The moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the relationships between bullying,peer acceptance,and school adjustment in adolescents

Abstract

This study examined the moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the relationships between bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment (rule-following behavior and academic performance) among 216 middle school 7th-graders in Taipei, Taiwan. The participants were divided into two groups according to their Machiavellianism. Multi-group path analysis showed that for those who were low in Machiavellianism condition, physical and verbal bullying was negatively linked to peer acceptance and academic performance while no significant association was found for the high-Machiavellianism group. Bullying was negatively, yet non-significantly, associated with rule-following behavior for both groups. The results largely supported the buffering effect of Machiavellianism on the negative outcomes of bullying. Implications for school-violence prevention and for research on adaptive bullies are discussed.

Keywords

academic performance adolescents bullying Machiavellianism peer acceptance school adjustment

Bullying is a common form of aggression among children and adolescents that hasbeen extensively investigated in recent years (Smith, 2011). Research in many Western countries has highlighted the prevalence of school bullying. For example, one recent study in German primary schools found that 10% of students could beclassified as bullies while 17.4% as victims and 16.5% as bully/victims (Von Marées & Petermann, 2010). In fact, an analysis of two large-scale international surveys in 66 countries and regions showed that on average, 32.1% of pupils had been bullied at school at least once within the previous two months, with the victimization rate reaching over 60% in certain countries, such as Zimbabwe and Lithuania (Due & Holstein, 2008). The number of studies on school bullying has also been growing rapidly in Asian societies during the past decade, underscoring the universal significance of the issue (Benbenishty, Astor, & Marachi, 2006; Koo, Kwak & Smith, 2008; Rios-Ellis, Bellamy, & Shoji, 2000; Wei, Jonson-Reid, & Tsao, 2007). Adolescents’ bullying behavior is generally associated with various negative outcomes, such as peer rejection and poor school performance, but recent research has revealed the existence of adaptive bullies who are characterized by their Machiavellian characteristics. It is suggested that such bullies use violence in acalculative and manipulative manner and are adjusted fairly well (Sutton, 2001). So far, little empirical investigation has been performed to examine the buffering function of Machiavellianism on the relationship between bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment. The present study bridges this knowledge gap by providing a direct evaluation of the moderating effect of Machiavellianism on theabove relationships. The findings of this study furthermore address the recent discussion on the potential adaptability of aggression (Hawley, 2003).

Bullying and peer relationships

Past research suggests that involvement in school bullying is linked to peer rejection. Bullies have frequently been shown to be more rejected and less liked by peers (Cerezo & Ato, 2005; Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2011; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007; Veenstra et al., 2005). Such findings are in line with the broader literature on the close connection between aggressive behavior and problematic peer relationship (Barnow, Lucht, & Freyberger, 2005; Schaeffer, Petras, Ialongo, Kellam, & Poduska, 2003; H. Shin, 2010). Other studies, however, reveal a somewhat different picture, showing that bullies are not necessarily unpopular or rejected. Bullies were found to have the same number of friends as non-involved peers (Espelage & Holt, 2001; Y. Shin, 2010). Physical and verbal aggression was found unrelated to adolescents’ social acceptance, while the use of indirect aggression furthermore contributed to social acceptance by peers (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Lagerspetz, 2000). Such ambivalences imply the heterogeneity of adolescents who engage in bullying. For example, one study of 377 Greek Cypriot adolescents examined bullies, victims, bully-victims, and non-involved students and found that although bullies and bully-victims both showed aggression toward peers, only bully-victims were significantly lower on peer acceptance compared to other groups (Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2008). Bullies, on the other hand, seemed equally accepted by peers as the non-involved students.

Mounting evidence suggests that aggression can be positively associated withnuclear centrality and popularity (Espelage & Holt, 2001; Gest, Graham-Bermann, & Hartup, 2001; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000; Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009). A closer examination shows that individual andcontextual factors, such as group norms (Sentse, Scholte, Salmivalli, & Voeten, 2007; Stormshak, Bierman, Bruschi, Dodge, & Coie, 1999), the possession of peer-valued characteristics (Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006), and attributes of the victim (Courtney, Cohen, Deptula, & Kitzmann, 2003), moderate peer acceptance of aggressive youth and bullies . It is therefore possible for some bullies to avoid peer rejection when being aggressive. In fact, bullies often choose those students who have been rejected by other peers as their victims (Veenstra, Lindenberg, Munniksma, & Dijkstra, 2010). These findings indicate the capability of some aggressors to calculate the cost-benefit for their action.

Bullying and school adjustment

Although some bullies can enjoy peer popularity and status, their aggression may still affect other domains of school adjustment. In general, bullying and aggression are associated with poor school performance and behavioral maladjustment (Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010; Nansel, Haynie, & Simons-Morton, 2003; Swaim, Henry, & Kelly, 2006; H. Shin, 2010). For highly aggressive adolescents, increases inpopularity were linked to increases in unexplained absences and decreases in academic performance (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006). Bullying behavior is also associated with lower self-perception of scholastic competence, poor grades, and lower academic engagement (Andreou & Metallidou, 2004; Graham, Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Ma, Phelps, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009). One study found that physical aggression accounted for 16% of variance in Grade Point Average [GPA, calculated by dividing the total amount of grade points (i.e. grade * credit hours) earned by the total amount of credit hours attempted] (Loveland, Lounsbury, Welsh, & Buboltz, 2007) and that the negative correlation between GPA and aggression seems to increase with age (Lounsbury, Sundstrom, Loveland, & Gibson, 2002).

