[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-600027-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-600027-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","peer-bullies-and-victims-perceptions-of-moral-transgression-versus-morally-aimed-dishonesty-abstract","Peer Bullies and Victims’ Perceptions of Moral Transgression versus Morally-Aimed Dishonesty - Abstract","","Previous research indicates moral violations involving unprovoked interpersonal harm are judged more serious, wrong, and punishable than dishonesty and lying, treating morality as a super-ordinate principle. This study tested whether subordination of honesty to moral harm persists across peer bullies, bully victims, and youths who are neither. Questionnaires from 166 adolescents compared judgments about moral transgressions (MT) and morally-aimed dishonesty (MAD). Results showed bullies more strongly endorse MT as right, while victims more strongly endorse MAD.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/peer-bullies-and-victims-perceptions-of-moral-transgression-versus-morally-aimed-dishonesty-abstract/600027/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/peer-bullies-and-victims-perceptions-of-moral-transgression-versus-morally-aimed-dishonesty-abstract/600027.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"nayy☆","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the main comparison in the study?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The study compares adolescents’ perceptions of moral transgressions (gratuitous, deliberate harm) versus morally-aimed dishonesty (lying or breaking promises to prevent unprovoked harm).","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How do peer bullies differ in their moral reasoning?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Bullies more positively endorse moral transgressions as a right act and judge these acts as subject to greater personal discretion of the protagonist.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How do bully victims differ in their judgments?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Victims more positively endorse morally-aimed dishonesty as a right act, while their judgments that morally-aimed dishonesty is subject to the protagonist’s discretion are not significant.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},600027,1792160962,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":108},962090893153,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Peer Bullies and Victims’ Perceptions of Moral Transgression versus Morally-Aimed Dishonesty  \nYuki Hasebe & Colin R. Harbke, Western Illinois University Nadia Sorkhabi, San Jose State University  \nAbstract  \nPrevious studies suggest that people judge moral violation (interpersonal injustice of unprovoked harm) to be more serious, wrong, and punishable than acts of dishonesty and lying, thus classifying morality as a super-ordinate principle to acts of honesty. The present study examined whether or not the observed pattern of subordination of honesty to the moral principle of interpersonal harm would remain the same or change among aggressive (peer bullies), passive (bully victims) youths and those who are neither bullies nor bully victims. Two questionnaires were administered to examine the reasoning of 166 adolescents (9th to 12th grades), with self-identified experiences of having been peer bullies, bully victims, or neither bullies or victims, about moral transgressions (MT, involving gratuitous and deliberate harm to others) and morally-aimed dishonesty (MAD, involving lying or breaking promises to prevent unprovoked harm to others). Adolescents altogether viewed moral transgressions (MT), in comparison to morally-aimed transgressions (MAD), as less right and less subject to personal autonomy. Regression analysis, however, revealed that bullies more positively endorsed MT as a right act and judged MT acts to be subject to greater personal discretion of the protagonist. By contrast, victims more positively endorsed MAD as a right act, but victims’judgments of MAD being subject to theprotagonist’s personal discretion were nonsignificant. The results imply that the bullies minimize the inherent consequential harm in the straightforward moral transgressions and overextend protagonists’ discretion in the transgressions. Victims, on the other hand, minimize protagonists’ personal realm of legitimate autonomy utilized in judging multi-faceted moral dilemma.  \nKeywords: adolescents, moral judgments, moral transgression, morally-aimed dishonesty, bullies & victims, social domain theory  \nThe present study examined how adolescents, who self-identified as having been peer bullies, victims, or neither a bully nor a victim, reason about the acceptability and personal right/discretion of moral transgressions, involving unprovoked, gratuitous harm to others, versus acts of dishonesty, involving dilemmas that entail prevention of harm to others by means of lying. Social-cognitive domain theory, 1 upon which the present study is based, has empirically defined morality as  \n1. Refer to “New Direction for Moral Education with a Theorized Morality”(Hasebe, 2021 In print) for the more detailed descriptions about 1. Domain theory of Social and Cognitive Development, 2. The empirical definition of morality (versus non-moral domains) and 3. The analyses of the premature support of the dualism from the  \nmatters pertaining to welfare and gratuitous harm (e.g., slander, unprovoked violence) in interpersonal relationships embedded in the principle “gratuitous harm to another is wrong.”(Helwig, Tisak, & Turiel, 1990; Turiel, 1983, 2015) . Domain research has found that people distinguish moral (i.e., welfare and harm on others) from conventional (e.g., dress codes, courtesies), personal (e.g., choice of friends), and prudential domains (i.e., acts involving consequential harm to the person such as substance abuse) when reasoning about social matters (Nucci, 2001; Turiel, 1983, 2006) . More recent domain studies have found that people view acts of honesty differently from acts of moral and personal concerns for interpersonal justices and inequalities (Perkins & Turiel, 2007) . People view morality as absolute, universal, non-contingent on contextual or authority variation versus acts of honesty as relative to context, subjective, and alterable. People judge moral matters to be more important, and moral violation to be more serious, wrong, and punisha","cbCailSkIgl0unXJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailSkIgl0unXJ","pdf",450004,16,"English","# Abstract\n# Background and Theoretical Framework\n## Social-Cognitive Domain Theory and Moral Definition\n## Honesty and Truth-Telling in Moral/Character Education\n# Empirical Evidence on Lying and Deception\n# Domain-Specific Judgments About Non-Disclosure and Deception","[{\"question\":\"What is the main comparison in the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study compares adolescents’ perceptions of moral transgressions (gratuitous, deliberate harm) versus morally-aimed dishonesty (lying or breaking promises to prevent unprovoked harm).\"},{\"question\":\"How do peer bullies differ in their moral reasoning?\",\"answer\":\"Bullies more positively endorse moral transgressions as a right act and judge these acts as subject to greater personal discretion of the protagonist.\"},{\"question\":\"How do bully victims differ in their judgments?\",\"answer\":\"Victims more positively endorse morally-aimed dishonesty as a right act, while their judgments that morally-aimed dishonesty is subject to the protagonist’s discretion are not significant.\"}]","Peer Bullies and Victims’ Perceptions of Moral Transgression versus Morally-Aimed Dishonesty - Abstract | PDF",1792089890]