To Bully or Not to Bully,That Is Not the Question

Abstract

Twenty-eight early adolescent boys and girls suspended from school for bullying provided accounts of the importance of reputation in their daily lives, specifically how they initiated, promoted, and then maintained their reputation through bullying. Overall, bullying was a deliberate choice perpetrated to attain a nonconforming reputation and was initially promoted through visibility of physical bullying. These actions became more covert, particularly among girls, during the promotion phase. Sex differences were most marked in the maintenance phase. Although both boys and girls used cyber bullying to deliberately induce a sense of apprehension and fear, boys also deliberately damaged their victim’s houses and gardens outside of school hours to induce a greater sense of fear and hence maintain their nonconforming reputation.

Keywords

aggression delinquency/crime education/school peers/friends

Bullying is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon (Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, 2006), which may be a precursor to more severe forms of school violence (see Nation, Vieno, Perkins, & Santinello, 2008). Extensive evidence gathered over the years clearly demonstrates the adverse consequences associated with bullying for bullies, victims, and bystanders alike (Alikasifoglu, Erginoz, Ercan, Uysal, & Albayrak-Kaymak, 2007). For example, introverted personality, frequent presentation of emotional problems including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation as well as loneliness, isolation, and school refusal are consistently associated with bullying (Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1992; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen, & Rimpela, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001; Newman, Holden, & Delville, 2005; Woods & White, 2005).

The emergence of electronic technologies has provided an additional medium through which students engage in malevolent behaviors (Shariff, 2008), and this has enhanced the potential for bullying (Smith et al., 2008). Indeed, the ease of access to, and willingness to use, these technologies for bullying is viewed as providing for greater levels of invasiveness, reaching a wider audience, and preserving anonymity on the part of the perpetrator (Campbell, 2005; Kowalski & Limber, 2007).

Although much is known about the prevalence of bullying and its consequences (see Scheithauer, Hayer, Petermann, & Jugert, 2006 for a review), it seems to be the case that the social-psychological factors that underpin specific behavioral choices and sustain involvement in bullying have, in comparison, been relatively neglected (Von Marees & Petermann, 2010). Moreover, what has been undertaken has been predominantly quantitative in nature (Burns, Maycock, Cross, & Brown, 2008). The qualitative research reported here is a follow-up to a quantitative study (Nathan, Houghton, Tan, & Carroll, 2011) in which the Reputation Enhancement Scale (RES, Carroll, Houghton, Hattie, & Durkin, 1999) was administered to 132 (62 males and 70 females) early adolescent bullies and nonbullies. A multivariate analysis of variance revealed that bullies sought reputations that were significantly more nonconforming compared with nonbullies and that this was how they wanted peers to perceive them. These bullies openly admired peers of their age involved in nonconforming activities; believed that other early adolescents of their age would have the same admiration for these individuals; believed that peers saw them (i.e., bullies) as someone who breaks rules, breaks the law, is a troublemaker, a bully, and tough; and they wanted others to perceive them in this manner. Thus, there is clear empirical evidence that early adolescents actively seek a specific reputation of choice.

While empirical research is important, a qualitative approach provides greater opportunities to gather detailed accounts about the significance of reputation in the everyday lives of bullies as they attempt to cultivate a reputation. According to Owens, Shute, and Slee (2000), qualitative studies are particularly well placed to elicit rich and unique detail about issues relating to students’ bullying activities, particularly at an age (as in the present study) where constructs framed in quantitative research terms might be difficult to interpret. That the influence of the peer group and the initiation of a reputation become salient from around 10 years of age, because of increased routine contact with like-minded peers (Hopkins & Emler, 1990) and a steep rise in antisocial behaviors (Carroll, Houghton, Durkin, & Hattie, 2009; Stauffacher & DeHart, 2006), provide added impetus for a qualitative approach. Moreover, obtaining accounts from the participants themselves is particularly useful in informing prevention and early intervention.

Thus, the purpose of the current study was to obtain information about the dynamics of reputation enhancement and how this impacts on the bullying behavior of early adolescents. Unlike most other studies, this study did not rely on self-report questionnaires to identify bullies, rather boys and girls were identified from official school suspension records. That both male and female young adolescent bullies were interviewed, and their explanations for bullying compared were another innovative aspect of this current study.

