Social self‐esteem and self‐reported bullying behaviour among adult prisoners

This paper addresses how social self‐esteem relates to self‐reported bullying behaviour among adult prisoners. It explores both level of self‐esteem and participants’ certainty of their self‐esteem. A total of 502 adult prisoners (285 men and 217 women) completed a self‐report behavioural checklist (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist) [Ireland JL. 1999. Aggres Behav 25:162–178] that addressed the level of bullying behaviour at their present institution. Prisoners also completed a questionnaire that measured social self‐esteem (Texas Social Behaviour Inventory) [Helmreich R, Stapp J. 1974. Bull Psychonomic Soc 4:473–475]. Four categories of prisoners were compared: bullies, victims, those who reported both bullying others and being victimised themselves (bully/victims), and those who were not involved in bullying behaviour. There were no significant differences among bully categories in total self‐esteem scores. Men reported significantly higher levels of self‐esteem than did women. There were no significant sex or bully category differences in certainty of self‐esteem. Self‐esteem was found to include a number of individual components that differed between the sexes. The findings are discussed, and directions for future research are suggested. Aggr. Behav. 28:184–197, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Predicting bullying and victimization among early adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders

Bullying is a common problem faced by children and adolescents in schools. One hypothesis that needs to be examined regarding the causation of this problem is whether being a bully or a victim may stem from disparate underlying patterns of psychopathology. Results are particularly scarce regarding the association between bully‐victim problems and disruptive behavior disorders. The present study sought to investigate the association between DSM‐IV symptoms of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), and bully‐victim problems in a sample of 202 adolescents, aged 12–15, attending two junior high schools in Cyprus, to determine whether these symptoms differentiate between bullies and victims and provide a new approach to the understanding of bully‐victim problems. Students completed measures of bullying, victimization, disruptive behavior disorder symptoms, and self‐esteem, along with demographic questions. On the basis of their responses, teenagers were classified as bullies, victims, or both bullies and victims. Those who were bully/victims reported greater CD symptomatology. CD and low self‐esteem were predictive of bullying, whereas ODD and low self‐esteem were predictive of victimization. Aggr. Behav. 30:520–533, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Direct and indirect bully‐victims: differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization

The present study examined psychosocial risk factors that differentiated direct and indirect bully‐victims from bullies, victims and uninvolved adolescents. A total of 7,290 (3,756 girls) students (ages 13–18 yr) from a region of Southern Ontario, Canada, completed a number of self‐report measures to determine the relation between direct and indirect bullying and victimization and several psychosocial risk factors, including normative beliefs about antisocial acts, angry‐externalizing coping, social anxiety, depression, self‐esteem, temperament, attachment, parental monitoring and peer relational problems. ANCOVA and logistic regression analyses indicated that indirect bully‐victims and victims were similar in demonstrating greater internalizing problems and peer relational problems than indirect bullies and uninvolved participants. Furthermore, adolescents involved in indirect bullying (bullies, bully‐victims) reported a higher level of normative beliefs legitimizing antisocial behaviour and less parental monitoring (males only) than indirect victims and uninvolved participants. Only normative beliefs legitimizing antisocial behaviour distinguished direct bully‐victims and bullies from victims and uninvolved adolescents. Results illuminate the distinct characteristics of direct and indirect bully‐victims; theoretical and clinical implications are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 32:551–569. 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The perceived consequences of responding to bullying with aggression: A study of male and female adult prisoners