In addition to bullies having a high risk of academic failure, their aggressive behavior may affect school performance through other venues, such as conduct problems and disobedience to teachers (e.g. Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2004; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000). They are also at a higher likelihood of dropping out (Kokko, Tremblay, Lacourse, Vitaro, & Nagin, 2006). These adolescents often show externalizing behaviors and hyperactivity that disrupt the order of the classroom, highlighting their impulsivity and difficulty in following rules. However, caution should be exercised in interpreting these findings given the potential diversity among aggressors. Although both aggressive, bully/victims were found having difficulties in multiple domains while pure bullies did not show much maladjustment or deficit in academic functioning (Toblin, Schwartz, Gorman, & Abou-ezzeddine, 2005). Moreover, a two-year longitudinal study showed that the persistent bullies had significantly poorer academic performance and higher disciplinary infractions while the desistent bullies were similar to the control students in those aspects (Carlson & Cornell, 2008).

Machiavellianism and bullying

The conflicting evidence on whether bullies have problems in peer relationships andschool adjustment has led researchers to recognize the heterogeneity of aggression. For example, one study of 212 elementary school children showed bullies tohave deficits in moral motivation but not in perspective taking skills, while bully/victims showed failure in both aspects (Gasser & Keller, 2009). The authors further found heterogeneity even in the bully group. In fact, the literature identified two distinct types of aggressors. Emotional and reactive features characterize the aggression of the first kind and are associated with impulsivity and hostile interpretation of social cues (Crick & Dodge, 1996). Children and adolescents with such characteristics often suffer psychosocial maladjustment as well as peer rejection (Kempes, Matthys, de Vries, & van Engeland, 2005). The other type of violent behavior is more instrumental in nature. This type of aggression has positive outcome expectations for violence and uses coercion as well as other manipulative strategies to obtain personal gains. The manipulativeness, moral indifference, and lack of concern for others all correspond to the features of Machiavellian personality (Sutton, 2001). The term is derived from the Italian political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), and psychologists have adopted it to describe a person’s tendency to deceive and exploit other people in a manipulative and emotionally detached manner (Christie & Geis,1970). Recently, researchers have begun to apply the concept of Machiavellianism to the issue of school violence in an attempt to better interpret the seemly incongruent findings on bullies mentioned above. For example, bullies were found to be significantly higher on Machiavellianism and significantly lowerin pro-victim attitudes compared to their peers (Sutton & Keogh, 2000). They are morally disengaged and have less empathy for their victims and others (Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2009; Viding, Simmonds, Petrides, & Frederickson, 2009; Warden & Mackinnon, 2003). Machiavellian bullies possess both positive and negative characteristics. Despite their aggressiveness, they were found to be socially skilled, popular, and well adjusted (Card & Little, 2006; Hawley, 2003; Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Similarly, victims rather than bullies showed difficulties in the social cognition tasks (Gini, 2006). These adaptive bullies, with the capability and attitude to manipulate others, seem able to profit from aggression while avoiding the negative consequences of perpetration.

The present study

Previous studies have recognized the complex relationship between bullying and school adjustment, but relatively few studies investigated directly the potential moderators of these relationships. Based on the findings of recent studies, this study regards Machiavellianism as one possible factor in this process. Traditionally seen as part of the ‘dark triad’ (along with narcissism and psychopathy), Machiavellianism, as a seemly undesirable personality trait, can be an effective social strategy for individuals (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010). Although the role of Machiavellianism in children’s aggression and adjustment has been increasingly recognized during the past decade (e.g. Barlow, Qualter, & Stylianou, 2010; Slaughter, 2011), empirical evidence on the issue is still quite limited. More importantly, existing studies have mostly been performed in Western regions while their applicability to other contexts and populations is doubtful. The present study is the first one to examine the moderating role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment among Asian adolescents. It is expected that adolescents high on Machiavellianism (high-Mach) can cope better with the effect of bullying compared to those low on Machiavellianism (low-Mach). More specifically, it is hypothesized that compared to the low-Mach group, the negative association among bullying, peer acceptance, academic performance, and rule-following behavior would be weaker or attenuated for the high-Mach group.

Methods

Sample

This study used secondary data from the Middle School Life Experiences Project(MSLEP). MSLEP was a multi-informant survey assessing the school adjustment of newly enrolled middle school students in Taipei City, Taiwan (Wei, Jonson-Reid, & Tsao, 2007). A two-stage clustered random sampling procedure was employed, in which middle schools in Taipei were first randomly selected and invited to participate. Among the seven participating schools, one 7th-grade class from each school was then randomly selected. Necessary informed consents were obtained and questionnaires were group-administered during independent study classes. The current sample comprised 216 students. Overall, 52% of them were male and 48% were female, with the mean age of 12.8 years.

Measures

Machiavellianism

The Children’s Machiavellianism Scale (Kiddie-Mach) is a self-reported measure assessing respondents’ strategies in social situations and their beliefs about the manipulability of others (Christie & Geis, 1970). It contains 20 items measured on a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘agree very much’ to ‘disagree very much’. Items include, for example, ‘The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear’ and ‘Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so’. Half of the items were reverse-coded, and scores on all items were summed up to calculate a total score for Machiavellianism. The scale is widely used in child development and personality research, and it is regarded as a standard assessment tool of Machiavellianism (Slaughter, 2011). TheCronbach’s Alpha was 0.69 in the current study.

Peer-rated physical and verbal bullying

Respondents were provided with a roster of classmate names and were asked to rate their classmates with regard to bullying behaviors on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = always). Definitions of physical and verbal bullying were provided. Students’ bullying scores were based on the average ratings they received from their classmates. This study specifically inquired about the rater’s personal interactions with the target person rather than ageneral impression of the target person’s behavior tendencies. Other researchers (e.g. Card & Hodges, 2007; Chan, 2006) have adopted similar approaches.

