Criminal thinking patterns, aggression styles, and the psychopathic traits of late high school bullies and bully-victims

This study explored the current psychological characteristics and criminal behavior history of individuals who retrospectively reported being bullies, bully-victims, victims, or controls (i.e. neither victims nor bullies) during their last 2 years of high school. College students (n = 960) completed measures of criminal thinking, aggression, psychopathy, and criminal behavior online. We predicted bullies and bully-victims would demonstrate the highest scores for criminal thinking, proactive aggression, psychopathy, and have the most criminal infractions. Bullies and bully-victims had significantly higher scores on criminal thinking, aggression, psychopathy, and criminal behaviors than victims or controls. Additionally, men were significantly higher in criminal thinking, aggression, psychopathy, and had more criminal acts than women. There were no gender by bully group interactions. Logistic regression analyses differentiated bully-victims from bullies. Bully-victims tended to be male, higher in criminal thinking, and higher in reactive aggression. In addition, bully-victims were distinct from victims, showing higher criminal thinking and higher proactive aggression.     

Linking Callous-Unemotional Traits to Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Forms of Aggression

The current study investigated the relation of callous-unemotional (CU) traits to bullying, victimization, and proactive and reactive aggression. We also examined whether CU traits will be more strongly related to groups of children exhibiting combined or pure forms of proactive and reactive aggression and combined or pure forms of bullying and victimization. The findings suggested that the presence of CU traits, which consists of three dimensions of behavior, uncaring, callousness, and unemotional, may designate important subgroups of aggressive children. Evidence suggested that the adolescents characterized by higher levels of CU traits were more likely to exhibit combined proactive and reactive aggression in comparison to pure forms of proactive or reactive aggression. Additionally, bullies scored higher on the uncaring dimension, and bully-victims (adolescents exhibiting both bullying and victimization) scored higher on the callous dimension. In contrast, victims of bullying scored lower on the uncaring dimension of behavior.     

Morally disengaged and unempathic: do cyberbullies fit these definitions? An exploratory study

In recent years, the phenomenon of cyberbullying has been gaining scholars' growing interest under various aspects, including its overlap with face-to-face bullying. Nevertheless, its relationships with cognitive and affective empathy, proactive and reactive aggression, and moral disengagement, constructs that proved to be crucial in distinguishing aggressive subjects from their targets and nonaggressive peers in traditional bullying, still represent, to some extent, an unexplored domain. The main purpose of the present exploratory study was to investigate the associations between cyberbullying and the mentioned constructs among Italian adolescents. 819 high-school students (mean age 16.08) were administered a battery of standardized tools, along with Cyberties, a new instrument created to assess the prevalence of (and the type of involvement in) different forms of electronic assaults. Analyses of variance were conducted to compare four roles ("pure" bullies, "pure" victims, bully victims, and noninvolved subjects). Participants who identified themselves as cyberbullies or cyberbully victims showed significantly higher levels of overall moral disengagement and of both types of aggression. Cyberbullies also displayed a lack of affective empathy. Our findings are in line with the ones in extant literature about correlates of traditional and electronic forms of bullying. Implications for prevention strategies are discussed.     

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.     

Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Bullying in Middle School Youth

ABSTRACT

We examined middle school students' attitudes and perceptions of bullying during their middle school years. Participants were categorized along the bully/victim continuum as bullies, victims, bully-victims, and no-status students based on their self-nomination from a survey that queries students about their experiences with bullying (either as a bully, victim, or both), their observations of bullying, and their attitudes toward bullying. The majority of participants were classified as bullies, victims, and bully-victims as 70% of the participants reported involvement with bullying and/or victimization during their middle school years. Participants' perceptions about bullying and attitudes toward bullying were examined at three points in time. Participants' attitudes toward bullying became more supportive of bullying as students progressed through middle school. Additionally, external attributes for bullying were cited across all four status groups as reasons for involvement in bullying. Implications for prevention and intervention programs that address bullying are discussed.     