This research addresses whether prisoners who bully others and/or are victimised themselves can be distinguished by the perceptions that they have of the consequences about using aggression as a solution to being bullied. Male and female adult prisoners (n = 406) were required to complete a self‐report behavioural checklist (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist [DIPC]) that addressed the level of bullying behaviour at their present institution. Prisoners were also required to complete a questionnaire (Bullying Social Problem Solving Questionnaire [BSPSQ]) that provided them with five different bullying situations and asked them what would be the consequences if they were to respond aggressively to each. Four categories of prisoners were examined: pure bullies, pure victims, those who reported both bullying others and being victimised themselves (bully/victims), and those not involved in bullying/victimisation. Pure bullies reported significantly more positive than negative consequences of aggression compared with the overall category mean in response to theft‐related bullying. Bully/victims reported significantly more positive than negative consequences compared with the overall category mean in response to indirect and indirect‐physical bullying. Those not involved reported significantly more negative than positive consequences compared with the overall category mean in response to all scenarios except one involving indirect‐physical bullying. Males reported significantly more positive than negative consequences compared with females for all types of bullying. Aggr. Behav. 28:257–272, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Attachment,emotional loneliness,and bullying behaviour: A study of adult and young offenders

This research addresses the question of whether or not offenders who bully others and/or are victimised themselves can be distinguished by their attachment styles and the level of emotional loneliness that they report. Adult and young male offenders (n = 220) were required to complete a self‐report behavioural checklist (DIPC: Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist: Ireland, 1999a) that addressed the level of bullying behaviour at their present institution. Offenders were also required to complete a measure of attachment, namely the Three Attachment Style Measure [Hazan and Shaver, 1987] exploring secure, avoidant and anxious/ambivalent styles, and a measure of emotional loneliness, namely the revised UCLA Loneliness scale [Russell, Peplaw and Cutrona, 1980]. Young offenders were more likely than adult offenders to report behaviours indicative of ‘bullying others’ and of ‘being bullied.’ With regards to attachment style and bullying behaviour, significant differences were restricted to avoidant attachment; bully/victims reported higher avoidant scores than the other bully‐categories, with pure bullies and those not‐involved reporting lower avoidant scores. Finally, when considering emotional loneliness and bullying behaviour, bully/victims reported higher scores on emotional loneliness than the other bully‐categories, with the not‐involved group reporting significantly lower scores. Aggr. Behav. 30:298–312, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Coping and Psychological Distress as a Function of the Bully Victim Dichotomy in Older Children

While it has been well established that bullying and being bullied have negative psychological consequences for children, the more recent literature has suggested a more complex relationship based on social cognition. A debate has arisen as to whether bullies have deficits or strengths in social cognition. In a study of 236 children (112 males and 124 females) aged between 12 and 15 years the current research explored three main aspects of social cognition, problem-solving style, perceived control and optimism in both bullies and victims. The findings suggest that the debate may hinge on whether the bullies are also victims. In this study bullies had higher scores on problem-solving control while bully victims had the lowest scores. These variations corresponded to differences in psychological distress suggesting that bullies may have developed more effective coping strategies with the reverse being true for bully victims     

Adolescents' perception of bullying: who is the victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying?

The main aim of this study was to describe adolescents' perceptions and experiences of bullying: their thoughts about why children and adolescents are bullied, their ideas about why some bully others, and what they believe is important in order to stop bullying. The adolescents were asked about experiences throughout their school years. The study group was comprised of 119 high school students, with a mean age of 17.1 (SD = 1.2). Of the adolescents who reported, 39% indicated that they had been bullied at some time during their school years and 28% said that they had bullied others; 13% reported being both victims and bullies. The ages during which most students had been bullied at school were between 7 and 9 years. Bullies reported that most of the bullying took place when they were 10 to 12 years old. The most common reason as to why individuals are bullied was that they have a different appearance. The participants believe that those who bully suffer from low self-esteem. The most common response to the question "What do you think makes bullying stop?" was that the bully matures. The next most frequent response was that the victim stood up for himself/herself. Those who were not involved in bullying during their school years had a much stronger belief that victims can stand up for themselves than did the victims themselves.     