Bullies and the Peer Group

Bullying is a social group process (Gini, 2006; Woods & Wolke, 2004) as recognized by a number of theories, including the social complexity model (Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, & Cowie, 2003). In this, the relationship between the bully and the person(s) bullied emanates from the dynamic interactions which take place among a variety of variables which extend outside of the bully/bullied interactions to the whole group. Consequently, one hypothesis arising is that bullying may be a means of attaining an image (Rigby, 2008), by satisfying the need to dominate others in the course of establishing a hierarchy (Pellegrini & Long, 2004), and establishing and enhancing peer status (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003).

In line with this Burns et al. (2008) proposed that the need to be recognized by peers and to be part of the social group is important when considering the sociopsychological factors of bullying. Further support for this line of argument comes from research demonstrating the crucial role that peers and the peer group play in bullying (e.g., Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Olweus, 2001; Rigby, 2005; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Woods & Wolke, 2004). Indeed, it is known that the peer group network in bullies’ groups tend to be larger than those of nonbullies (Woods, 2009), because they attract members through the appeal of associating with winners (Estell, Farmer, & Cairns, 2007).

This is not to say that bullies comprise a homogeneous group, with emerging recognition of the heterogeneity among children and adolescents who bully (Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008). For example, some children who bully are undercontrolled, impulsively aggressive, psychologically troubled, and appear to lack the social competence for social interactions (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall (2003). There is another group of children, however, who bully but who are able to manipulate others, perceive vulnerabilities to target in potential victims, and expect bullying to be effective in asserting power. These children show advanced social skills and are dominant in the peer group (Vaillancourt et al., 2003). Theories of social dominance (see Hawley, 1999; Hawley, Little, & Card, 2008) suggest that such socially dominant individuals should be focal group members. They are influential, attractive, and looked at and watched by peers and consequently attract others who seek to imitate and learn from them.

Thus, the significance of peers and the peer group in the everyday lives of bullies appears to be aligned with the key elements of Reputation Enhancement Theory (RET, Emler, 1984; Emler & Reicher, 1995). RET has become a dominant theory in explaining why adolescents in mainstream high schools and in detained settings become involved (and maintain their involvement) in delinquent behavior. Powerful supporting evidence has been accrued in support of RET over the past 15 years (for a comprehensive review see Carroll et al., 2009). According to Farrington (1993), the career paths perspective referred to in the delinquency research may also explain trajectories to bullying. That is, a bullying career would be frequent over an extended time period. However, just as in trajectories to delinquency, only a small proportion of the population would engage in persistent bullying, and this involvement might increase or decrease. Thus, as mentioned earlier, RET may explain the motivations underpinning the behavior of young adolescents who bully.

Briefly, RET (Emler, 1984) posits that individuals choose a reputation or social identity and then promote this before an audience of their peers. Individuals go to great lengths to both develop and maintain this reputation of choice (Emler, 1984; Emler & Reicher, 1995). The feedback received from the audience assists the individual to develop and maintain this reputation or social identity of choice within a relatively stable community of mutually acquainted and conversing individuals (Hopkins & Emler, 1990). To gain social visibility for reputational purposes, there has to be direct witnessing of the acts by others, and/or self-disclosure through gossip and exchange of information (Carroll et al., 2009). Hopkins and Emler (1990) hypothesized that individuals communicate their reputations through intentional, visible behavior, primarily to persuade others that they belong to a particular social category. To acquire and maintain a delinquent reputation requires an audience who share a subculture (Gold & Petronio, 1980) and to ensure visibility deviant/delinquent activities are not committed alone but in company (Reicher & Emler, 1986). Finally, as postulated by Reicher and Emler (1986) without the social support of a peer group a delinquent (or nondelinquent) reputation is hard to sustain.

