Abstract
This assignment is an attempt to understand the incidence of bullying. The first difficulty is to define what bullying is as well as its parties and several forms. Subsequently, theories that have traditionally been used to explain this complex phenomenon are presented. Likewise, a distinction between individual characteristics and social factors is made. Furthermore, the consequences of bullying are addressed with regards to all the parties: the bully, the victim, the bully-victim and the bystanders. Finally, applied interventions are provided as well as some new proposals made by researchers.
Peer Relations and Psychological Well-being in Middle Childhood Children:
The incidence of bullying
Introduction
The incidence of bullying has kept psychologists busy since 1980, as shown by the large body of research that allows us to attempt an understanding of this complex phenomenon. It started to appear in the literature from Norway (Olweus, 1978, 1989), Britain (Smith, 1881), North America (Dodge, Coie, Pettit & Price, 1990) and Australia (Rigby & Slee, 1993). Furthermore, there are two main research orientations: the American tradition, which focuses on childhood aggression (Parke & Slaby, 1983) and the Scandinavian tradition, which illuminates the outcomes of aggressive behaviours on other children (Olweus, 1978, 1993). Public concern has increased due to publicized school shootings and suicides by victims of chronic peer abuse and the need for preventing bullying is evident in the shifting of publication trends since 2000.
The definition puzzle
One of the most challenging tasks in the field of bullying is to reach a consensus in terms of defining it (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). It has initially been identified as a sub-category of childhood aggressive behaviour (Dodge et al, 1990) and is considered to be a form of youth violence (World Health Organization, 2015) and a broad public health problem. The various definitions existing in the literature share the common perception of bullying as subset of aggression (Dodge, 1991; Olweus, 1993; Smith & Thompson, 1991), which is characterized by a repeated and systematic abuse of power (Olweus, 1999; Smith & Sharp, 1994).
According to Olweus (1997), bullying is defined as "repeated aggression, used by one or more students (the bullies) to deliberately hurt another student (the victim) physically, verbally or psychologically while the victim is incapable of defending himself". Thus, it involves: a) an imbalance between strength, b) a deliberate intention to hurt the other without previous provocation and c) repeated negative actions against the other person (Olweus,1989; 1993). Subsequently, it can be described as a two-step process including, at first, exposure to systematic bullying behaviour and, secondly, comprising a subjective interpretation of being victimized.
In addition to physical aggression, bullying includes verbally manifested aggressive behaviour such as name calling and threats, relational aggression in the form of social isolation and rumour spreading and cyber violent behaviour within the electronic youth culture, a new setting in the era of technology (Williams & Guerra, 2007). During early adolescence, bullying may also involve homophobic name calling and sexual commentary or sexual touching, which may reach the of sexual harassment (Espelage, Basile & Hamburger, 2015).
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development provides the following definition: "Bullying is unwanted aggressive behaviour by another person or group of people who are not the victim’s siblings or current dating partners. In bullying, there is always an observed or perceived power imbalance, and the aggression is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying also includes cyberbullying, a type of aggression that is carried out through electronic means, such as through the Internet, e-mail, or mobile devices. People of all ages can be the victim of bullies. Bullying may take place at home, school, or work. With the advent of electronic aggression, bullying can occur almost anywhere at any time."
Another important element of bullying is the unique interaction between the perpetrator (bully) and the victim attributed to the special circumstances, which
stipulates this dyadic relationship and distinguishes it from conflict (Juvonen & Graham, 2014), letting of steam, understandable reactions of defence, quarrel between two students with the same strength or teasing in a friendly manner (Olweus, 1997). Traditionally, research separated children into these two groups. However, there is a third group, which bullies and is bullied by others, known as the bully victims (Haynie et al., 2001; Veenstra et al., 2005). Moreover, bullying is considered a group phenomenon that is implicitly and explicitly supported by peers (Jones, Bombieri, Livingstone & Mastead, 2012). The identified roles that peers have are the following: a) reinforcer of the bully, b) assistant to the bully, c) defender of the victim and d) outsider. Recent research acknowledges the fluid nature of children's involvement in bullying and their different role-playing in bullying across the years and across contexts (Ryo, Wang & Swearer, 2014).