Rule-following behavior

The Adolescent Social Behavior Scale assessed rule-following behavior. This scale is a Chinese teacher-report measure that assesses a widerange of adolescents’ behaviors in school (Hung, 2000). Teachers rate students on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 = (always) for each item. This study used the Rule-following Behavior Subscale (α = 0.91), which comprises six items, including ‘The student abides by the class rule’, ‘The student treats othersin a polite manner’, and ‘The student is able to finish the teacher’s assignment in time’.

Peer acceptance

Respondents were provided with a roster of the class and were asked to rate how they felt toward each classmate on a four-point scale (1 = like very much; 4 = dislike very much). Each student’s scores were summed up and divided by the number of raters, creating an aggregated indicator of their acceptance among classmates. This practice has been widely adopted in past research on peer social networks.

Academic performance

Students’ midterm exam grades in the spring semester were collected from school records. The exam contained eight subjects including Chinese, English, and mathematics, and each subject received a score range from 0to 100. The total scores on the midterm exam were used as an indicator of the students’ academic achievement.

Analytic strategy

Path analysis was the major analytic strategy used to evaluate the moderating effectof Machiavellianism on the relationships among bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment. The median score of students’ Machiavellianism was used to form two groups (high-Mach versus low-Mach) for comparison. Models specifying the relationships among bullying behavior, peer acceptance, and school adjustment were tested through multi-group path analysis. In the first step, a single model was tested simultaneously on the two groups, assuming identical relationships and parameters between variables across groups. Second, the relationships were allowed to vary between the two groups and the fit indices were examined to evaluate the changes in model fit.

Results

First, students were divided into two groups based on the median Machiavellianism score of the sample (median = 42). As a result, 116 students fell into the low-Mach subgroup and 100 students into the high-Mach subgroup. The descriptive statistics of the main study variables were calculated and a series oft-tests were conducted to compare the means of the two subgroups on physical bullying (t = −0.19, p = 0.85), verbal bullying (t = −0.04, p = 0.97), peer acceptance (t = 1.04, p = 0.30), rule-following behavior (t = −1.41, p = 0.16), and academic performance (t = 0.84, p = 0.40). The results revealed no significant differences in any of the research variables between the groups.

The intercorrelations between bullying, peer acceptance, rule-following behavior, and academic performance for the entire sample indicated that physical andverbal bullying were significantly correlated (r = 0.72, p < 0.01). The two types of bullying were negatively associated with peer acceptance (r = −0.16, p < 0.05 and r = −0.22, p < 0.01) and academic performance (r = −0.20, p < 0.01 for both), as predicted. Peer acceptance and academic performance were also significantly associated (r=0.13, p < 0.05). All other relationships between research variables were non-significant.

A systematic approach was adopted to conduct further multi-group analysis. We first constructed a universal model in which physical bullying was expected tobe negatively associated with peer acceptance, rule-following behavior, and academic performance. All paths in the low-Mach and high-Mach groups were constrained to be equal in the initial model in order to fit the covariance matrices simultaneously to the two groups. The results showed a less-then-satisfactory model fit [χ² (12) = 11.06, p = 0.52, NFI = 0.64, GFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.00]. Next, all path constraints in this model were released and tested again, which yielded an excellent fit [χ² (9) = 4.02, p = 0.91, NFI = 0.87, GFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.00]. This suggested significant differences in the strength of model paths between these two subgroups. Involvement in physical bullying had a direct and negative effect on peer acceptance for the low-Mach group (β = −0.24, t = −2.59, p < 0.05). By contrast, the link between physical bullying and peer acceptance was non-significant for the high-Mach group (β = −0.09, t = −0.95, p > 0.05). For the low-Mach group, more involvement in physical bullying predicted lower academic performance (β = −0.36, t = −4.02, p < 0.05). However, the relationship between these two variables in the high-Mach group was non-significant (β = −0.06, t = −0.64, p > 0.05). For both groups, physical bullying was negatively yet non-significantly associated with teacher-rated rule-following behavior, although the magnitude of association differed between the two groups in the predicted direction (β = −0.12 for the low-Mach versus β = −0.02 for the high-Mach).

Finally, the same analysis was conducted again to assess the relationships among verbal bullying, peer acceptance, rule-following behavior, and academic performance. The two-group model with constraints released yielded good model fit, similar to the physical bullying results [χ² (9) = 3.53, p = 0.94, NFI = 0.87, GFI = 0.99, and RMSEA = 0.00]. For the low-Mach group, verbal bullying was negatively and significantly associated with peer acceptance (β = −0.30, t = −3.29, p < 0.05). A negative and significant association was also found between verbal bullying and academic performance (β = −0.21, t = −2.34, p < 0.05) for the Low-Mach group while the association between verbal bullying and rule-following behavior was negative yet non-significant (β = −0.11, t = −1.18, p > 0.05). For the high-Mach group,verbal bullying was non-significantly associated with peer acceptance (β = −0.14, t = −1.44, p > 0.05), rule-following behavior (β = −0.07, t = −0.69, p > 0.05), and academic performance (β = −0.19, t = −1.89, p > 0.05).

Discussion

Bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment

The relationships among bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment have long been recognized in past research. The negative effect of aggressive behaviors on bullies’ development is especially salient in Asian contexts, since many of these cultures emphasize rule-obedience and interpersonal harmony for youngsters (e.g.Jung & Stinnett, 2005), while direct aggression is highly unacceptable and may elicit serious punishment and rejection from teachers and peers (Li, Wang, Wang, & Shi, 2010). The results of this study largely confirmed the negative effects ofbullying. Peer-rated physical and verbal bullying was generally associated with being liked less by classmates, and it predicted lower academic performance, as manifested by the midterm exam scores. The association between bullying and teacher-rated rule-following behavior was negative but did not reach significant level. Further investigation is needed to clarify this finding, as it is possible that thisresult emerged because the data in the present study were collected during the students’ first semester in middle school and the homeroom teachers were not yet sufficiently acquainted with them, which could affect the accuracy of their assessment.