Therefore, an integral argument of RET is that individuals have public reputations and that this is the social goal of their conduct (Hopkins & Emler, 1990). Promoting a reputation is particularly important because of the credit it attributes to individuals within their social community (Emler, 1990; Emler & Reicher, 2005). Visibility of actions to others is therefore a key element on which the psychology of reputation has been built (Emler, 1984). Reicher and Emler (1986) made the point that the visibility of chronic rule breakers’ conduct or the damage it will do to their reputations is not miscalculated; rather, they deliberately foster this reputation. Finally, reputation is a strategy of self-protection and redress for the individual and the group (Emler & Reicher, 1995), and although Burns et al. (2008) highlighted the importance of reputation in bullying, its applicability in the everyday lives of bullies has not been investigated using qualitative methods.

RET and Bullies

A bully’s admiration of power and the need to cultivate an image (Woods, 2009) along with a desire to be seen as strong, tough, and powerful (Burns et al., 2008; Rodriguez, 2004) are suggestive of the desire on the bully’s part to cultivate a reputation. That bullying occurs relatively more directly (overtly) than indirectly (Nabuzoka, Ronning, & Handegard, 2009) and predominantly in contexts where there is an audience present (Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001; Gini, 2006), is another indicator that RET may offer a plausible explanation for the underlying motivations for bullying. Moreover, audience presence for bullying includes where children interact in unstructured contexts such as during recess and in outdoor play (Gini, 2006), lunch times, extracurricular events, and on the way to/from school (Isernhagen & Harris, 2002), and in school hallways, on school buses, and cafeterias (Astor et al., 2001).

The presence of others in addition to the bully/bullies and victim(s) in a social context can include bystanders, who according to Oh and Hazler (2009) are the most overlooked group even though their roles are critical in encouraging or reducing bullying behaviors (see Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). Craig and Pepler (1997), for example, found that elementary school students are more willing to take direct, positive action against bullying (e.g., tell the bully to stop, help the victim) whereas older secondary school students are more likely to walk away or do nothing (Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse, & Neale, 2010). With regard to early adolescents, Tisak and Tisak (1996) found that most bystanders would not respond to aggressive behavior, even though they thought they should. Thus, the presence of an audience is particularly salient given the findings demonstrating that bullying is a relationship problem (Pepler et al., 2008) especially in early adolescence (Scholte, Sentse, & Granic, 2010).

Rigby (2008) made the point that bullies are not ashamed of what they are doing and want attention and an audience of peers to impress. Similarly, Gamliel, Hoover, Daughtry, and Imbra (2003) proposed that bullies actually use the audience as a “theater” to their advantage. Thus, there seems to be a strong element of choice in the behavior of bullies. Supportive of this is the finding from a quantitative study of 455 early and midadolescent boys and girls (mean age 12.5 years) by Gini (2006). Gaining social power and group status was the primary motive in peer victimization, especially during early adolescence when children were attempting to raise their social status. Of particular note was that these young people attempted to raise their social status to enhance their own standing and gain a dominance over peers and as such “viewed aggressive behavior toward weaker peers as an effective way to achieve social power” (Gini, 2006, p. 62).

In what is reported to be the only qualitative study of early adolescent boys and girls (n = 33, aged 11 to 13 years) with histories of relational aggression, Pronk and Zimmer-Gembeck (2010) found that aggressive behavior was viewed as a means of achieving goals and maintaining/increasing status. Social dynamics (including aspects of striving for social dominance and prominence) was reported to be the most common reason for aggressive behavior; something that Hawley and Vaughn (2003) described as the bright side to bad behavior.

Visibility of actions to others, the audience to whom these actions are visible, as well as the perceptions and descriptions of ourselves and others which foster our self-image (Emler & Reicher, 1995) are the key elements on which the psychology of reputation is built. It appears therefore that bullying and reputation have much in common. As mentioned earlier, the influence of the peer group and the initiation of a reputation become salient from around 10 years of age (Carroll et al., 2009; Stauffacher & DeHart, 2006), but to date the voices of early adolescents who perpetrate the bullying in search of a reputation has yet to be heard. This is important because “the construction and management of reputation should be included in programs of prevention of violent behavior in the school setting” (Buelga, Musitu, Murgui, & Pons, 2008, p. 198), and more research is needed to develop school based intervention programs that focus on group identification processes (Gini, 2006). As Murray-Harvey and Slee (2010) argued, the school experience shapes students’ lives beyond school, and it is critical that students feel safe at school and protected from violence in any form. Therefore, the present study sought to explore Western Australian early adolescents’ motivations underpinning their bullying of others.

