How Competent are Adolescent Bullying Perpetrators and Victims in Mastering Normative Developmental Tasks in Early Adulthood?

A substantive body of literature suggests that those involved in bullying as perpetrators but particularly victims are at greater risk for psychological maladjustment. In comparison, relatively little is known about associations between bullying-victimization and perpetration and mastery of early adult tasks in domains including romantic relationships, education, work, financial competence, and conduct. These links were tested using data from two Dutch cohorts (RADAR-young, n = 497, 43% girls; TRAILS, n = 2230, 51% girls) who reported on victimization and perpetration at age 11 (TRAILS) and 13 (RADAR-young) and mastery of developmental tasks in early adulthood. Unadjusted regression analyses suggested for both cohorts that perpetrators were less likely to abide the law and more likely to smoke. Victims in TRAILS were less competent in the domains of education, work, and finances, and more likely to smoke in RADAR-young. Adjusting for childhood demographics and child intelligence and including psychopathology in the prediction models substantially reduced the strength of associations between bullying involvement and later outcomes in both cohorts; although association were retained between victimization and welfare dependence and perpetration and crime involvement in TRAILS. Parental support did not buffer associations in either sample and neither were gender differences detected. Overall, findings underline that negative outcomes of bullying are not only a concern for victims but also for their perpetrators although involvement in bullying is not a stable predictor of mastery of developmental tasks when childhood demographics, child intelligence, and psychopathology are taken into account.     

Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: a comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents

Research on bullying and victimization largely rests on univariate analyses and on reports from a single informant. Researchers may thus know too little about the simultaneous effects of various independent and dependent variables, and their research may be biased by shared method variance. The database for this Dutch study was large (N = 1,065) and rich enough to allow multivariate analysis and multi-source information. In addition, the effect of familial vulnerability for internalizing and externalizing disorders was studied. Gender, aggressiveness, isolation, and dislikability were most strongly related to bullying and victimization. Among the many findings that deviated from or enhanced the univariate knowledge base were that not only victims and bully/victims but bullies as well were disliked and that parenting was unrelated to bullying and victimization once other factors were controlled.     

Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches

The relation between bullying and helping and same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection was examined in a sample of preadolescents aged 11 and 12 years (N=1,065). The authors tested predictions from a gender-homophily approach vs. predictions from a goal-framing approach in which acceptance and rejection are seen as being generated by approach and avoidance goals, respectively. For preadolescents, both approaches predicted a central role for gender, but the gender-homophily approach predicted symmetrical effects for acceptance and rejection, whereas the goal-framing approach predicted strong asymmetries. The data supported the goal-framing approach. The most important findings were that for preadolescents, acceptance is much more frequent and much more gendered than rejection; the absolute impact of helping on acceptance is much larger than that of bullying (and vice versa for rejection); for acceptance, there is a prototypicality effect (i.e., boys accept bullying girls better than nonbullying girls, and girls accept helping boys better than nonhelping boys); and for acceptance, there is a cross-gender ignorance effect (i.e., boys ignore helping in girls, and girls ignore bullying in boys).     

Executive Functioning and Non-Verbal Intelligence as Predictors of Bullying in Early Elementary School

Executive function and intelligence are negatively associated with aggression, yet the role of executive function has rarely been examined in the context of school bullying. We studied whether different domains of executive function and non-verbal intelligence are associated with bullying involvement in early elementary school. The association was examined in a population-based sample of 1,377 children. At age 4 years we assessed problems in inhibition, shifting, emotional control, working memory and planning/organization, using a validated parental questionnaire (the BRIEF-P). Additionally, we determined child non-verbal IQ at age 6 years. Bullying involvement as a bully, victim or a bully-victim in grades 1–2 of elementary school (mean age 7.7 years) was measured using a peer-nomination procedure. Individual bullying scores were based on the ratings by multiple peers (on average 20 classmates). Analyses were adjusted for various child and maternal socio-demographic and psychosocial covariates. Child score for inhibition problems was associated with the risk of being a bully (OR per SD?=?1.35, 95%CI: 1.09–1.66), victim (OR per SD?=?1.21, 95%CI: 1.00–1.45) and a bully-victim (OR per SD?=?1.55, 95%CI: 1.10–2.17). Children with higher non-verbal IQ were less likely to be victims (OR?=?0.99, 95%CI: 0.98–1.00) and bully-victims (OR?=?95%CI: 0.93–0.98, respectively). In conclusion, our study showed that peer interactions may be to some extent influenced by children’s executive function and non-verbal intelligence. Future studies should examine whether training executive function skills can reduce bullying involvement and improve the quality of peer relationships.