The difficulty in defining bullying with regards to other forms of aggression and peer victimization lies also in how it is measured. Measurement procedures commonly involve self-reporting, which is either definition-based (i.e. the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire [BVQ]; Olweus, 1996) and/or behaviour based (Callifornia Bully Victimization Scale [CBVS]; Felix et al, 2011).
In search of a "why"
"why"
a) Applied Theories at the service of an explanation
It is necessary to try and find the reasons that explain the phenomenon of bullying and victimization in order to properly assess all its parameters and,
THE INCIDENCE OF BULLYNIG
eventually, be able to come up with possible solutions with regards to prevention and intervention.
Developmental psychology encounters the transition from late childhood to early adolescence (10-13 years old) as the developmental period that represents rapid emotional and physical changes, subsequently experiencing personal and social insecurity. As children begin middle school, they are bound to make new friendships and re-consider their peer group status and social identity. The body changes rapidly at the same time with dramatic peer changes and school transition. While facing these challenges in the new environment, some may use aggressive strategies to gain peer status and advance to the social hierarchy. It has been noted that the problem of bullying and victimization increases in late childhood, peaks in early adolescence and fades in late adolescence (Williams & Guerra, 2007). This is explained by the fact that status enhancement is very important during early adolescence as it overlaps with moving from elementary school to middle school.
Studies have shown a substantial association between aggressive behaviour and social prominence at this academic phase (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). It is interesting that although bullies are isolated by their peers during childhood, they may become accepted as they enter adolescence. However, this is strongly connected with perceived popularity and does not mean that they are actually liked by their peers as the sociometrically popular children (Farmer & Xie, 2007). On the other hand, rejected social status with regards to nonnormative behaviours or other characteristics that set someone apart from the group increase the risk of prolonged and severe peer victimization especially if they are not defended by any group member (Juvonen & Gross, 2005).
In the centre of behaviourism we come across the social learning theory and the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 2006). According to the first theory, internal cognitive processes influence behaviour, as well as observation of the behaviours of others and the environment in which behaviours occur. In terms of bullying behaviour, if a person thinks that a another person has intentions to harm him (hostile attributional bias), not only will he experience fear but he may also over-react in a manner that does not result in a desirable outcome. According to the second theory, individuals learn how to behave by observing the behaviour of others. Once they are faced with the appropriate challenges, they can behave according to the expectations they have assembled on the basis of they have observed. If the behaviour belongs to family members or peers, it is called role-modelling. In the case of bullying, this applies to the observing of aggression and violence within the individual's environment.
As far as social cognitions of bullies and victims are concerned, Dodge (1986), formulated the social information processing model that was reformulated by Crick and Dodge (1994) describing the processing of social information as a "stepwise mental process that eventually guides the behavioural response to social stimuli". In the case of victimized children, the database of social behaviour, including acquired social rules, social schemas and knowledge of appropriate and inappropriate social behaviours, is likely to consist of experiences of being bullied. Based on these experiences, they are likely to hold initial social schemas of peers as hostile, thus affecting their responses to new social situations. With regards to aggressive
behaviours, this model is helpful in identifying unique patterns which prevent children from accurately interpreting social intentions of peers.
According to systems theory, a problem can never be seen as individual but only within the system it occurs (family, school, peer group etc). Therefore, relationships are complementary and behaviours are reciprocal and a dysfunctional behaviour , such as bullying, acquires meaning within the social group. In this context, bullying holds a "systemic role" within the class, the family or other social environments.
b) Individual characteristics and social context
Researchers have studied the link between personality and bullying perpetration. It has been found (Slee & Rigby, 1993) that children's tendency to bully was associated with psychotism, which involves solitary behaviour, hostility and a lack of cooperation and sensitivity in social situations. Furthermore, bullies score higher on Machiavellianism, which is described as a tendency to perceive others as targets for manipulation in interpersonal relationships and is characterized by a powerful drive for social success (Sutton & Keogh, 2000). It has also been suggested that devious behaviours of bullies reflects a personality trait involving manipulation for personal gain (Theory of Mind, Leslie, 1987). Another study among Greek school children (Andreou, 2000) confirmed the negative relation between supportive attitudes toward victims and a desire for social success as neurotic components of personalities of bullies.
