This thesis examined variations across relationship contexts and types of transgressions in adolescents’ reasoning about unambiguous peer harm at school. A total of 141 Canadian and American adolescents (73 girls, 67 boys, 1 other) ranging from ages 14 to 17 years (M = 15.74 SD = 1.06) responded to four online vignettes depicting psychological or material unambiguous harms committed by a good friend or a peer they did not know. Overall, when the perpetrator was a good friend, youths evaluated the harm as more bad and reported feeling more hurt and sad, but also made more benign attributions and endorsed more restorative responses, as well as more learning and relationship-oriented goals. These findings suggest that even in the face of unambiguous transgressions, youth still found ways to mitigate their friends’ culpability by interpreting their behavior through a more generous lens. Conversely, when the perpetrator was a neutral peer, youths interpreted their behavior as more hostile and endorsed more punitive strategies and justice goals. Regarding situational features of harm, youths judged material harms to have more serious consequences than psychological harms and reported stronger emotional responses to them; youth also interpreted material harms as more hostile and less benign and endorsed more punitive responses. Finally, youth also endorsed more revenge, justice, and learning goals in response to material harms, and more relationship-oriented goals following psychological harms. Overall, this study adds to the literature by examining how youths’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral judgments are informed by socio-contextual features of harm. Ultimately, the more forgiving pattern observed with good friends can inform processes to address peer harm in schools in more peaceful and restorative ways
