lonelysince2006
Spiritually 38
★★★★★
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2024
- Posts
- 1,490
Bullying is correlated with less guilt (empathy and remorse)
Moral disengagement (defined):
Nail in the coffin:
Bullying is correlated with higher sexual success
Nail in the coffin:
Sorry for the haphazard mess. Just wanted to share the literature with brocels.
All relevant studies attached below.
Edit: one more:
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7163891/#:~:text=A number of studies have,moral disengagement (Gini et al.
Moral disengagement (defined):
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ing_and_the_Mechanisms_of_Moral_DisengagementMoral disengagement refers to such socio‐cognitive maneuvers, which permit people to disengage from moral standards without any feelings of remorse, guilt or self‐condemnation.
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057240.2016.1216399?scroll=top&needAccess=trueResults showed that moral disengagement was associated with high levels of bullying and low levels of defending. Guilt was negatively associated with bullying and positively with defending. A moderating effect for guilt was also found: increasing levels of moral disengagement contributed to more bullying and outsider behavior, and to less defending, among students with low levels of guilt.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ing_and_the_Mechanisms_of_Moral_DisengagementAs compared to their peers, children with higher moral disengagement display more aggression (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaran-elli, & Pastorelli, 2001; Barchia & Bussey, 2010; Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, & Caprara, 2008; Pelton, Gound, Forehand, & Brody, 2004; Pornari & Wood, 2010), including bullying and pro‐bullying behavior (Almedia, Correia, & Marinho, 2010; Gini, Pozzoli, & Hauser, Gini et al., 20112011; Hymel, Rocke‐Henderson, &Bonanno, 2005; Menesini et al., 2003; Obermann, 2011b; Perren & Gutzwiller‐Helfenfinger, 2012; Perren et al., 2012; Thorn-berg & Jungert, 2013a), as well as less empathy (Almedia et al., 2010; Barriga, Sullivan‐ Cosetti, & Gibbs, 2009; Hyde et al., 2010), fewer feelings of guilt regarding behavior trans-gressions (Bandura et al., 1996; Perren & Gutzwiller‐Helfenfinger, 2012), and less prosocial behavior (Bandura et al., 1996, 2001), including defending victims from bullying behavior (Almedia et al., 2010; Gini, 2006; Obermann, 2011a; Thornberg & Jungert, 2013a).
Nail in the coffin:
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ing_and_the_Mechanisms_of_Moral_DisengagementTo better understand children’s morality in relation to aggression such as bullying, focusing on moral principles or rules is not enough: We already know that children generally judge bullying as wrong using moral reasons such as referring to its harmful consequences when justifying their judgments (cf., Thornberg, 2010a), and that bullies are as able as defenders to judge moral permissibility of harmful actions (Gini et al., 2011).
Bullying is correlated with higher sexual success
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266898159_What_is_bullying_A_theoretical_redefinitionThe third proposed goal of bullying – reproduction (as a short-hand for genetic propagation) – is the ultimate biological Darwinian goal. If bullying provides an evolutionary advantage, it should be associated with reproductive gains. In this vein, adolescent bullying correlates with an increase in the number of dating partners as well as more frequent and earlier dating (Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Taradash, 2000). Bullying is also correlated with self-reports of earlier age of f i rst intercourse, greater number of sexual partners, and greater interest in sexual activity (Volk, Dane, Marini, & Vaillancourt, submit-ted).
Nail in the coffin:
Although the link between general aggression and dating/sex has been relatively well explored (Archer, 2009; Basile, Espe-lage, Rivers, McMahon, & Simon, 2009; Bjorklund & Hawley, 2014; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Lalumie `re & Quinsey, 1996;
Pellegrini, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2003; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999; White, Gallup, & Gallup, 2010), few studies have exam-ined the links between dating/sex and bullying specifically.
Bullying is a special case of aggression that is primarily differ-entiated on the basis of power (Olweus, 1994; Vaillancourt et al., 2010; Volk et al., 2014; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2014). Specifically, individuals who bully are more powerful than their victims, who in turn have difficulty defending them-selves (Vaillancourt et al., 2003), whereas individuals who employ general aggression are not necessarily more powerful than those they attack (Hawley, Stump, & Ratliff, 2010). From an evolutionary perspective, there are many potential reasons why bullies should enjoy increased reproductive benefits. Bul-lies generally elevated social and physical attributes may offer a signal of good genes (Vaillancourt et al., 2003; Volk et al., 2012). Furthermore, their social dominance and ability to con-trol resources are also likely to be reasons why bullies appear more attractive to partners than nonbullies as a signal that they could provide for and protect their partner and potential off-spring (Buss, 1988; Volk et al., 2012). In addition, the conflu-ence of increased bullying (Volk et al., 2006) and dating (Zimmer-Gembeck, 2002) during adolescence may help explain why antibullying interventions often fail to work (or are iatrogenic) among older adolescents. They fail because they do not address the novel, sexually motivated goals of adoles-cents that foster new forms and goals of competition that are generally absent among younger children (Volk et al., 2014;
Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage, 2015).