In any case, the connections among the personality dimensions (five-factor model), the personality variables and bullying behaviour are largely theoretical (Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015).
A great number of studies has focused on individual factors and predictors, however, research has shifted towards the social context within which bullying
occurs, such as the school environment (Hong & Espelage, 2012) the most influential micro-system for school bullying. The utility of a social-ecological framework has been recognized with regards to understanding bullying (Espelage, Rao & de la Rue, 2013; Espelage & Swearer, 2010; Hong & Gabarino, 2012), as it pertains that human development is a bidirectional interaction between individuals and the multiple systems in which they operate. As a result, bullying is the sum of individual characteristics and, at the same time, influenced by relationships with peers, family, teachers and the community.
Social groups endorse or dispirit several behaviours and group members alter their behaviours to stay in line with peer group's norms and attitudes. This may have positive effects or it may encourage antisocial behaviour. Peer group influence affects aggressive and bullying behaviour. The most important peer influence is that of bystanders and peer support has been considered a key component in school anti-bullying efforts. Studies have indicated (Staub et al, 2003) that as the proportion of passive bystanders increased, the same happened to the negative feelings experienced by the victims. Furthermore, bystanding behaviour seems to affect the reaction of victims toward other victims. It has also been argued that individual differences and personal beliefs play a role in a witness' decision to intervene in a bullying incidence (Howard, Landau & Pryor, 2014).
Why bother? Are there any consequences?
? Are there any consequences?
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development claims that bullying has long-term and short-term psychological effects on bullies and victims. In addition, concerns have been expressed with regards to consequences for children's social adjustment.
Literature provides evidence that being a bully is a significant predictor for problems such as juvenile delinquency and criminality in adulthood (Olweus, 1997). It has been associated with antisocial behaviour such as vandalism, dropping out of school, fighting and the use of drugs and alcohol (Olweus & Limber, 1999). Bullies also appear to be at high risk to developing psychotic phenomena, as patterns of antisocial behaviour have been observed prior to the onset of schizophrenia (Hodgins, 2012; Kim-Cohen et al, 2003).
According to Cook et al (2010), the typical bully demonstrates aggressive and disruptive behaviour, anxiety and depression, has both social competence and poor academic performance, has negative beliefs about others and him self (self-related cognitions), has trouble resolving problem with others, comes from a family that promotes conflict, is likely to perceive the school as negative and tends to be negatively influenced by peers.
Victims of bullying are found to suffer from loneliness, low self esteem, anxiety and depression (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). It has also been argued that exposure to bullying is associated to PTSD (Nielsen et al, 2015). They are also at high risk of suicidal ideation and, in extreme cases, of suicidal attempts (Rigby & Slee, 1999). Research has shown that low self-esteem is associated with psychotic experiences such as hallucinations and delusions (Barrowclough et al, 2003). Furthermore, the typical victim engages in aggressive episodes, lacks adequate social skills, holds negative self-image, experiences difficulties in problem solving and is rejected by peers (Cook et al, 2010). With regards to peer status and social competence, victims are defined by social maladjustment combined with difficulties in establishing and maintaining personal relationships. Fear may lead these victims to drop out of school and they might also continue to be bullied in the workplace. Another important aspect of victimization is, in conjunction with findings from sexual harassment literature, that individuals assume a "victim" label as part of their self-identity thus reflecting a subjective interpretation of the social and psychological meaning of victimization (Greif & Furlong, 2006) The stigmatic self-perception of being bullied may equal the act itself.