The moderating role of Machiavellianism

The findings highlight the adaptability of strategic aggression by revealing the buffering role of Machiavellianism in the process. For adolescents in the low-Mach group, bullying was directly and negatively linked to peer acceptance andacademic achievement, but those associations were all much weaker and non-significant for the high-Mach group. Evidence thus supports the proposition that some bullies are skillful manipulators with the ability to reduce the side effects of violence on their own peer status. Interestingly, recent research suggested that Machiavellian children did not have better emotional intelligence (Barlow et al., 2010). The strength of these adolescents may lie in possessing an effective impression management. Despite the fact that they were identified as bullies by the victims, this study showed that their behaviors did not seriously affect the teacher- and peer-perceptions toward them. Such results are consistent with the recent findings on adaptive aggressors. The combination of coercive and prosocial strategies of resource control may be another key to their success (Hawley, 2007). Moreover, their competencies seem to go beyond the social domain and extend into academic affairs. The irrelevance of bullying behavior to academic outcomes for the high-Mach group suggests that these adolescents are able to manage schoolwork and learning activities adequately and that their violent behavior is not likely to predict school failure.

Although beyond the scope of the present study, it is a promising direction for future investigations to explore the buffering effect of Machiavellianism in different types of aggression along with associated gender dynamics. For example, the social competence of Machiavellian bullies can be particularly relevant in relational manipulation and indirect bullying. In these types of aggression, gender differences have also been shown. Adolescent girls are found to be highly concerned about their friendship groups, and conflict and aggression often happen within these peer relationships (Besag, 2006). While few boys and girls indicated being bullied by someone they did not know, compared to boys, girls were more likely to report being bullied by friends (Craig, Pepler, & Blais, 2007). One study showed that the relational bullying behaviors among girls included talking about other girls behind their backs, ignoring, neglecting, and excluding peers with an aim to manipulate and maintain the friendship network (James & Owens, 2005). Such operations require considerable social knowledge and skills. In fact, relational aggression isassociated with cognitive aspects of social intelligence and positively predicts perceived popularity (Andreou, 2006). Relational aggressors were also found to be more adjusted compared to direct aggressors (Hampel, Manhal, & Hayer, 2009). The results of this study suggest the buffering effect of Machiavellianism in physical and verbal bullying, which may be even more substantial in relational types of peer aggression.

While the short-term prospects seem positive for these Machiavellian bullies, it is unclear whether their behavior can remain adaptive and socially acceptable in theend. The prevalence and acceptability of bullying is relatively high during early adolescence, but the manifestation of physical aggression in the population tends to gradually decrease (Kim, Kamphaus, Orpinas, & Kelder, 2010) since violence becomes increasingly unacceptable as adolescents approach adulthood (Vazsonyi & Keiley, 2007). In addition, many negative consequences of bullyingmay manifest more slowly. Aggression was found to be a strong predictor of long-term delinquency and crime involvement. For example, children who were involved in bullying at age 8 or 12 had increased risks of deviance at age 15(Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000). The current sample of adolescents was only in the 7th grade and the trajectory of their long-term outcomes is difficult to predict, which calls for more longitudinal research in the future.

Limitations

The present study utilized multiple sources of information to assess the research constructs, which included self-reported Machiavellianism, peer ratings of bullying and acceptance, teacher-rated rule-following behavior, and school exam scores. Traditional bullying assessment often rely on self-reports, either through survey, writings, or even drawings (Andreou & Bonoti, 2010; James & Owens, 2005; Larochette, Murphy, & Craig, 2010). The present study reduces the problem of shared-method variance frequently found in previous self-report studies. Still, thisstudy is limited in the dimensions of aggression and peer relationships examined. The major facets of peer relationships, such as number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status, should all be explored (Gest et al., 2001). The same limitation applies to the assessment of aggression in this study, which did not investigate the potential effects of indirect bullying. As discussed above, indirect/relational aggression relies more heavily on the perpetrator’s social knowledge and interpersonal skills compared to direct forms of bullying (Björkqvist, 1994; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Rose, Swenson, & Carlson, 2004) and is not easily detected by or elicits serious reaction from social authorities, which can be a convenient strategy employed by Machiavellian bullies. Their manipulativeness and lack of empathy also highlight their likelihood of being abusive in interpersonal relationships. Recent research has revealed the existence of bullying within friendship (Crick & Nelson, 2002; Mishna, Wiener, & Pepler, 2008). Furthermore, the internet provides students a new way to conduct aggression against peers, and such cyberbullying behaviors are characterized by social harassment and manipulations (Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown, 2009; Popović-Ćitić, Djurić, & Cvetković, 2011; Yilmaz, 2011). The effect of Machiavellianism in this kind of social aggression awaits future examination. Finally, the sample size utilized in this study was relatively small, which limits the generalizability of the results to other settings. Future empirical investigations with larger samples need to further clarify the relationships among aggression, Machiavellianism, and school adjustment in different populations and contexts.