Emotional adjustment in victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying and traditional bullying

Given the rise in cyberbullying among secondary education students and the importance of certain psychological adjustment variables for the comprehension of this type of violent behavior, both in bullies and in victims, the purpose of the present study was to analyse the emotional adjustment of those involved in cyber- and traditional bullying. The adjustment variables studied were self-concept, perceived stress, loneliness, depressive symptomatology, social anxiety, life satisfaction, and emotional intelligence. Using a sample of 1318 adolescents (47% boys), aged between 11 and 17 years, four groups were established to compare victims and cybervictims (uninvolved students, traditional victims, cybervictims, and traditional–cybervictims). The analysis of variance showed that students who performed the same role (bully or victim) in both contexts (at school and online). In particular, those who suffered traditional or cyberbullying or both conjointly presented lower scores in physical and social self-concept, life satisfaction, emotional clarity, and emotion regulation, as well as higher scores in perceived stress, loneliness, depression, and social anxiety. In bullies—traditional, cyberbullying or both simultaneously—higher scores were observed in perceived stress, loneliness, depressive symptomatology, fear of negative assessment, avoidance, and general social anxiety, and lower scores in the dimensions of academic and family self-concept, life satisfaction, emotional clarity, and emotion regulation. In general, the findings indicate that students who were involved in bullying situations, both victims and bullies, presented more damaged emotional profiles than those who are uninvolved, especially students who performed the same role (bully or victim) in both contexts (at school and online).

     

Bystanders’ responses to offline bullying and cyberbullying: The role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression

Cyberbullying often takes place with the virtual presence or knowledge of bystanders. While we have some evidence about the determinants of bystanders’ responses to offline bullying, we lack empirical studies concerning the variables that influence bystanders’ responses to cyberbullying. The current study examines bystanders’ responses to offline bullying and cyberbullying incidents. Two types of responses were captured: support toward the victims and the reinforcement of bullies’ actions. Using data from 321 German adolescents (ages 12–18; M = 14.99; 44% girls), the association between bystanders’ responses and normative beliefs about verbal aggression and cyberaggression, and affective and cognitive empathy, were tested in a path model. Both types of normative beliefs positively predicted the reinforcement of bullies, and normative belief about verbal aggression also predicted support for the victims of offline bullying. Both types of empathy predicted support in offline bullying, but only affective empathy predicted support in cyberbullying. There was no link between affective or cognitive empathy to the reinforcement of bullies. Moreover, bystanders’ tendencies to respond supportively to the victim or to reinforce the bully were rather consistent in both cyber‐ and offline bullying, but there was no link between support and reinforcement. The findings are discussed with regard to implications for prevention and intervention efforts.     

Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school bullying

This study examined the relation between moral disengagement and different self-reported and peer-nominated positions in school bullying. The aims of this study were to (1) investigate moral disengagement among children for whom self-reported and peer-nominated bully status diverged and (2) compare levels of disengagement among self-reported and peer-nominated pure bullies, pure victims, bully-victims, and children not involved in bullying. A sample of 739 Danish sixth grade and seventh grade children (mean age 12.6) was included in the study. Moral disengagement was measured using a Danish version of the Moral Disengagement Scale and bullying was measured using both self-reports and peer nominations. Results revealed that both self-reported and peer-nominated bullying were related to moral disengagement, and that both pure bullies and bully-victims displayed higher moral disengagement than outsiders. Discrepancies between self-reported and peer-nominated bullying involvement indicates that a person's social reputation has a stronger association with moral disengagement than so far expected. Implications are discussed, highlighting the importance of further research and theory development.     

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.     

Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace

Two studies generated profiles of cyberbullying/cyberincivility and traditional bullying/incivility in adults, particularly within the workplace. In Study 1, 20% of 3,699 participants had the majority of cyberbullying victimization and 7.5% had the majority of traditional bullying victimization occur in adulthood, with 30% saying they were bullied at work. Relationships between bullying and negative outcomes were found. Because of the clear evidence of bullying and cyberbullying in the workplace in Study 1, Study 2 addressed the relationship of these constructs to workplace incivility. Workplace face-to-face incivility and bullying were related among 321 participants, as were workplace cyberbullying and cyberincivility. Face-to-face incivility was more common than online incivility, face-to-face bullying, or online bullying, yet all four behaviors were associated with negative outcomes. Differences in intentionality, acceptability, and severity were observed, with workplace face-to-face bullying perceived as the most severe and having the greatest intentionality to harm. These results emphasize the importance of studying bullying among adults, and highlight the conceptual independence of bullying and incivility. Correlates of workplace aggression are discussed using job demands-resources theory.     