There is a third category that has been considered to be the more affected by the incidence of bullying, the bully victim. They are presented with problems in emotion regulation and impulse control (Schwarz, 2000). Their aggression is both reactive and proactive (Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). This individual comprises both the properties of a bully and a victim because he has played both parts. Therefore, it is not of a surprise that he combines issues of aggressive behaviour and internalized problems, such as withdrawal, holds negative beliefs about him/her and the others, is low in social competence and poor in academic performance, is rejected by peers and negatively influenced by his community (Cook et al, 2010). Recent findings provide evidence that adopting the bully-victim label is associated with worse psychosocial functioning (Sharkey, Rederman, Mayworm & Green, 2015). This last category faces a higher risk of adult depression, phobias, panic disorders and suicide-related behaviour (Winsper et al, 2012).
Even for witnesses, bullying is not without consequences as it diminishes the children's sense of safety (Howard, Landau & Pryor, 2014) and poses risks for negative outcomes (Rivers, Poteat, Noretm & Ashurst, 2009).
Is there a solution? Prevention and intervention
? Prevention and intervention
There are two major approaches as far as interventions are concerned, the schoolwide or universal bullying interventions and targeted programs.
a) Schoolwide or Universal vs targeted interventions
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) is the most well known program designed to reduce bullying within the school setting in elementary, middle and junior high school children (Olweus & Limber, 1999). The program operates on the basis that bullying is a systemic social problem involving school staff, students and parents. Its goal is to raise awareness, improve peer relationships, stop intimidation, develop clear rules and support victims.
Another worth mentioning program is KiVa (acronym for kiusaamista vastaan), which was first implemented in Finland. Its different from the OBPP because it focuses on bystanders aiming to increase their empathy for victims. It has also been acknowledged that intervention should begin at elementary school by teaching children social skills in order to resolve interpersonal conflicts (Walk Away, Ignore, Talk It Out and Seek Help).
Two other interesting examples of universal school-based programs that promote social-emotional learning are the Rational Emotive Behavioural Educational (REBE) program, based on rational emotive behavioural theory, the Viennese Social Competence Program (ViSC), based on social-learning theory. Their combination was successfully attempted confirming the idea that anti-bullying programs should be part of a wider school effort to facilitate the socioemotional development of children involving teachers and parents (Trip, Bora, Sipos-Gug, Tocai, Gradinger, Yanagida & Strohmeier, 2015).
On the other hand, targeted interventions focus on children who are involved in bullying episodes as bully or a victim or a bully-victim. Emerging from aggression literature, they are designed to address the dysfunctional thought patterns, such as
hostile attributional bias, and behaviours of children with aggressive behaviours. One of the most extensive interventions incorporating social information-processing skills is Fast Track. With regards to maladaptive social cognitions of victims, efforts to amend self-blaming attributions, which are usually related to mental health difficulties, in order to modify affect and behaviour have been made in the context of attribution therapy in educational settings (Wilson et al, 2002).
A recent study (Ziv et al, 2013) has provided evidence of clear social information processing patterns of victims. They argue that by understanding the mind of these children, treatment and intervention may be more effective in affecting their psychosocial functioning. Identifying the cognitive element of interpreting victimization experiences, especially with regards to the perceived power difference, will help design interventions for bully-victims (Sharkey, Ruderman, Mayworm & Green, 2014). In anti-bullying programs, individual characteristics should also be taken into account as to bystanders, their social-cognitive beliefs and their tendency to morally disengage (Howard et al, 2014).
b) Combining individual characteristics and social context in intervention programs
Swearer & Hymel (2015), have argued for the integration of social-ecological diathesis - stress model to deal with bullying and victimization. This model takes into
account both the individual cognitive and biological vulnerabilities and environmental stressors as well as the interconnections in a child's world. This view is also consistent with the developmental interpretation of bullying as it acknowledges the fact that middle childhood is a particularly vulnerable period with regards to social and emotional development. Theories of group processes are very helpful in
understanding group dynamics but, at the same time, it is necessary to determine the developmental ages at which they are mainly influenced.