Method

Participants and Settings

Twenty-eight early adolescent school students (18 boys and 10 girls, aged 10 to 13 years) from Grades 5 (n = 11), 6 (n = 8), and 7 (n = 9) participated in the study. Each student had a school record officially documenting their bullying over a minimum period of one school year. Of the 28 students, 20 had been suspended from school for bullying one or more times over the previous 6 to 12 months. The official school records confirmed that all 20 (even those suspended on one occasion) had records of repeated bullying (i.e., their aggression was not an isolated act) which led up to their suspension. The remaining eight had records of bullying and had received “in school” exclusions during the same period. Again the official school records showed repetition in their bullying. The 28 were obtained via parental consent from a sample of 38 early adolescents (a 74% positive response rate) with school records for bullying who had been involved in an earlier quantitative study. In Western Australia, children remain in elementary school from Grades 1 to 7 before transitioning to high school.

The participants were drawn from four separate primary schools located in low to middle socioeconomic status areas, as indexed by their postal codes in the Australian socioeconomic Indexes (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003), across the metropolitan area of Perth, the capital city of Western Australia. Each of the schools had between 390 and 500 students on roll.

Interview Protocol

In order to generate data for analysis, a semi structured interview protocol was followed. This protocol was based on previous research methodologies used in bullying research and from a review of the research literature (Burns et al., 2008; Owens et al., 2000; Rigby, 2008). In addition, it was based on the findings from the quantitative research which had generated empirical data pertaining to early adolescent bullies’ search for a specific reputation through their bullying. Sex differences in behaviors were explored in the interviews. Prior to the study the interview protocol was pilot tested with five early adolescents aged between 10 and 13 years. These individuals were asked to comment on the suitability of the interview questions and the content appropriateness of the questions. No suggestions were put forward to alter the interview format or any of the questions.

Interview Section I sought information to determine whether bullying was a deliberate choice and what the motivations for the bullying were. Specifically, participants were asked to take their own perspective as a bully when answering the following exploratory questions: (a) Is bullying a deliberate choice? (b) Why do bullies bully others? (c) Where do bullies bully? and (d) Why do bullies like to be seen by others when bullying?

Interview Section II focused participant’s attention specifically on the importance of reputation, particularly in terms of its initiation, promotion, and maintenance. Given that quantitative research (see Carroll et al., 2009) has demonstrated that individuals seeking nonconforming reputations admire socially unacceptable activities (e.g., antisocial behavior), and those involved in it, the participants were asked about their admiration of others involved in bullying. Finally, because cyber bullying is reported frequently in the media and more recently in the research literature, the participants were asked about their use of this and the reasons why they used it. Further questions were asked to explore the themes outlined as they arose.

Procedure

Approval to conduct the research was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the administering institution, after which telephone contact was made with the principals of four primary schools who had been involved in the previous quantitative study (Nathan et al., 2011) and whose students had bullied others. At this time, the purpose of the research was explained to the principals who on agreeing to become involved in the study were asked to distribute information letters and consent forms to the parents of students in Grades 5 to 7 who had been suspended for bullying. Of the 38 letters forwarded on, 28 giving consent were returned. On return of the signed parental consent forms, arrangements were made with the schools as to a suitable time to conduct the interviews with the participating students. Prior to the interview beginning participants were reminded that their involvement was voluntary and that confidentiality of their responses was assured. Verbal assent was then obtained from the participants.

All interviews were conducted in a quiet room at the respective schools during regular class times. The interviewer sat opposite, but slightly to one side of the student throughout the course of their interview with an audio recorder placed on a table in full view of the student. Each student was asked prior to the start of the interview for permission to audio record the session and all agreed. In addition, the aims of the research were explained to each student, and they were reminded that they were at liberty to withdraw from the research at any time; none chose to do so. No time limit was placed on the interviews, but in general they varied in length between 15 and 30 minutes.

