Theory highlights power in aggressor-victim relationships, yet empirical work assessing dyadic power is largely absent. Variability in power balance versus imbalance within aggressor-victim dyads (based on social, physical, gender- and ethnicity-based power) was explored. Participants (N = 952; grade 6–8; 50% girls, 44% Hispanic/Latina/o) nominated aggressors and victims (4662 aggressor-victim dyads; 642 strong dyads [based on reputational strength]; 169 sustained dyads [based on longevity]). Dyadic social power (social network centrality and prestige) was calculated from friendship nominations. Self-report was used for dyadic physical (body mass index), gender- and ethnicity-based power. Across power indicators, there were more power-balanced than imbalanced dyads (particularly for strong and sustained dyads). The findings challenge theoretical notions that aggressors are more powerful than their victims and have implications for aggressor-victim relationships.
