The present study focuses on developing and validating domain-specific moral sensitivity in the phenomena of bullying (Bullying Moral Sensitivity [BMS]) and cyberbullying (Cyberbullying Moral Sensitivity [CMS]). The sample consisted of 2,157 Spanish early and middle adolescents (50% girls; Mage = 12.67, SD = 1.53). Participants were randomly divided into two subsamples. Exploratory factor analysis in Sample 1 (n = 1,076) identified a two-factor structure (affective response and recognition), along with good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Sample 2 (n = 1,081) confirmed the two-factor structure for both scales through confirmatory factor analysis and demonstrated invariance across gender and developmental stages. Predictive validity analyses showed that the affective response factor in both BMS and CMS was associated with lower bullying and cyberbullying perpetration, respectively. Additionally, affective response in bullying and cyberbullying predicted higher engagement in defending victims. This study provides a validated measure of domain-specific moral sensitivity, highlighting its role in decision-making when facing peer aggression.
Álvarez-GarcíaD.DobarroA.NúñezJ. C. (2015). Validity and reliability of the Cybervictimization questionnaire in secondary education students. Aula Abierta, 43(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.43.2015.32-38
2.
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association Publications.
3.
BebeauM.RestJ. R.NarvaezD. (1999). Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in moral education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028004018
4.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
5.
CroneE. A.DahlR. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313
6.
DengX.YangJ.WuY. (2021). Adolescent empathy influences bystander defending in school bullying: A three-level meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 690898. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.690898
7.
FallaD.Ortega-RuizR.da Costa FerreiraP.Veiga SimãoA. M.RomeraE. M. (2023). The effect of cyberbullying perpetration on empathy and moral disengagement: Testing a mediation model in a three-wave longitudinal study. Psychology of Violence, 13(5), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000472
8.
FedelesM. (2004). The teachers’s concerns questionnaire: The development and validation of a measure of high school teachers’ moral sensitivity. University of British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0099763
9.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
10.
ForsbergC. (2019). The contextual definition of harm: 11- to 15-year-olds’ perspectives on social incidents and bullying. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(10), 1378–1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1580351
11.
FranklinS. B.GibsonD. J.RobertsonP. A.PohlmannJ. T.FralishJ. S. (1995). Parallel Analysis: A method for determining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/3236261
12.
FredrickS. S.JenkinsL. N.RayK. (2020). Dimensions of empathy and bystander intervention in bullying in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 79, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.03.001
13.
GarandeauC. F.Laninga-WijnenL.SalmivalliC. (2022). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on affective and cognitive empathy in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 51(4), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2020.1846541
14.
GeX. (2020). Social media reduce users’ moral sensitivity: Online shaming as a possible consequence. Aggressive Behavior, 46(5), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21904
15.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
16.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
17.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
18.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
19.
HaladynaT. M.DowningS. M.RodríguezM. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
20.
HanH. (2017). Neural correlates of moral sensitivity and moral judgment associated with brain circuitries of selfhood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Moral Education, 46(2), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1262834
21.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
22.
IBM Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 28.0. IBM Corp.
23.
JiangS.LiuR.De DingY.JiangR.FuX.HongW. (2022). Why the victims of bullying are more likely to avoid involvement when witnessing bullying situations: The role of bullying sensitivity and moral disengagement. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6), NP3062–NP3083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520948142
24.
JolliffeD.FarringtonD. P. (2011). Is low empathy related to bullying after controlling for individual and social background variables?Journal of Adolescence, 34(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.00
25.
JordanJ. (2007). Taking the first step toward a moral action: A review of moral sensitivity measurement across domains. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(3), 323–359. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.168.3.323-360
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
28.
LambeL. J.CioppaV.Della HongI. K.CraigW. M. (2019). Standing up to bullying: A social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.007
MaltiT.KrettenauerT. (2013). The relation of moral emotion attributions to prosocial and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 84, 397-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01851.x
31.
MayselessO. (2020). The development of care. In JensenL. A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of moral development: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 8–26). Oxford University Press.
32.
MolenberghsP.GappJ.WangB.LouisW. R.DecetyJ. (2016). Increased moral sensitivity for outgroup perpetrators harming ingroup members. Cerebral Cortex, 26(1), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu195
33.
