Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2010 | Empirical Research

Clueless or Powerful? Identifying Subtypes of Bullies in Adolescence

Auteurs: Margot Peeters, Antonius H. N. Cillessen, Ron H. J. Scholte

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence | Uitgave 9/2010

Abstract

This study examined the heterogeneity of bullying among adolescents. It was hypothesized that bullying behavior serves different social functions and, depending on these functions, bullies will differ in their skills, status and social behavior. In a total sample of 806 8th graders, 120 adolescents (52 boys, 68 girls) were identified as bullies based on peer nominations. An additional group of 50 adolescents (25 boys, 25 girls) served as the non-bully comparison group. Cluster analysis revealed three corresponding bully subtypes for boys and girls: a popular-socially intelligent group, a popular moderate group, and an unpopular-less socially intelligent group. Follow-up analyses showed that the clusters differed significantly from each other in physical and verbal aggression, leadership, network centrality, peer rejection, and self-perceptions of bullying. The results confirm the heterogeneous nature of bullies and the complex nature of bullying in the adolescent peer group.

vorige artikel Cultural Orientation as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Chinese American Adolescents’ Discrimination Experiences and Delinquent Behaviors

volgende artikel Violent Victimization and Perpetration During Adolescence: Developmental Stage Dependent Ecological Models

Andreou, E. (2004). Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism and self-efficacy in Greek primary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 297–309.CrossRefPubMed

Archer, J. (2001). A strategic approach to aggression. Social Development, 10, 267–271.CrossRef

Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. A. (2001). Varieties of childhood bullying: Values, emotion process, and social competence. Social Development, 10, 59–73.CrossRef

Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. (1989). Young children’s attribution of action to beliefs and desires. Child Development, 60, 946–964.CrossRefPubMed

Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127.CrossRef

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukianen, A. (2000). Social intelligence − empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191–200.CrossRef

Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1170–1182.CrossRef

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Schuengel, F. E., & Terwogt, M. M. (2003). Links between social information processing in middle childhood and involvement in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 116–127.CrossRef

Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163.CrossRef

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Borch, C. (2006). Developmental trajectories of adolescent popularity: A growth curve modelling analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 935–959.PubMed

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163.CrossRefPubMed

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102–105.CrossRef

Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). New York: Guilford.

Cillessen, A. H. N., van IJzendoorn, H. W., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Hartup, W. W. (1992). Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63, 893–905.CrossRef

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.CrossRef

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 62, 812–826.CrossRefPubMed

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.CrossRef

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1999). “Superiority” is in the eye of the beholder: A comment on Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham. Social Development, 8, 128–131.CrossRef

de Bruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Heterogeneity of girls’ consensual popularity: Academic and interpersonal behavioral profiles. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 435–445.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 389–410.CrossRefPubMed

Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154–165.CrossRef

Estell, D. B., Cairns, R. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2002). Aggression in inner-city early elementary classrooms: Individual and peer-group configurations. Merrill -Palmer Quarterly, 48, 52–76.CrossRef

Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2007). Bullies and victims in rural African American youth: Behavioral characteristics and social network placement. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 145–159.CrossRefPubMed

Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, L., O’Neal, K. K., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Rejected bullies or popular leaders? The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African American early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 99, 992–1004.CrossRef

French, D. C. (1990). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected girls. Child Development, 61, 2028–2031.CrossRef

Garandeau, C. F., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 612–625.CrossRef

Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528–539.CrossRef

Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467–476.CrossRefPubMed

Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. (2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 147–205). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (in press). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development.

Meijs, N., Cillessen, A. H. N., Scholte, R. H. J., Segers, E., & Spijkerman, R. (in press). Social intelligence and academic achievement as predictors of adolescent popularity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J. K., Simons-Morten, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.CrossRefPubMed

Olweus, D. (1989). The Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo, Bergen, Norwegen.

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190.CrossRefPubMed

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144.CrossRef

Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors related to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216–234.CrossRef

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280.CrossRef

Putallaz, M., Grimes, L. C., Foster, J. K., Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dearing, K. (2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523–547.CrossRefPubMed

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14–24.CrossRefPubMed

Salmivalli, C. (1999). The participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453–459.CrossRefPubMed

Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). Female aggression revisited: Variable- and person-centered approaches to studying gender differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 158–163.CrossRef

Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression and sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression matter? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 17–24.CrossRefPubMed

Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465–487.CrossRefPubMed

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.CrossRef

Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30–44.CrossRef

Sentse, M., Scholte, R., Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2007). Person-group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009–1019.CrossRefPubMed

Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M., & Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Tromsø social intelligence scale: A self-report measure of social intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313–319.CrossRefPubMed

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.CrossRef

Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 443–456.CrossRefPubMed

Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2001). Components of machiavellian beliefs in children: Relationships with personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 137–148.CrossRef

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999a). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450.CrossRef

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999b). Bullying and “theory of mind”. A critique of the “social skills deficit” view of antisocial behavior. Social Development, 8, 117–127.CrossRef

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999c). Socially undesirable need not be incompetent: A response to Crick and Dodge. Social Development, 8, 132–134.CrossRef

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2001). It’s easy, it works, and it makes me feel good. A response to Arsenio and Lemerise. Social Development, 10, 74–78.CrossRef

Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157–176.CrossRef

Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behaviors in social interaction and developmental adaptation: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during early adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205–224.CrossRef

Titel: Clueless or Powerful? Identifying Subtypes of Bullies in Adolescence
Auteurs: Margot Peeters
Antonius H. N. Cillessen
Ron H. J. Scholte
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2010
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence / Uitgave 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0047-2891
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-6601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2010

Effects of Alcohol on Trajectories of Physical Aggression Among Urban Youth: An Application of Latent Trajectory Modeling

Behavioral Stability as an Emergent Process: Toward a Coherence Theory of Concentrated Personal Disadvantage

Cultural Orientation as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Chinese American Adolescents’ Discrimination Experiences and Delinquent Behaviors

Perceptions and Satisfaction with Father Involvement and Adolescent Mothers’ Postpartum Depressive Symptoms

Social Support and Low-Income, Urban Mothers: Longitudinal Associations with Adolescent Delinquency

An Examination of Prepartying and Drinking Game Playing During High School and Their Impact on Alcohol-Related Risk Upon Entrance into College