In order to facilitate the free flow of the students’ responses, the interviews started with some general conversation so as to place them at ease by drawing out some initial information on their school experiences (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). It was then explained that bullying occurs when one or several students say mean and hurtful things to someone else; make fun of someone else; call someone else mean and/or hurtful names; completely ignore or purposely exclude someone from their friendship groups/class activities; physically, hit, kick, shove, or threaten someone else; tell lies or spread false rumors about someone else; send mean notes or use the Internet/SMS to try to make school mates dislike another student; and in general do hurtful things of this nature (see Solberg, Olweus, & Endresen, 2007).

By adhering to consistency and good practice for interviewing children, credibility of the data was achieved (Wilson & Powell, 2001).

Data Analysis

All students in the study were allocated a pseudonym (fictitious initials followed by grade level), and the interviews were transcribed verbatim by the second author within 3 to 7 days of the interview taking place so as to ensure dependability. A second person independent of the research also checked the transcribed interviews against the audio recordings to obtain a measure of interrater reliability. Overall, there was a 98% agreement between the first author and the second person.

The authors then identified why bullies bully, how they feel when they do this, where bullies bully others, why bullies like to be seen by others when bullying, the importance of reputation, bullies admiration of others involved in bullying, and their use of cyber bullying. These data were placed into major themes, and then a second person reviewed these themes and subsequently discussed them with the first author.

An interpretive phenomenological approach was used. This was deemed appropriate given that the ways that bullies perceive and experience the world around them was being analyzed (Barker, 2002). An interpretive phenomenological approach is relevant where qualitative data are being assessed both within and across cases through stages. In this study, it comprised the individual transcripts of the bullies, followed by a cross case analysis across bullies to detect common themes about the phenomenon under investigation. Using this two stage approach allowed emerging themes to be identified.

Prior to undertaking the interpretive phenomenological approach, a coding system was developed along the lines recommended by Neuman (2006). That is, open coding was undertaken whereby the data were initially condensed into preliminary categories of codes. This was conducted across participants. Then, axial coding was conducted during which time the codes were organized so that links could be formed and key analytical categories identified. This allowed codes to be lined with similar categories. Finally, selective coding was undertaken within and across participants, whereby data were selected to support the key analytic categories. Thus, a combination of Barker’s (2002) interpretive phenomenological approach and Neuman’s (2006) qualitative approach (as successfully used by Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2010) guided the researchers in their assessment of individual differences and identification of themes and categories across the transcripts.

Results

The themes that emerged from the interviews are summarized, and for each theme, quotes are provided. Gender differences are highlighted where they occurred.

Overall, three categories of motivational behavior were reported by the participants, namely initiating their reputation of choice through bullying others, then actively promoting it through the visibility of their bullying actions, and finally maintaining it via bullying and “out of school” bullying-related activities.

Initiating a reputation

There was an overwhelming consensus among the boys and girls that bullying others was a deliberate choice on their part, primarily for “recognition” and “respect.” This recognition was experienced through feelings of being strong, powerful, and cool. These attributes were seen as essential if they were to get their own way among peers, particularly like-minded peers. This in turn provided them with acceptance, recognition, status, respect, and ultimately the initiation of the reputation that they were seeking to attain. As one male bully said about another male bully,

T can hit hard and he can say really bad things about you or your family. He is the baddest I know. He says doing this gets him what he wants. No one messes with him. You got to like and respect him for it. He’s got one bad rep. (BW, 5)

According to both male and female bullies it was the gaining of power over others that provided the impetus for initiating a reputation and hence this is why they bullied. As one male bully stated,

Bullies feel stronger and tougher than everybody. They want to be on top. Like all the kids never respected them so they have to fight and bash people to get that respect. (TF, 5)

Similarly, a female reported,

Doesn’t the saying go—If you can’t beat them, join them! I feel happy and powerful when I make them cry and I get more attention and respect. I made a good choice. (SG, 6)

Yet another male bully stated,

I wanted to be on top, so I fight with people to get respect. I mean getting respect . . . that’s what it’s all about. (MM, 6)