Instead of a conclusion
The incidence of bullying is a very complex phenomenon that can not be easily either defined or tackled. Anti-bullying programs have been applied with modest results and punitive approaches are considered ineffective. At a broader sense, it is considered to be a form of violence and aggression. However, this is a simplistic approach and diminishes the core element of this type of behaviour. In my opinion, this is found on the socially acceptable fact of power imbalance. For every bully, there is a victim and vice-versa. Witnesses are only bound to play the roles imposed by social norms. Therefore, there is no clear-cut solution because bullying will continue to exist as a form of man's evolutionary drive for power and control.
References
Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological constructs in 8-12 year old Greek schoolchildren. Aggresive Behavior, 26, 49-56
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bandura, A. (2006). Going Global with social cognitive theory: From prospect to paydirt. In S.I. Donaldson, D.E. Berger, K. Pezdek (Eds), Applied Psychology: New frontiers and rewarding careers (pp. 53-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Barrowclough, C., Tarrier, N.K., Anrews, B., Humphreys, L., Ward, J., & Gregg, L. (2003). Self-esteem in schizophrenia: relationships between self-evaluation, family attitudes and symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 92-99
Cook, R., Williams, K.R., Guerra, N.G., Kim, T.E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. Shcool Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83
Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (19940. A review and reformulation of social information: Processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101
Dodge, K.A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D.J. Pepler, & K.H. Rubin (Eds). The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201-218). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Dodge, K.A. (1996). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (pp. 77-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S., & Price, J.M. (1990). (1990). Peer status and aggression boys groups: Development and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289-1309
Espelage, D.L., Basile, K.C., & Hamburger, M.E. (2012). Bullying experiences and co-occuring sexual violence perpetration among middle school students: Shared and unique risk factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 5, 65-83
Espelage, D.L., Rao, M.A., & de la Rue, L. (2013). Current research on school-based bullying: A social-ecological perspective. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 22, 21-27
Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2010). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and intervention: Understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer & D.L. Espelage (Eds), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 61-72). New York, NY: Routledge
Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383
Farmer, T.W., & Xie, H. (2007). Aggression and school dynamics: The good, the bad and the ordinary. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 461-478
Felix, E.D., Sharkey, J.D., Green, J.G., Furlong, M.F., & Tanigawa, D. (2011). Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying: The development of the California Bullying Victimization Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 234-247
Greif, J.G., & Furlong, M.J. (2006). The assessment of school bullying. Using theory to inform practice. Journal of School Violence, 5, 33-50
Hawker, D.S., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer vicitmization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional stucies. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 41, 441-455
Haynie, D.L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Davis-Crump, A., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullying, victims and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455
Hodgins, S. (2012). Violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia: a framework for investigations of causes, and effective treatment, and prevention. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 2505-2518
Hong, J.S., & Espelage, D.L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violoent behaviour, 17, 311-322
Hong, J.S., & Gabarino, J. (2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: An application of the social-ecological framework. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 271-285
Howard, A.M., Landau, S., & Pryor, J.B. (2014). Peer Bystanders to Bullying: Who Wants to play with the victim? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 265-276
Jones, S.E., Bombieri, L., Livingstone, A.G., & Manstead, A.S.R. (2012). The influence of norms and social identities on children's responses to bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 241-256
Juvonen, J. & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in Schools: The Power of Bullies and the Plight of Victims. Annual Reviews on Psycholog, 65, 159-185
Juvonen, J. & Gross, E.F. (2005). The rejected and the Bullied: Lessons about Social Misfits from Developmental Psychology. In Williams, K.D., Forgas, J.P., & von Hippel, W. (Eds) The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection and Bullying (pp. 155- 161) Taylor & Francis Group: Psychology Press
Kim-Cohen, J., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Harrington, H.L., Milne, B.J. Poulton, R. (2003). Prior juvenile diagnoses in adults with mental disorder: Development follow-back of a prospective longitudinal cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 709-717
