includes the same mechanisms as individual moral disengagement, but it refers to the beliefs in justifying negative actions that are—to some extent—shared within a significant social group.
The construct of collective moral disengagement can be considered from both an individual and a group perspective (Gini, Pozzoli, & Bussey,
2014). At the individual level, it refers to individuals’ beliefs about the extent to which members of their group use moral disengagement mechanisms in everyday interactions; in other words, it refers to individuals’ perception of the degree to which morally disengaged justifications are shared by members of their group. Following previous studies, in this work this concept was labeled “perceived collective moral disengagement” (Gini et al.,
2015b). Beyond the individual tendency to morally disengage, believing that peers within a given group justify aggressive behavior, view it as “normal” and an acceptable way of interacting with others without suffering negative consequences, or blame the victim for their suffering, may increase the likelihood of aggressing against others. At the group level, collective moral disengagement refers to the collective property of a given group, that is, it does not reflect individual members’ use of moral disengagement mechanisms but the degree to which such mechanisms are shared by members within that group.
Collective moral disengagement in adolescence is especially important as the peer group and its norms assume prominence during this stage of development (Brechwald & Prinstein,
2011); however, much less is known about collective moral disengagement compared to individual moral disengagement and several research gaps still exist. The first gap consists in a limited knowledge of the role of collective moral disengagement in aggression among classmates. Indeed, to date, only a few studies have empirically analyzed this link. In a first study, it has been found that both individual moral disengagement and student perceived collective moral disengagement (measured at the individual level) were associated with aggressive behavior in a sample of Italian adolescents (Gini et al.,
2015b). Moreover, at the class-level, it was found that peer aggression was more likely in school classes characterized by higher levels of collective moral disengagement. These findings have been subsequently confirmed in a few studies conducted in other countries, such as Sweden (Bjärehed et al.,
2019; Thornberg et al.,
2021) and Czech Republic (Kollerová et al.,
2018). However, almost all the existing empirical evidence is based on cross-sectional data. Only one study has longitudinally tested the association between collective moral disengagement and youth’s aggressive behavior (specifically bullying) reporting somewhat mixed results (Thornberg et al.,
2019). Although changes in classroom collective moral disengagement were not found to be associated with changes in bullying over one school year, a significant longitudinal correlation between classroom collective moral disengagement and bullying at the classroom level did emerge. While preliminary evidence exists suggesting that high collective moral disengagement be considered a concurrent risk factor for class-level aggressive behavior, more research efforts that test this link longitudinally are required. Moreover, previous studies have tested the role of collective moral disengagement either in the specific context of school bullying or in general peer aggression with none explicitly analyzing reactive and proactive aggression separately. The present study aimed to contribute to filling these gaps. The hypothesis was to confirm collective moral disengagement as a longitudinal risk factor for both forms of aggressive behavior. However, considering the importance of peer group processes (peer pressure, group norms, homophily, etc.) for proactive aggression (e.g., Salmivalli,
2010), it is also plausible that collective moral disengagement plays a stronger role in this form of aggression. That is, it may be hypothesized that youth who perceive that morally disengaged justifications are shared by their peers, who therefore may easily justify aggressive behavior, could report to enact more proactive aggression than their classmates after 6 months, because this behavior would be considered more acceptable and, to some extent, a way to promote their status within the group. Reactive aggression, instead, should be more motivated by personal factors, such as perceived hostility (Arsenio et al.,
2009), anger or impulsivity (Hubbard et al.,
2010), than by group norms.
Finally, as for individual moral disengagement, research that tests the relative contribution and interaction of perceived collective moral disengagement with the other moral dimensions is scarce. Specifically, one previous study has found that perceived collective moral disengagement moderated the association between individual moral disengagement and peer aggression (Gini et al.,
2015b), indicating that this link was significant only when adolescents also perceived that moral disengagement mechanisms were shared among classmates. While this moderation effect was found in a cross-sectional study, this study aimed to replicate this pattern longitudinally. Furthermore, no studies have tested the possible interaction between perceived collective moral disengagement and moral identity. It could be hypothesized that moral identity might mitigate the positive association between collective moral disengagement and aggressive behavior, that is, youth with higher levels of moral identity may report less aggressive behavior than their classmates even if they perceive a “morally disengaged” climate among peers.