Implications

The findings of this study suggest several significant implications for educators andhelping professionals. First, as the results of this study show, bullies with high Machiavellianism are fairly adjusted and accepted by peers, and as such, their perpetration may be less likely to be detected and prevented by school staff. For example, one survey on pre-service teachers in the US and UK found bothgroups regard low self-esteem and poor social skills as major characteristics of bullies (Bauman & Del Rio, 2005). The findings of this study challenge such widely held beliefs and call for more training for teachers, school psychologists, and social workers to recognize signs of student aggression and intervene effectively with Machiavellian aggressors. Since a reciprocal relationship exists between one’s peer victimization experience and sense of self-worth (Boulton, Smith, & Cowie, 2010), the under-detection of these bullies’ calculative aggression and social manipulation can leave their victims in chronic and escalating self-blame. Besides emotional distress, such victimization experiences are shown to affect the victims' friendship quality and trust as young adults (Jantzer, Hoover, & Narloch, 2006), which warrants the serious attention of professionals. It also highlights the need to rethink the definition of bullying and extend the concept of power imbalance to integrate social power in future assessment (Wei & Jonson-Reid, 2011).

The adaptability of Machiavellian bullies poses serious challenges for intervention design. Traditional anti-bullying programs often focus on social-skill training and anger management (e.g. Smokowski, Fraser, Day, Bacallao, & Galinsky, 2004). Such approaches may be ineffective or even counter-effective since theytarget ‘stereotype’ bullies whose aggressiveness is assumed to result from their lack of interpersonal skills and anger-regulation problems. In fact, the Machiavellian bullies can be socially skilled and emotionally detached manipulators who are well accepted and adjusted (Sutton, 2001). They may misuse the social strategies learned in the programs to exploit other students for their own goals. Since Machiavellian bullies endorse an abusive and manipulative attitude toward others, it is important to address both the cognitive and emotional aspects of their acts in prevention efforts. For example, the belief in the effectiveness and legitimacy of aggression is a crucial factor in bullies’ cognition that has to be challenged (Andreou, Vlachou, & Didaskalou, 2005; Eliot & Cornell, 2009). One evaluation study of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme found core program components associated with decreased incidents, including clear posting of rules and consistent enforcement of positive and negative consequences of aggression (Black & Jackson, 2007). Besides punitive strategies, one study suggested that non-punitive negotiation with them could be effective, since bullies do not necessarily have deficits in cognition or social intelligence (Rigby & Griffiths, 2011).

Past research has found that aggression is intrinsic to status and escalates with increases in social network centrality until a high position in the peer group is achieved (Faris & Felmlee, 2011). The bullies’ inclination for peer status can be utilized as a motivation for change, and leadership opportunities that emphasize helping fellow students should be provided. Peers are one core factor associated with school violence that needs to be addressed, as peers often reinforce the aggressor’s bullying behaviors, especially when the aggressors are friends (Oh & Hazler, 2009). As perceived expectations of friends influence the bully’s perpetration, the school should create a climate that values peace and cooperation, mobilizing peer influence to condemn violence and make it unacceptable (Rigby, 2005). The reputation cost of aggression may then lead Machiavellian bullies to adopt more prosocial strategies to gain peer status. Various prevention programs have already been designed and conducted in this direction (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Minton & O’ Moore, 2008; Song & Stoiber, 2008). At the same time, Machiavellian bullies often manifest emotional detachment and a lack of concern for others. Programs designed to enhance children’s empathy, such as The Second Step, are promising school-based interventions aimed at reducing student aggression (Holsen, Smith, & Frey, 2008). In addition, teachers’ empathy for the pain experienced by the student victims of bullying can also be enhanced to increase their awareness of the severity of bullying and their endorsement of anti-bullying policies (Nordgren, Banas, & MacDonald, 2011).

Teachers should take an active stand in school violence prevention since they are the adult role models and authority figures in school. In evaluating anti-bullying strategies, students often want their teachers to be proactive in intervention, which also involves effective classroom management and solving bully-victim conflicts (Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006). The support from adults in school is also of great importance to students, since the power differential makes it difficult for children to stand up to their aggressors (Craig et al., 2007). Besides teachers, school psychologists are in a key position to reduce student aggression. One large-scale survey of teachers in eight countries revealed that they expected school psychologists to provide professional training and help with school development (Farrell, Jimerson, Kalambouka, & Benoit, 2005). Although traditionally their presumed task in school is to administer psychometric tests and assess children for special education services (Farrell, 2010), school psychologists can educate teachers on the significance of the problem and prepare them for handling and preventing school bullying incidents. In fact, one survey of 300 practicing school psychologists in the United States found that ‘addressing student bullying’ is one of the top issues that would require additional professional development (Wnek, Klein, & Bracken, 2008), highlighting the significance of the issue. It is therefore hoped that the findings of this study can contribute to the knowledge base on school bullying, provide a more comprehensive understanding of the heterogeneity of bullies, and facilitate the development of evidence-based services to promote the well-being and educational outcomes of adolescents.

Footnotes

Hsi-Sheng Wei, PhD, is an Associate Professor of the Department of Social Work atNational Taipei University, Taiwan. His research interests include school bullying, juvenile delinquency, and youth services evaluation. He has published a number of articles on the issue of peer victimization and bullying in Taiwan. He has been on the editorial board of Journal of Child and Youth Welfare (Taiwan) and is currently conducting several large-scale surveys on the life condition and school adjustment of local adolescents. Address: Department of Social Work, NationalTaipei University, 151 University Road, San Shia, Taipei, 237 Taiwan. Email: hswei@mail.ntpu.edu.tw

Ji-Kang Chen, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Work atthe Chinese University of Hong Kong. His major research interests include cross-cultural research on interpersonal violence and mental health. He has received several research grants and has published primarily on the topics of school violence. Address: Department of Social Work, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. Email: jkchen@swk.cuhk.edu.hk

References

Andreou

(2006). Social preference, perceived popularity and social intelligence: Relationsto overt and relational aggression. School Psychology International, 27(3), 339–351, doi: 10.1177/0143034306067286.

Andreou

Bonoti

(2010). Children’s bullying experiences expressed through drawings and self-reports. School Psychology International, 31(2), 164–177, doi: 10.1177/0143034309352421.