MoodyZ.StahelT. (2025). School bullying: Children and adolescent norms, cultures and identity development. Frontiers in Education, 10, e1497681. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1497681
34.
MorenoR.MartínezR. J.MuñizJ. (2015). Guidelines based on validity criteria for the development of multiple choice items. Psicothema, 27(4), 388–394. http://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2015.110
NucciL.TurielE. (2009). Capturing the complexity of moral development and education. Mind, Brain and Education, 3(3), 151–159.
38.
OlweusD. (1993). Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Blackwell.
39.
OlweusD. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire for students. University of Bergen.
40.
Ortega-RuizR. (2010). Agresividad injustificada, bullying y violencia escolar. Alianza.
41.
Ortega-RuizR.Del ReyR.CasasJ. A. (2016). Assessing bullying and cyberbullying: Spanish validation of EBIPQ and ECIPQ. Psicologia Educativa, 22(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.01.004
42.
RestJ. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
43.
RhemtullaM.Brosseau-LiardP. É.SavaleiV. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
44.
RomeraE. M.BravoA.CamachoA.Ortega-RuizR. (2024). The moral domain in peer relationships: Opportunities for interventions to prevent bullying. In HongJ. S.ChanH. C.FungA. L. C.LeeJ. (Eds.), The moral domain in peer relationships: Opportunities for interventions to prevent bullying (pp. 556–567). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035301362.00053
45.
RomeraE. M.CasasJ. A.Gómez-OrtizO.Ortega-RuizR. (2019). Moral domain as a risk and protective factor against bullying. An integrating perspective review on the complexity of morality. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.005
46.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2021). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. Guilford Publications.
47.
SadlerT. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724042000733091
48.
SchmockerD.TannerC.KatsarovJ.ChristenM. (2020). An advanced measure of moral sensitivity in business. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(5), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000564
49.
SingerT.SeymourB.O’DohertyJ.KaubeH.DolanR. J.FrithC. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093535
50.
SjögrenB.ThornbergR.KimJ.HongJ. S.KlooM. (2024). Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement, and defender self-efficacy as predictors of students’ self-reported bystander behaviors over a school year: A growth curve analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1378755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1378755
51.
SmithP. K. (2016). Bullying: Definition, types, causes, consequences and intervention. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12266
52.
SparksJ. R. (2015). A social cognitive explanation of situational and individual effects on moral sensitivity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12274
53.
ThornbergR.JungertT. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.003
54.
ThornbergR.WänströmL.HongJ. S.EspelageD. L. (2017). Classroom relationship qualities and social-cognitive correlates of defending and passive bystanding in school bullying in Sweden: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.002
55.
TirriK.NokelainenP. (2007). Comparison of academically average and gifted students’ self-rated ethical sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701786053
56.
ViladrichC.Angulo-BrunetA.DovalE. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
57.
WorthingtonR. L.WhittakerT. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
58.
XiangY.HuZ.TanQ.LiX. (2025). The bidirectional relationship between perceived social support and moral sensitivity in adolescents: Evidence from longitudinal study and weekly diary method. Journal of Adolescence, 97(2), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12348
59.
XieZ.LiuC.TengZ. (2023). The effect of everyday moral sensitivity on bullying bystander behavior: Parallel mediating roles of empathy and moral disengagement. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(11–12), 7678–7701. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221147071
ZhangW.XiangY. (2022). Reliability, validity and invariance of the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire in the China General Social Survey. Current Psychology, 41(12), 8646–8659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01246-6
62.
ZhaoJ.GuoZ.JiaoL.YuM.ShiH. (2024). Do shy individuals engage in cyber aggression? The multiple mediation of passive use and relative deprivation and the moderation of moral sensitivity. Social Science Computer Review, 42, 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231176326
63.
ZhuC.HuangS.EvansR.ZhangW. (2021). Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: A comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, Article 634909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909
64.
ZychI.FarringtonD. P. (2021). Stability and change in bullying and cyberbullying throughout the school years. In SmithP. K.NormanJ. O. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention, 2 Volume Set (pp. 20–36). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482650.ch36
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