Beyond the reactive‐proactive dichotomy: Rage,revenge, reward,and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status

The role of reactive and proactive aggression in school bullying perpetration remains unclear. In this study, we explore the predictive value of an expanded model of aggression motives based on the Quadripartite Violence Typology (QVT), which distinguishes between motivational valence (appetitive or aversive) and recruitment of deliberative self‐control to derive four classes of motives: Rage, Revenge, Reward, and Recreation. With a sample of 1,802 students from grades 7–9, we assessed aggression motives via self‐report, along with self‐report of bullying perpetration and victimization, which were used to assign students into categories of Pure Bully, Bully/Victim (B/V), Pure Victim, and Uninvolved. Two structural models were computed to examine the relationship between these four categories of bullying involvement and aggression motives, using conservative and liberal bullying cutoffs. As predicted, B/V status was more strongly related to Rage and Revenge motives. However, B/Vs had higher scores than Pure Bullies for almost all aggression motives, including Recreation. We discuss the implications of addressing Revenge and Recreation, as well as Reward and Rage (which map most clearly to proactive and reactive aggression, respectively) aggression motives, for bullying prevention and intervention strategies, especially among adolescents for whom extant bullying prevention strategies may be ineffective or counterproductive.

     

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.     

Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?

The paper argues that several claims about cyberbullying made in the media and elsewhere are greatly exaggerated and have little empirical scientific support. Contradicting these claims, it turns out that cyberbullying, when studied in proper context, is a low-prevalence phenomenon, which has not increased over time and has not created many “new” victims and bullies, that is, children and youth who are not also involved in some form of traditional bullying. These conclusions are based on two quite large samples of students, one from the USA and one from Norway, both of which have time series data for periods of four or five years. It is further argued that the issue of possible negative effects of cyberbullying has not received much serious research attention and a couple of strategies for such research are suggested together with some methodological recommendations. Finally, it is generally recommended that schools direct most of their anti-bullying efforts to counteracting traditional bullying, combined with an important system-level strategy that is likely to reduce the already low prevalence of cyberbullying.     

Gender differences in the assessment, stability, and correlates to bullying roles in middle school children

The current study investigated bullying behaviors in 284 school children in the fourth through seventh grades at the time of the initial assessment. Peer ratings of bullying behavior were obtained at the end of the spring semester of one school year and at the end of the fall semester of the next school year. Importantly, peer ratings were obtained by assessing not only the level at which participants actually bully other students but also whether participants help bullies to hurt the victim (assister), encourage bullies (reinforce), or help the victim of bullying (defender). Our results did not support the utility of differentiating between bullies, assisters, or reinforcers. Specifically, these bullying roles were highly intercorrelated, both concurrently and across school years, and they showed similar correlations with aggression and several characteristics often associated with aggression (i.e., conduct problems, callous-unemotional traits, and positive expectancies about aggression). In contrast, ratings of defending designated a particularly prosocial group of students. Finally, whereas bullying appeared to be very similar in boys and girls, it was somewhat more stable across school years and was related to lower levels of prosocial behavior in boys, both of which could suggest that bullying may be somewhat more related to social group dynamics in girls.     

Was that (cyber)bullying? Investigating the operational definitions of bullying and cyberbullying from adolescents’ perspective

Background/Objective: Despite the great interest that bullying and cyberbullying have received during the last decades, the problem of defining these phenomena is still debated. Recently, this discussion has also been articulated in terms of how young people who are directly involved in bullying and cyberbullying understand these notions. This study aimed at investigating the operational definitions of both bullying and cyberbullying provided by adolescent victims and perpetrators, by inquiring the weight of traditional criteria (i.e., frequency, deliberateness, imbalance of power, and harm) as well as dominance in the perception of these phenomena. Method: A total of 899 students aged between 11 and 16 years filled out the Student Aggression and Victimisation Questionnaire. Results: Common traits and differences between the operational definition of bullying and cyberbullying and between the perspectives of victims and perpetrators of aggression were found. The most relevant criterion for the perception of both these phenomena was clearly the presence of dominance. By contrast, the imbalance of power showed no significant relationship with the perception of being bullied or bullying others both offline and online. Conclusions: Findings emphasise that young people conceptualise bullying with a clear reference to relational and group processes, rather than to individual differences.     

Empirical test of bullies' status goals: assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige

The literature suggests that status goals are one of the driving motivations behind bullying behavior, yet this conjecture has rarely if ever been examined empirically. This study assessed status goals in three ways, using dyadic network analysis to analyze the relations and goals among 10-11 and 14-15 year olds in 22 school classes (N boys=225; N girls=277). As a validation bullies were contrasted with victims. Bullies had direct status goals (measured with the Interpersonal Goal Inventory for Children) and showed dominance as measured with proactive aggression. Moreover, as predicted from a goal perspective, bullying behavior was related to prestige in terms of perceived popularity. In contrast, victims lacked status goals, were only reactively aggressive, and low on prestige. That being popular is not the same as being liked could be shown by the fact that bullies were just as rejected as victims by their classmates. Eighth-grade bullies had more direct status goals than fourth-grade bullies, possibly indicating that striving for the popularity component of status increases in early adolescence.     