Andreou

Metallidou

(2004). The relationship of academic and social cognition to behaviour in bullying situations among Greek primary school children. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 27–41, doi: 10.1080/0144341032000146421.

Andreou

Vlachou

Didaskalou

(2005). The roles of self-efficacy, peer interactions and attitudes in bully-victim incidents: Implications for intervention policy-practices. School Psychology International, 26(5), 545–562, doi: 10.1177/0143034305060789.

Barlow

Qualter

Stylianou

(2010). Relationships between Machiavellianism, emotional intelligence and theory of mind in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 78–82, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.021.

Barnow

Lucht

Freyberger

(2005). Correlates of aggressive and delinquent conduct problems in adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 31(1), 24–39, doi: 10.1002/ab.20033.

Bauman

Del Rio

(2005). Knowledge and beliefs about bullying in schools: Comparing pre-service teachers in the United States and the United Kingdom. School Psychology International, 26(4), 428–442, doi: 10.1177/0143034305059019.

Benbenishty

Astor

Marachi

Furlong

Jimerson

(2006). A national study of school violence in Israel: Implications for theory, practice, and policy. Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 481–497). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Besag

V. E.

(2006). Bullying among girls: Friends or foes?. School Psychology International, 27(5), 535–551, doi: 10.1177/0143034306073401.

10.

Björkqvist

(1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30(3/4), 177–188, doi: 10.1007/BF01420988.

11.

Black

S. A.

Jackson

(2007). Using bullying incident density to evaluate the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme. School Psychology International, 28(5), 623–638, doi: 10.1177/0143034307085662.

12.

Boulton

M. J.

Smith

P. K.

Cowie

(2010). Short-term longitudinal relationships between children’s peer victimization/bullying experiences and self-perceptions: Evidence for reciprocity. School Psychology International, 31(3), 296–311, doi: 10.1177/0143034310362329.

13.

Caravita

Di Blasio

Salmivalli

(2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18(1), 140–163, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x.

14.

Card

N. A.

Hodges

(2007). Victimization within mutually antipathetic peer relationships. Social Development, 16(3), 479–496, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00394.x.

15.

Card

Little

(2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(5), 466–480, doi: 10.1177/0165025406071904.

16.

Carlson

Cornell

(2008). Differences between persistent and desistent middle school bullies. School Psychology International, 29(4), 442–451, doi: 10.1177/0143034308096433.

17.

Cassidy

Jackson

Brown

K. N.

(2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyber-bullying. School Psychology International, 30(4), 383–402, doi: 10.1177/0143034309106948.

18.

Cerezo

Ato

(2005). Bullying in Spanish and English pupils: A sociometric perspective using the BULL-S questionnaire. Educational Psychology, 25(4), 353–367, doi: 10.1080/01443410500041458.

19.

Chan

J. F.

(2006). Systemic patterns in bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 27(3), 352–369, doi: 10.1177/0143034306067289.

20.

Christie

Geis

F. L.

. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.

21.

Courtney

Cohen

Deptula

Kitzmann

(2003). An experimental analysis ofchildren’s dislike of aggressors and victims. Social Development, 12(1), 46–66, doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00221.

22.

Craig

Pepler

Blais

(2007). Responding to bullying: What works. School Psychology International, 28(4), 465–477, doi: 10.1177/0143034307084136.

23.

Crick

N. R.

Dodge

K. A.

(1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993–1002, doi: 10.2307/1131875.

24.

Crick

Nelson

(2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 599–607, doi: 10.1023/A:1020811714064.

25.

Crothers

L. M.

Kolbert

J. B.

Barker

W. F.

(2006). Middle school students’ preferences for anti-bullying interventions. School Psychology International, 27(4), 475–487, doi: 10.1177/0143034306070435.

26.

Due

Holstein

(2008). Bullying victimization among 13 to 15 year old school children: Results from two comparative studies in 66 countries and regions. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20(2), 209–221.

27.

Eliot

Cornell

D. G.

(2009). Bullying in middle school as a function of insecure attachment and aggressive attitudes. School Psychology International, 30(2), 201–214, doi: 10.1177/0143034309104148.

28.

Espelage

Holt

(2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2), 123–142, doi: 10.1300/J135v02n02_08.

29.

Faris

Felmlee

(2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76(1), 48–73, doi: 10.1177/0003122410396196.

30.

Farrell

(2010). School psychology: Learning lessons from history and moving forward. School Psychology International, 31(6), 581–598, doi: 10.1177/0143034310386533.

31.

Farrell

Jimerson

Kalambouka

Benoit

(2005). Teachers’ perceptions of school psychologists in different countries. School Psychology International, 26(5), 525–544, doi: 10.1177/0143034305060787.

32.

Gasser

Keller

(2009). Are the competent the morally good? Perspective taking and moral motivation of children involved in bullying. Social Development, 18(4), 798–816, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00516.x.

33.

Georgiou

S. N.

Stavrinides

(2008). Bullies, victims and bully-victims: Psychosocial profiles and attribution styles. School Psychology International, 29(5), 574–589, doi: 10.1177/0143034308099202.

34.

Gest

Graham-Bermann

Hartup

(2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10(1), 23–40, doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00146.

35.

Gini

(2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong?. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 528–539, doi: 10.1002/ab.20153.

36.

Graham

Bellmore

Mize

(2006). Peer victimization, aggression, and their co-occurrence in middle school: Pathways to adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(3), 363–378, doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9030-2.

37.

Hampel

Manhal

Hayer

(2009). Direct and relational bullying among children and adolescents: Coping and psychological adjustment. School Psychology International, 30(5), 474–490, doi: 10.1177/0143034309107066.