Promoting a reputation

Once the desired reputation has been chosen individuals must then promote it before an audience of their peers. The feedback received from the audience then assists the individual to further develop and maintain his or her reputation of choice. Visibility of actions to others, are the key elements on which the psychology of reputation has been built (Emler, 1984). To gain this social visibility there has to be direct witnessing of the acts by others, and/or self-disclosure through gossip and exchange of information (Carroll et al., 2009). This was indeed the pattern followed by the male and female early adolescents in this present study. That is, they openly bragged to others (bullies and nonbullies) how they had hit someone, or called them offensive and rude names and “how nothing happened to them”; moreover, they reported that their victims told others (students and teachers) what had happened to them. Hence, the bullies’ image of power was reinforced by their victims communicating to others. As one male bully reported,

Everyone tells me I’m bad—the other kids tell me. The teacher always tells me I’m a bad person, that I don’t have any good in me. My parents tell me that I am bad at home and that no-one likes me and I am mean to everyone. Being bad gets me anything I want. So I feel pretty good about being bad. (TT, 7)

In order to develop their reputation of choice the male and female bullies deliberately sought a peer audience in high visibility locations (e.g., playground, toilets, school oval, bike racks, basketball/netball courts, and the canteen). There was complete consensus among the male and female early adolescent bullies that this maximized the amount of peer kudos they received and boosted their “rep.” By ensuring that peers witnessed and recognized the amount of daring and brutality involved in their bullying actions the bullies believed they gained widespread peer recognition for being “hard” and “bad-assed.” The following comment from a male is typical of both the boys and girls in this regard:

I choose my place carefully. I mean why get somebody if no one is going to see you do it. You get nothing from that. When others do see you it makes you feel great because they know not to mess with you. You got to mean it. (KB, 6)

The boys and girls in this study also revealed that while they purposefully sought an immediate audience to witness their more physical actions when first seeking peer recognition, this tended to lessen as their nonconformity and “bad rep” grew. In this regard, the boys and particularly the girls often engaged in acts that involved more covert types of bullying (e.g., writing comments on toilet walls, sending phone text messages, and posting insults on web blogs and social networking sites). They claimed that the use of these bullying techniques generated elements of anticipatory fear and suspense in their bullying repertoire. For example, many girls reported that as well as using a direct physical bullying mode in high visibility locations whereby

in the toilets we gang up and push them down on to the floor in all the slippery stuff. We all then have a good laugh at them. (PP, 6)

They also perpetrated a more covert mode, but still in the same high visibility locations

Everyone has to head for the toilets at some time so it’s a good place to leave things. I wrote S is a filthy slut and P can’t be trusted so don’t tell her things. I mean, writing nasty things on the toilet walls and doors about someone—its easy and it works. (MO, 6)

Compared with the males, many more of the female bullies reported that reaching a wider audience but in a delayed manner is as equally important as reaching an immediate one through direct physical bullying, for the purposes of getting a reputation. The females reported they used many modes for reaching a wider audience, in particular the school internet which was viewed as a good way to make sure everyone knew “what’s going to happen.” For some of the females Facebook and personal blogs were used because they could change and/or add to the content for others to read. For example, as one female reported,

S is one of the best at this. She changed somebody’s details so it read like that she was a slapper; she is always calling others sluts and bitches. We all read it and laugh. (SP, 7)

These female bullies would then further enhance their reputations by directly intimating to the victim what they had done. This was done by word of mouth or subtle body language gestures. According to these early adolescent female bullies the direct bullying was not the fun part. Rather, it was creating in the victim a sense of trepidation along with feelings of not being sure of whether the bully had in fact carried out the actions. As two females said,

Not getting found out is most of the fun even if the others have a good idea who did it. Seeing the poor saddo trying to find who wrote about her or changed her writing is a real laugh and because she isn’t really sure if it was me it’s easy to do it again and again. (JT, 7)

I can be real mean and bitchy after sending a message. I just pretend everything is OK for like two or three days. Then when she thinks everything seems normal I hold my phone up to the person and wave it about with a smile on my face. You should see the look on her face. (AK, 6)

Maintaining a reputation

Although males used similar cyber bullying techniques as the females, the difference was that they did so outside of regular school hours and more to maintain their reputation. The male bullies in this study reported that they had established their “hard” and “nasty” reputation through direct physical bullying prior to using cyber bullying techniques. In this way, these males believed that the cyber bullying provided an extra edge to maintain it. Similar to the females there was a sinister side to the male’s use of cyber bullying. As one male bully summed up,