Cyberbullying in a diverse society: comparing Jewish and Arab adolescents in Israel through the lenses of individualistic versus collectivist cultures

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in cyberbullying (bystanders, victims, bullies) between Jewish and Arab adolescents in Israel. The findings could uncover critical implications for children, educators, and policymakers for understanding Cyberbullying in a diverse society. In particular, the differences in cyberbullying between collective and individualistic societies and the effect of gender bias on the likelihood of engaging in cyberbullying. Two cultural contexts in Israel were explored: one representing a collectivist orientation (Arab-Muslim and Arab-Christian culture), the other representing a more individualistic orientation (Jewish culture). The study included 901 junior high and high school students (501 Jewish-Israelis and 400 Arab–Israelis), which filled in an online cyberbullying survey. Findings revealed that Jewish adolescents reported being cybervictims and cyberbystanders more than Arab adolescents, yet contrary to expectation, Arab adolescents reported being cyberbullies more than Jewish adolescents. Contrary to expectation, no gender differences in being a bully were found among Jewish adolescents, while among Arab adolescents, girls reported higher bullying than boys. The cultural difference was significant among girls, revealing that Jewish girls were higher than Arab girls on bystanding and victimization, yet Arab girls were higher than Jewish girls on bullying in cyberspace. The cultural difference was not significant among boys. Using online communication as a theoretical framework, this study observed aspects of cyberbullying in the diverse and multicultural society of Israel through the lenses of individualistic versus collectivist cultures. The findings and their implications are further discussed and shed more light on cyberbullying in a diverse and multicultural society.     

Bullying and victimization: prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression

This study investigated the prevalence of bullying and victimization among students in grades 7 and 8. It also explored the relationship of bullying and victimization to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Three survey instruments were used to obtain data from a convenience sample of 454 public school students. Twenty-four percent reported bullying involvement. Chi-square tests indicated significantly more male than female bullying involvement, seventh graders reported more involvement than did eighth graders, and there were no statistically significant differences in involvement based on ethnicity. Both bullies and victims manifested higher levels of depression than did students who were neither bullies nor victims. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of self-esteem.     

Differential Genetic and Environmental Influences on Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children

While significant heritability for childhood aggression has been claimed, it is not known whether there are differential genetic and environmental contributions to proactive and reactive forms of aggression in children. This study quantifies genetic and environmental contributions to these two forms of aggression in an ethnically diverse urban sample of 9–10 year old twins (N = 1219), and compares results across different informants (child self-report, mother, and teacher ratings) using the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ). Confirmatory factor analysis of RPQ items indicated a significant and strong fit for a two-factor proactive–reactive model which was significantly superior to a one-factor model and which replicated across gender as well as the three informant sources. Males scored significantly higher than females on both self-report reactive and proactive aggression, findings that replicated on mother and teacher versions of the RPQ. Asian–Americans scored lower than most ethnic groups on reactive aggression yet were equivalent to Caucasians on proactive aggression. African–Americans scored higher than other ethnic groups on all measures of aggression except caregiver reports. Heritable influences were found for both forms of aggression across informants, but while boys’ self-reports revealed genetic influences on proactive (50%) and reactive (38%) aggression, shared and non-shared environmental influences almost entirely accounted for girls’ self-report reactive and proactive aggression. Although genetic correlations between reactive and proactive aggression were significant across informants, there was evidence that the genetic correlation was less than unity in boys self reported aggression, indicating that genetic factors differ for proactive and reactive aggression. These findings provide the first evidence for varying genetic and environmental etiologies for reactive and proactive aggression across gender, and provide additional support for distinction between these two forms of aggression.     

Teacher,parent and student perceptions of the motives of cyberbullies

Understanding the motivation of students who cyberbully is important for both prevention and intervention efforts for this insidious form of bullying. This qualitative exploratory study used focus groups to examine the views of teachers, parents and students as to the motivation of students who cyberbully and who bully in other traditional forms. In addition, these groups were asked to explain their understanding of what defines bullying and cyberbullying. The results suggested that not only were there differences in definitions of cyberbullying and bullying between the three groups, but also that there were differences in perceptions of what motivates some youth to cyberbully. The implications of these results are discussed for both prevention and intervention strategies.