38.

Hawley

(2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 279–309, doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0013.

39.

Hawley

(2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social competence and aggression may go hand in hand. Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior (pp. 1–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

40.

Heilbron

Prinstein

(2008). A review and reconceptualization of social aggression: Adaptive and maladaptive correlates. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(4), 176–217, doi: 10.1007/s10567-008-0037-9.

41.

Holsen

Smith

B. H.

Frey

K. S.

(2008). Outcomes of the social competence program Second Step in Norwegian elementary schools. School Psychology International, 29(1), 71–88, doi: 10.1177/0143034307088504.

42.

Hung

. (2000). Manual of the Adolescent Social Behavior Scale. Taipei: Psychological Publishing Company.

43.

James

V. H.

Owens

L. D.

(2005). ‘They turned around like I wasn’t there’: An analysis of teenage girls’ letters about their peer conflicts. School Psychology International, 26(1), 71–88, doi: 10.1177/0143034305050895.

44.

Jantzer

A. M.

Hoover

J. H.

Narloch

(2006). The relationship between school-aged bullying and trust, shyness and quality of friendships in young adulthood: A preliminary research note. School Psychology International, 27(2), 146–156, doi: 10.1177/0143034306064546.

45.

Jonason

P. K.

N. P.

Teicher

E. A.

(2010). Who is James Bond? The Dark Triad as an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8(2), 111–120.

46.

Jung

Stinnett

T. A.

(2005). Comparing judgements of social, behavioural, emotional and school adjustment functioning for Korean, Korean American and Caucasian American children. School Psychology International, 26(3), 317–329, doi: 10.1177/0143034305055976.

47.

Kempes

Matthys

de Vries

van Engeland

(2005). Reactive and proactive aggression in children: A review of theory, findings and the relevance for child and adolescent psychiatry. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 14(1), 11–19, doi: 10.1007/s00787-005-0432-4.

48.

Kim

Kamphaus

Orpinas

Kelder

(2010). Change in the manifestation of overt aggression during early adolescence: Gender and ethnicity. School Psychology International, 31(1), 95–111, doi: 10.1177/0143034309352579.

49.

Kokkinos

C. M.

Panayiotou

(2004). Predicting bullying and victimization among early adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders. Aggressive Behavior, 30(6), 520–533, doi: 10.1002/ab.20055.

50.

Kokko

Tremblay

Lacourse

Vitaro

Nagin

(2006). Trajectories of prosocial behavior and physical aggression in middle childhood: Links to adolescent school dropout and physical violence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 403–428, doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00500.x.

51.

Koo

Kwak

Smith

(2008). Victimization in Korean schools: The nature, incidence, and distinctive features of Korean bullying or wang-ta. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 119–139, doi: 10.1080/15388220801974084.

52.

Kumpulainen

Räsänen

(2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary school age: Their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence. An epidemiological sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(12), 1567–1577, doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00210-6.

53.

Larochette

Murphy

Craig

W. M.

(2010). Racial bullying and victimization in Canadian school-aged children: Individual and school level effects. School Psychology International, 31(4), 389–408, doi: 10.1177/0143034310377150.

54.

Wang

Shi

(2010). Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adolescents’ aggression: Intracultural variations. Aggressive Behavior, 36(3), 187–194, doi: 10.1002/ab.20341.

55.

Lounsbury

Sundstrom

Loveland

Gibson

(2002). Broad versus narrow personality traits in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Learning and Individual Differences, 14(1), 65–75, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2003.08.001.

56.

Loveland

Lounsbury

Welsh

Buboltz

(2007). The validity of physical aggression in predicting adolescent academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 167–176, doi: 10.1348/000709905X79563.

57.

Phelps

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2009). The development of academic competence among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 628–644, doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.006.

58.

Merrell

Gueldner

Ross

Isava

(2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 26–42, doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26.

59.

Minton

S. J.

O’ Moore

A. M.

(2008). The effectiveness of a nationwide intervention programme to prevent and counter school bullying in Ireland. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8(1), 1–12.

60.

Mishna

Wiener

Pepler

(2008). Some of my best friends—Experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology International, 29(5), 549–573, doi: 10.1177/0143034308099201.

61.

Murray-Harvey

Slee

P. T.

(2010). School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International, 31(3), 271–295, doi: 10.1177/0143034310366206.

62.

Nansel

Haynie

Simons-Morton

(2003). The association of bullying and victimization with middle school adjustment. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2), 45–61, doi: 10.1300/J008v19n02_04.

63.

Nordgren

L. F.

Banas

MacDonald

(2011). Empathy gaps for social pain: Why people underestimate the pain of social suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 120–128, doi: 10.1037/a0020938.

64.

Hazler

R. J.

(2009). Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying. School Psychology International, 30(3), 291–310, doi: 10.1177/0143034309106499.

65.

Peeters

Cillessen

A. N.

Scholte

R. J.

(2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(9), 1041–1052, doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9.

66.

Popović-Ćiti

Djurić

Cvetković

(2011). The prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents: A case study of middle schools in Serbia. School Psychology International, 32(3), 1–13, doi: 10.1177/0143034311401700.

67.

Richard

J. F.

Schneider

B. H.

Mallet

(2011). Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International.

68.

Rigby

(2005). Why do some children bully at school? The contributions of negative attitudes towards victims and the perceived expectations of friends, parents and teachers. School Psychology International, 26(2), 147–161, doi: 10.1177/0143034305052910.

69.

Rigby

Griffiths

(2011). Addressing cases of bullying through the Method of Shared Concern. School Psychology International, 32(3), 345–357, doi: 10.1177/0143034311402148.

70.