Sending texts and emails means you can carry on to whoever you like after hitting them or scaring them. Texting can be done anytime but I like sending them really late at night so when they switch their mobiles on next morning the message is waiting for them. Its real fun waiting next day just to see how they act when they see you. You can tell they’re scared. (BN, 7)

To maintain their reputation, the boys also reported direct involvement in additional out of school bullying-related activities. Seeking out the home address of peers who they bullied at school so they could deliberately damage personal items such as mail boxes, flower beds and trees was frequently mentioned. According to the males it was easy to find out where a victim lived and then create an even greater sense of fear, because the victim soon associated the property damage with the bully. As one male bully stated,

A is smart. He visits houses late at night. He has kicked down mail boxes, thrown eggs at people’s windows and doors and he doesn’t care. When C’s parents complained to the school he just told them it wasn’t him, even though every one of us all knew he had done it. C was pretty worried for sure. You could see it on his face. (NR, 7)

Another male reported a similar instance where one bully’s favorite routine was

to stand outside K’s (his victim’s) house and do something like trash some flowers or the mail box when K’s parents were watching. He then runs away and next day at school tells us all about it. (PR, 5)

Sometimes this took the form of a group oriented activity. As one male stated,

sometimes we all go around at night and break the person’s mail box down or put graffiti on their walls. (NR, 7)

According to the male bullies these out of school hour’s activities maintained their reputation and in some cases further enhanced it within the school community. This was achieved in a number of ways. First, if the victim’s parents complained to the school (or police in some cases) the bully’s peers found out about it through the peer communication network—even though the bullies did not admit to the adults that they committed the out of school acts. By standing up to these adults in authority the reputation of the bully was not only maintained, but further enhanced. When asked about this almost all of the bullies who perpetrated out of school hours bullying related activities openly stated that it was their intent to be found out to maintain a “bad rep.”

The female bullies did not make reference to using similar out of school hour’s activities as the males to maintain their reputation. Rather, they appeared to use similar activities to those used in the promoting reputation phase. That is, they continued sending messages via toilet walls and doors, and the electronic media. As one female bully stated,

I just keep leaving info on places where everyone sees it, like the dunny [sic] (i.e., toilet) walls or I message it on my phone. It doesn’t matter which cos whoever gets it knows it’s from me. (MO, 6)

These activities had a similar effect to the out of school activities used by the male bullies in that they induced fear and trepidation in the victim.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to examine whether RET (Emler, 1984) offered a plausible sociopsychological explanation about the motivations underpinning early adolescents’ bullying of others. This study is unique in that no previous qualitative studies appear to have followed up on the findings from a quantitative study, which investigated reputation enhancement among early adolescent male and female bullies. Furthermore, this study included participants based on their known official school history of suspensions as a result of bullying others. Of particular note was that all of the participants had a shared understanding pertaining to the behaviors they were questioned about.

The findings offer keen insight into the motivations of early adolescent bullies and as such provide important data pertaining to an important window of opportunity for intervention given that children who bully their peers at 8 to 12 years of age are at higher risk of being deviant at 15 years, compared with those who do not bully (Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000). Indeed, this stage of schooling (i.e., Grades 5 to 7, 10 to 12 years of age) is characterized by a state of transitory disaffection, and transition from the initiation and promotion of a reputation to its maintenance is a critical point in the developmental pathway, because their (i.e., the child’s) commitment to a deviant lifestyle is being cemented into their desired social image of choice (Carroll et al., 2009). Thus, teachers, school psychologists, and counselors are well positioned to not only effectively counter the negative motivating forces of reputation enhancement (which are positive for some early adolescents) but to also encourage students to become more involved in prosocial activities that enhance conforming reputations.

RET is based on the premise that much child and adolescent behavior is motivated by the desire to present one’s self to the peer community in a particular way (Emler & Reicher, 1995) and as a means to impress peers and gain their approval (Agnew, 1991). Extensive empirical research demonstrates this that applies to Australian children from as early as Grade 4 (9 and 10 years old, see Carroll et al., 2009). In this study, a qualitative approach was undertaken to more fully explore the motivations of early adolescent bullies, particularly in their attempts to cultivate a reputation. Overall, three categories of motivational behavior linked to RET and bullying were identified. These were bullying others to initiate a reputation; actively promoting the reputation through visibility of bullying; and then maintaining the reputation not only through bullying but also through out of school hours bullying related activities.