Bullying behaviors in female and male adolescent offenders: prevalence,types, and association with psychosocial adjustment

Despite the surge of research on bullying, few studies have examined bullying in young offenders, particularly female young offenders. This study investigated the prevalence, types, and correlates of bullying behaviors in 193 male and 50 female incarcerated adolescents from nine young offender facilities. Overall, 37% of participants identified themselves as bully‐victims, 32% as pure bullies, 23% as not involved, and 8% as pure victims. In comparison to males, females were more likely to report being involved with bullying in some capacity, particularly as pure victims, and being bullied by sexual touching and comments. Pure victims reported higher rates of psychological distress and suicidal behaviors than those youth not involved in bullying, and pure bullies were more likely to have been previously incarcerated and affiliated with a gang. Bully‐victims reported the highest rates of previous abuse, peer victimization in the community, drug use, and suicide attempts while in custody. All groups, including pure victims, reported high rates of bullying others in the community. Treatment providers should recognize that offenders who are victims are often bullies as well, and be alert to broad mental health needs among victims and bully‐victims. Given the prevalence and potential serious consequences of bullying, the development of anti‐bullying policies appears to be an important step in recognizing and reducing bullying. Aggr. Behav. 00:1–16, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Association between measures of aggression and bullying among juvenile and young offenders

This study addresses the relationship between aggression and behaviors indicative of bullying in a sample of incarcerated male juvenile and young offenders. The study also addresses whether or not offenders who bully others and/or are bullied themselves can be identified by the type of aggression that they report. Ninety‐five juvenile and 196 young offenders completed a self‐report behavioral checklist (DIPC: Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behavior Checklist) that addressed their experience of and involvement in behaviors indicative of bullying. They also completed the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ), a measure of physical and verbal aggression, anger and hostility. Four categories of offenders were identified from the DIPC ‐ pure bullies, pure victims, those who were both bullies and victims (bully/victims), and those not‐involved in bullying behavior. As predicted, behaviors measured on the DIPC that were indicative of ‘bullying others’ correlated positively with scores on the AQ. There was no indication, however, that physical AQ and physical bullying on the DIPC were the same constructs. There was a closer association between verbal AQ scores and verbal bullying on the DIPC. Bullies and bully/victims reported higher levels of physical and verbal aggression, and bully/victims reported higher levels of hostility and anger, than the other categories. It is concluded that although there are similarities between the AQ and the DIPC, there is no evidence that they are measuring the same type of aggression, although different groups involved in bullying can be partly distinguished by their scores on the AQ. Aggr. Behav. 30:29–42, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Links between social information processing in middle childhood and involvement in bullying

The aim of this study was to investigate the way in which bullies, victims, bully/victims, and those not involved process social information. A peer nomination measure of bullying and victimization was administered twice over an interval of one year. The sample consisted of 236 (126 girls and 110 boys) children at the beginning of the study (T1) and 242 children one year later (T2) (mean age: 8 years). To test how children responded when provoked, both spontaneously and after prompting, we used provocation scenarios, and to test their attributional interpretations we used ambiguous scenarios. The results showed that children not involved in bullying responded in an assertive way to provocation more often than bullies and victims, but not more than bully/victims. In general, aggressive answers diminished after prompting and irrelevant answers increased. Appealing for the help of an adult or a peer was the strategy most often chosen. When the intent of the perpetrator was ambiguous, bully/victims attributed more blame, were angrier, and would retaliate more than those not involved. Partly similar results were obtained when stably involved children were compared with those unstably involved. Suggestions for intervention are presented. Aggr. Behav. 29:116–127, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Emotional display rules and emotion self‐regulation: Associations with bullying and victimization in community‐based after school programs

We explored linkages among different components of emotional competence and bullying and victimization in children enrolled in community after school programs. Seventy‐seven children were recruited from after school programs and their display rule knowledge for sadness and anger was evaluated. Their emotion self‐regulation skills and bullying experiences were also assessed. Knowledge of display rules for sadness was a negative predictor of physical victimization whereas emotional lability/negativity was positively related to bullying. Boys bullied more than girls and family income was negatively related to bullying and emotional lability/negativity and positively associated with emotion self‐regulation. Emotion self‐regulation mediated the relation between family income and bullying. Analyses also suggested that bullies and bully‐victims had poorer emotion self‐regulation skills than non‐bullies/victims or victims. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies,victims, and bully‐victims