Rios-Ellis

Bellamy

Shoji

(2000). An examination of specific types of Ijime within Japanese schools. School Psychology International, 21(3), 227–241, doi: 10.1177/0143034300213001.

71.

Rodkin

Farmer

Pearl

Van Acker

(2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 14–24, doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.14.

72.

Rose

Swenson

Carlson

(2004). Friendships of aggressive youth: Considering the influences of being disliked and of being perceived as popular. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(1), 25–45, doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.005.

73.

Salmivalli

Kaukiainen

Lagerspetz

(2000). Aggression and sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression matter?. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 17–24, doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00166.

74.

Schaeffer

Petras

Ialongo

Kellam

Poduska

(2003). Modeling growth in boys’ aggressive behavior across elementary school: Links to later criminal involvement, conduct disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1020–1035, doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.1020.

75.

Schwartz

Gorman

Nakamoto

McKay

(2006). Popularity, social acceptance, and aggression in adolescent peer groups: Links with academic performance and school attendance. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1116–1127, doi: 10.1037/0012–1649.42.6.1116.

76.

Sentse

Scholte

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2007). Person-group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 1009–1019, doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9150-3.

77.

Shin

(2010). Does depression moderate or mediate the relations between deficits in competence and aggression? A short-term longitudinal study of Korean children. School Psychology International, 31(4), 331–352, doi: 10.1177/0143034310377139.

78.

Shin

(2010). Psychosocial and friendship characteristics of bully/victim subgroups in Korean primary school children. School Psychology International, 31(4), 372–388, doi: 10.1177/0143034310377296.

79.

Sijtsema

Veenstra

Lindenberg

Salmivalli

(2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 57–67, doi: 10.1002/ab.20282.

80.

Slaughter

Barry

C. T.

Kerig

P. K.

Stellwagen

K. K.

Barry

T. D.

(2011). Early adoption of Machiavellian attitudes: Implications for children’s interpersonal relationships. Narcissism and Machiavellianism in youth: Implications for the development of adaptive and maladaptive behavior (pp. 177–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

81.

Smith

P. K.

Monks

C. P.

Coyne

(2011). Bullying in schools: Thirty years of research. Bullying in different contexts (pp. 36–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

82.

Smokowski

Fraser

Day

Bacallao

Galinsky

(2004). School-based skills training to prevent aggressive behavior and peer rejection in childhood: Evaluating the making choices program. Journal of Primary Prevention, 25(2), 233–251, doi: 10.1023/B:JOPP.0000042392.57611.05.

83.

Song

Stoiber

(2008). Children exposed to violence at school: An evidence-based intervention agenda for the ‘real’ bullying problem. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(1/2), 235–253, doi: 10.1080/10926790801986205.

84.

Spriggs

Iannotti

Nansel

Haynie

(2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283–293, doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009.

85.

Stormshak

Bierman

Bruschi

Dodge

Coie

(1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70(1), 169–182, doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00013.

86.

Sutton

(2001). Bullies: Thugs or thinkers?. The Psychologist, 14(10), 530–534.

87.

Sutton

Keogh

(2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, Machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 443–456, doi: 10.1348/000709900158227.

88.

Sutton

Smith

P. K.

Swettenham

(1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation?. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 435–450, doi: 10.1348/026151099165384.

89.

Swaim

Henry

Kelly

(2006). Predictors of aggressive behaviors among rural middle school youth. Journal of Primary Prevention, 27(3), 229–243, doi: 10.1007/s10935-006-0031-2.

90.

Toblin

Schwartz

Gorman

Abou-ezzeddine

(2005). Social-cognitive and behavioral attributes of aggressive victims of bullying. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 329–346, doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2005.02.004.

91.

Vaillancourt

Hymel

(2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 396–408, doi: 10.1002/ab.20138.

92.

Vazsonyi

Keiley

(2007). Normative developmental trajectories of aggressive behaviors in African American, American Indian, Asian American, Caucasian, and Hispanic children and early adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 1047–1062, doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9154-z.

93.

Veenstra

Lindenberg

Munniksma

Dijkstra

J. K.

(2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences. Child Development, 81, 510–516, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01411.x.

94.

Veenstra

Lindenberg

Oldehinkel

Verhulst

Ormel

De Winter

(2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 672–682, doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672.

95.

Viding

Simmonds

Petrides

K. V.

Frederickson

(2009). The contribution of callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems to bullying in early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(4), 471–481, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02012.x.

96.

Von Marées

Petermann

(2010). Bullying in German primary schools: Gender differences, age trends and influence of parents’ migration and educational backgrounds. School Psychology International, 31(2), 178–198, doi: 10.1177/0143034309352416.

97.

Warden

Mackinnon

(2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367–385, doi: 10.1348/026151003322277757.

98.

Wei

H. S.

Jonson-Reid

(2011). Friends can hurt you: Examining the coexistence of friendship and bullying among early adolescents. School Psychology International, 32(3), 244–262, doi: 10.1177/0143034311402310.

99.

Wei

Jonson-Reid

Tsao

(2007). Bullying and victimization among Taiwanese 7th graders: A multi-method assessment. School Psychology International, 28(4), 479–500, doi: 10.1177/0143034307084137.

100.

Wnek

A. C.

Klein

Bracken

B. A.

(2008). Professional development issues for school psychologists: What’s hot, what’s not in the United States. School Psychology International, 29(2), 145–160, doi: 10.1177/0143034308090057.

101.

Wolke

Woods

Bloomfield

Karstadt

(2000). The association between direct and relational bullying and behaviour problems among primary school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(8), 989–1002, doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00687.

102.

Yilmaz

(2011). Cyberbullying in Turkish middle schools: An exploratory study. School Psychology International, 32(6).