In one of only a few studies to directly measure bullying and dating, Connolly, Pepler, Craig, and Taradash (2000) found that bullying (in both sexes) was associated with an earlier entrance into puberty and dating at a younger age, more activity with members of the opposite sex, greater dating opportunities, and being more likely to be in a dating relationship. However, Arnocky and Vaillancourt (2012) recently reported that while peer-reported indirect aggression was associated with increased reports of dating, self-reported bullying was not asso-ciated with any increase in reported dating. Peer-reported bul-lying was not examined in this study, although in most studies, peer reports of physical and indirect aggression correlated with peer reports of bullying at .50–.80 (e.g., Vaillancourt et al., 2003). Nevertheless, results from Arnocky and Vaillancourt’s study raises some doubt about the link between bullying and reproductive success given that self-identified bullies did not report higher dating levels.
There were several significant univariate relations between bullying and dating, suggesting that bullying is related to an increased interest in dating (Study 1), an increased likelihood of having dated, and a greater number of dating partners.
Although dating is a more distal indicator of reproductive suc-cess than sexual behavior, our univariate data nonetheless offer some supporting evidence regarding the potential role of bully-ing from an adaptive context.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...and_Mating_Testing_an_Evolutionary_HypothesisOur data suggest that bullying is associated with a 1.5–2x greater likelihood of having had sexual intercourse (see Table 3). Bullying was also a small but statistically significant predictor of the number of sexual partners in both linear regressions (see Table 4). These findings, in two separate samples, offer converging support for our prediction that bullying would be related to sexual oppor-tunities, independent of age, sex, self-reported attractiveness, victimization, and likeability. They suggest that the act of bul-lying itself, or some intrinsic character of bullies beyond those mentioned above, predispose and/or facilitate bullies’ access to sexual opportunities. In particular, it is noteworthy that victi-mization had few univariate links with sexual behavior and was not a multivariate predictor in any of our regressions.
Sorry for the haphazard mess. Just wanted to share the literature with brocels.
All relevant studies attached below.
Edit: one more:
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321812090_Do_Bullies_Have_More_Sex_The_Role_of_PersonalityTraditionally, bullying has been viewed as a maladaptive be-havior resulting from problems in developmental functioning (Crick and Dodge 1999). However, the ubiquity of bullying across cultures (Craig et al. 2009; Volk et al. 2012), and its heritability (Ball et al. 2008), suggest that bullying may be, at least in part, an evolutionary adaptation. Volk et al. (2014) outline that adolescents may use bullying to obtain reproduc-tively relevant outcomes that reliably led to survival and re-production in the ancestral past. Consistent with this research, recent studies have found that adolescent bullies were more likely to engage in sexual intercourse and that bullying was related to having more sexual partners (Dane et al. 2017; Volk et al. 2015). Previous theory and research suggest that bully-ing facilitates intrasexual competition and intersexual selec-tion. For example, bullying by males signal the ability to pro-vide good genes, material resources, and protect offspring (Buss and Shackelford 1997; Volk et al. 2012) because bully-ing others is a way of displaying attractive qualities such as strength and dominance (Gallup et al. 2007; Reijntjes et al.
2013). As a result, this makes bullies attractive sexual partners to opposite-sex peers while simultaneously suppressing the sexual success of same-sex rivals (Gallup et al. 2011; Koh and Wong 2015; Zimmer-Gembeck et al. 2001). Females may denigrate other females, targeting their appearance and sexual promiscuity (Leenaars et al. 2008; Vaillancourt 2013), which are two qualities relating to male mate preferences.
Consequently, derogating these qualities lowers a rivals’ ap-peal as a mate and also intimidates or coerces rivals into with-drawing from intrasexual competition (Campbell 2013; Dane et al. 2017; Fisher and Cox 2009; Vaillancourt 2013). Thus, males may use direct forms of bullying (e.g., physical, verbal) to facilitate intersexual selection (i.e., appear attractive to fe-males), while females may use relational bullying to facilitate intrasexual competition, by making rivals appear less attrac-tive to males. However, though theory and research suggests bullying may be a tool that facilitates intrasexual competition and intersexual selection, individual differences in personality may determine whether adolescents are willing and able to employ this strategy when competing for mates.
Attachments
Last edited:
.