Bullies, victims, bully‐victims, and control children were identified from a sample of 1062 children (530 girls and 532 boys), aged 10 to 12 years, participating in the study. Their reactive and proactive aggression was measured by means of peer and teacher reports. Peer and teacher reports were more concordant with respect to reactive than proactive aggression. Comparing the children in different bullying roles in terms of their reactive and proactive aggression, bully‐victims were found to be the most aggressive group of all. For this group, it was typical to be highly aggressive both reactively and proactively. Although bullies were significantly less aggressive than bully‐victims, they scored higher than victims and controls on both reactive and proactive aggression. However, observations at the person level, i.e., cross‐tabulational analyses, indicated that bullies were not only overrepresented among children who were both reactively and procatively aggressive but also among the only reactively aggressive as well as the only proactively aggressive groups. Victims scored higher than control children on reactive aggression, but they were not proactively aggressive. Furthermore, even their reactive aggression was at a significantly lower level than that of bullies and bully‐victims. Aggr. Behav. 28:30–44, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Psychological processes in young bullies versus bully‐victims

Some children who bully others are also victimized themselves (“bully‐victims”) whereas others are not victimized themselves (“bullies”). These subgroups have been shown to differ in their social functioning as early as in kindergarten. What is less clear are the motives that underlie the bullying behavior of young bullies and bully‐victims. The present study examined whether bullies have proactive motives for aggression and anticipate to feel happy after victimizing others, whereas bully‐victims have reactive motives for aggression, poor theory of mind skills, and attribute hostile intent to others. This “distinct processes hypothesis” was contrasted with the “shared processes hypothesis,” predicting that bullies and bully‐victims do not differ on these psychological processes. Children (n = 283, age 4–9) were classified as bully, bully‐victim, or noninvolved using peer‐nominations. Theory of mind, hostile intent attributions, and happy victimizer emotions were assessed using standard vignettes and false‐belief tasks; reactive and proactive motives were assessed using teacher‐reports. We tested our hypotheses using Bayesian model selection, enabling us to directly compare the distinct processes model (predicting that bullies and bully‐victims deviate from noninvolved children on different psychological processes) against the shared processes model (predicting that bullies and bully‐victims deviate from noninvolved children on all psychological processes alike). Overall, the shared processes model received more support than the distinct processes model. These results suggest that in early childhood, bullies and bully‐victims have shared, rather than distinct psychological processes underlying their bullying behavior.     

The social and emotional skills of bullies,victims, and bully–victims of Egyptian primary school children

This study examined whether bullies, victims, bully–victims (who are both bullies and victims), and students who reported no or low levels of bullying and victimization differed in their levels of social and emotional skills. Data were collected from 623 children in fifth and sixth grades from four Egyptian elementary schools; their ages ranged from 10 to 12 years. K‐means cluster analysis revealed four groups: bullies (n = 138), victims (n = 178), bully–victims (n = 59), and children who were not involved in bullying behaviour (n = 248). Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. The findings indicated that boys were more involved in bullying behaviour than girls, and both bullies and bully–victims were less likely to adhere to social rules and politeness than children who were not involved in bullying. Both bullies and victims were less aware of the physiological reactions of their emotions than uninvolved children, and were less able to apply social rules in social interaction. Both victims and bully–victims reported less likeability than children not involved in bullying. Verbal sharing, attending to others’ emotions, and analysis of emotions did not have a statistically significant relationship with the probabilities of classifying children to any bullying group versus children not involved in bullying. Social skills were more important than emotional awareness in predicting the likelihood of classifying children in one of the three bullying groups versus children who not involved in bullying. The main conclusion is that social and emotional skills together may provide an effective means of intervention for bullying problems.     

Bullies,aggressive victims,and victims: Are they distinct groups?