Leslie, A.M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of theory of mind. Psychological Review, 94 (4), 412-426
Lines, D (2008). The Bullies: Understanding Bullies and Bullying .London: Jessika Kingsley Publishers
Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality Traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 21, 61-72
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/bullying/Pages/default.aspx
Nickerson, A., & Mele-Taylor, D. (2014). Empathetic Responsiveness, Group Norms and Prosocial Affiliations in Bullying Roles. Social Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 99 -109
Nielsen, M.B., Tangen, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S.B., & Mageroy, N. (2015). Post -traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school. A literature review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 17-24
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. New York: Wiley
Olweus, D. (1989). Bull/Victim Questionnaire for students. Department of Psychology: University of Bergen.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. NY: Wiley-Blackwell
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Mimeo, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen
Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XII, 495-510
Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P.K. Smit, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (Eds), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perceptive (p.p. 7-27). Florence, KY: Routledge
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999). Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Bullying Prevention Program (Book Nine). Boulder CO: University of Colorado at Boulder Institute, Centre for the Study and Prevention of Violence
Parke, R.D. & Slaby, R.G. (1983). The development of aggression. Handbook of Child Psychology, 4, 547-641
Pellegrini, A.D., & Long, J.D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance and victimization during the transition from primary school through elementary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280
Rigby, K., & Slee. P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33-42
Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1999). Suicidal ideation among adolescent school children, involvement in bully-victims problems, and perceived social support. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 29, 119-130
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bulling at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 211-223
Ryo, J.H., Wang, C. & Swearer, S.M. (2014). Examination of the change in latent statuses in bullying behaviours across time. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000082
Salmivalli C., & Nieminen, E. (2002) Proactive an reactive aggression among bullied, victims and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30-44
Schwarz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children's peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192
Sharkey, J.D., Ruderman, M.A., Mayworm, A.M., & Green, J.G. (2014). Psychosocial Functioning of Bullied Youth Who Adopt Versus Deny the Bully-Victim Label. Social Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 91-104
Slee, P.T., & Rigby K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and self- esteem to bully-victim behaviour in Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371-373
Smith, P.K. (1991). The silent nightmare: Bullying and victimization in school peer groups. The psychologist, 4, 243-248
Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge
Smith, P.K. & Thompson, D.A. (1991). Practical approaches to bullying. London: David Fulton
Staub, E., Felner, D., Jr., Berry, J., & Morange, K. (2003). Passive an active bystandership across grades in response to students bullying other students. In E. Staub (Ed), The psychology of good and evil. Why children, adults and groups help and harm others (pp. 240-243). New York: Cambridge University Press
Sutton, J., & Keogh E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, Machiavellianism, and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 443-456
Swearer, S.M., Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the Psychology of Bullying: Moving Toward a Social-Ecological Diathesis-Stress Model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344-353
Trip, S., Bora, C., Sipos-Gug., Tocai, I., Gradinger, P., Yanagida, T., & Strohmeier, D. Bullying Prevention in Schools by Targeting Cognitions, Emotions and Behavior: Evaluating the Effectiveness of the REBE-ViSC Program. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 62(4), 732-740
Venestra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A.J., Winter, A.F., Verhulst, F.C., & Omel, J., (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, bully/victims and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672-682
Williams, K.D. & Guerra, N.G. (2007). Prevelance and predictors of Internet Bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, s14-s21
Wilson, T., Damiani, M., & Shelton N. (2002). Improving the academic performance of college students with brief attributional interventions. In J. Arronson's (Ed), Improving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education (pp. 91-110). New York: Academic
Williford, A., Boulton, A.J., & Jenson, J.M. (2014). Tsansitions between Subclasses of Bullying and Victimization when Entering Middle School. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 20-41
World Health Organization (2015). Fact Sheet No 356. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs356/en/
Ziv, Y., Leibovich, I., & Shechtman Z. (2013). Bullying and Victimization in Early Adolescence: Relations to Social Informantion Processing Patterns. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 482-492