This study analyzed a sample representing six middle schools that included 206 pure bullies, 514 pure victims, and 206 aggressive victims. Aggressive or provocative victims are students who have been bullied but also bully other students. This research assessed whether aggressive victims engaged in different patterns of behavior and had dissimilar socialization experiences than pure bullies and pure victims. Factors that were considered include measures of parental socialization, family conflict, reactive and proactive aggression, low self‐control, social bonds, and other relevant factors, including demographic characteristics. Logistic regression analyses indicated that aggressive victims engaged in significantly different patterns of behavior than pure victims and pure bullies. The analyses also indicated that the socialization experiences of middle school aggressive victims more closely resembled the socialization experiences of pure bullies than pure victims. Aggr. Behav. 00:00–00, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Physical,verbal, and relational forms of bullying among German students: age trends,gender differences,and correlates

A revised version of the Bully/Victim Questionnaire [Olweus, 1991] was given to 2,086 fifth–tenth grader students from schools in two German federal states. The results were analysed in terms of frequencies of self‐reports of different forms of bullying (physical, verbal, relational/indirect; for bullies and for victims), gender and grade differences. Overall, 12.1% of the students reported bullying others and 11.1% reported being bullied (victimisation). We classified 2.3% of the students as bully/victims due to their self‐report. Significantly more boys reported bullying others, regardless of bullying form, and significantly more boys than girls were classified as bully/victims. Although there was no gender difference for victimisation at all, boys reported significantly more often than girls being bullied physically. Besides, self‐reports of pure and overlapping forms of bullying behaviour (relational, verbal, physical) were analysed. With regard to age trends, students from middle grades reported the highest rates of bullying. Self‐reported rates of victimisation were higher for younger students, regardless of form of victimisation. Furthermore, class size was not linked to reports of bullying and victimisation. Results from logistic regression analyses emphasised that the variables “gender” and “grade” add significantly to the prediction of self‐reported bullying; “grade” and variables measuring impaired psychosocial “well‐being” of students at school (e.g., feeling of not being popular, negative attitude towards breaks) add significantly to the prediction of self‐reported victimisation. The results are discussed against the background of other study findings, accentuating the significance of gender‐ and age‐specific forms of bullying/victimisation. Aggr. Behav. 32:1–15, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Anchoring Bullying and Victimization in Children Within a Five‐Factor Model‐Based Person‐Centred Framework

Although researchers have begun to explore bullying and victimization problems from a personality perspective, more work is needed on the particular personality constellations of children and adolescents who are vulnerable to victimization or prone to bullying. The principal research goal of the present study was to anchor the robust four‐group classification of bullying and victimization (i.e. bullies, victims, bully/victims and uninvolved children) within the Five‐Factor Model‐based person‐centred framework in primary school children (N = 660), controlling for gender. We found four distinct personality types in middle childhood: a mixed type, an undercontrolled type, a moderate type and a resilient type. In line with expectations, we found that a resilient personality profile protected children and adolescents against victimization and that children and adolescents with an undercontrolled or mixed personality profile were at increased risk to be bully/victims, rather than uninvolved in bully problems or victimization, compared with children with a moderate personality profile. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Descriptive analysis of the nature and extent of bullying behavior in a maximum‐security prison

This aim of this study was to investigate the nature and extent of direct and indirect bullying in a maximum‐security prison and to assess prisoners' attitudes toward victims of bullying. A total of 194 adult male prisoners completed the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behavior Checklist (DIPC) [Ireland (1998): University of Central Lancashire; Ireland (1999a): Aggressive Behavior] and a modified version of the Rigby and Slee [1991: J Social Psychol 131:615–627] provictim scale. The results showed that more than half of the prisoners sampled had been bullied in the past week. Only a small number of prisoners could be classified as either a pure bully or a pure victim, with almost half classified as both a bully and a victim. The most frequent types of bullying used were psychological/verbal and indirect forms. No significant differences were found between pure bullies, bully/victims, pure victims, and the not involved groups' attitudes toward the victims of bullying. These findings hold implications for anti‐bullying programs that fail to fully consider the prevalence of indirect forms of bullying and that an individual can be both a bully and a victim. Aggr. Behav. 26:213–223, 2000. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.