Given the findings emanating from this study it is clear that RET is applicable in the context of understanding bullying. That is, both male and female bullies report that bullying is a choice on their part, and if they choose to bully then primarily it is to gain a nonconforming reputation of choice through the acquisition of recognition and respect, and feelings of power and being cool. This is supportive of O’Connell, Pepler, and Craig (1999) and Saufler and Gagne (2000) who reported that bullying among primary school children is an antecedent to achieving goals. It also ties in with the work of Dodge (1991) and Loeber and Coie (2001) who reported that bullies believe that everyone who behaves aggressively to others does so deliberately for a purpose. From this study, it is clear that having a public reputation is the social goal of the bullies’ conduct and through involvement in bullying they create a certain (tough) reputation which persuades others that they belong to a particular social category (Emler & Reicher, 1995; Hopkins & Emler, 1990).

Seeking a nonconforming reputation may be the goal for bullies but how is this achieved in terms of the social processes outlined in RET? To initiate and promote a reputation of choice public proof of character is necessary, and this requires an audience to ensure that any activities are witnessed. According to Gamliel et al. (2003) bullies use peer presence to their advantage—as a “theater” for their bullying. Moreover, that bullies are not ashamed of what they are doing, and they want attention and an audience of peers to impress (Rigby, 2008) suggests the goal directedness of their behavior and the importance of an audience as espoused by RET.

According to the early adolescent male and female bullies in the present study, the visibility of their actions to others was critical and so, as has been found in other studies (see Astor et al., 2001; Gini, 2006; Isernhagen & Harris, 2002), they carefully chose their locations (playground, toilets, school oval, bike racks). There was consensus among the sample that this maximized the amount of peer kudos they received. By having peers witness and recognize their power, they gain widespread peer recognition and a reputation.

Previous research (see Carroll et al., 2009) has demonstrated that during late adolescence maintaining the reputation of choice assumes greater precedence since its promotion is no longer necessary. Burns et al. (2008) provide some support for this in the context of that bullying, arguing that once the child has established himself or herself as someone who bullies, he or she needs to maintain that behavior. This was the case in the present study, particularly among the males who by extending their bullying repertoire outside of regular school hours induced greater levels of fear and insecurity in their victims and hence maintained their reputations in more subtle (compared to physical bullying) ways. Deliberately damaging the surrounding areas of their victim’s house, or simply being seen around the vicinity, also communicated to the victim that they were within reach even beyond the confines and authority of the school. Girls, on the other hand, seemed to use strategies used earlier for promoting their reputation. That is, they continued to leave comments on toilet walls, send text messages, and use web blogs and social networking sites to maintain their reputation. Other research examining aggressive behavior has also found that girls use gossip and rumor spreading to not only harm the social standing of peers but to also ensure centrality in the social network. This is an effective way to achieve and maintain social prominence and status, especially among adolescents (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004).

Nabuzoka et al. (2009) argued that a large proportion of students are exposed to bullying through its direct nature and this has the potential to adversely affect the general school atmosphere. It is clear from this study that the indirect actions of bullies, such as leaving messages on walls or sending messages via SMS, or damaging personal property outside of school is also communicated to a wider audience. Thus, the importance of the peer group even in communicating indirect acts cannot be underestimated, which is supportive of Reicher and Emler’s (1986) contention that without the social support of a peer group a nonconforming reputation is hard to maintain.

Recommendations

Burns et al. (2008) emphasized the strength and influence of the peer group and the need to conform as being paramount to the development of appropriate intervention strategies. They also highlighted the “importance of schools implementing early intervention to stop reputation development” (p. 1713). This present research provides strong support for Burns et al.’s (2008) argument. Indeed, consideration should be given by schools to use programs which teach bullies how to attain reputations which are more conforming in nature (i.e., in the whole school context as against the bullying/peer group) and which are achieved through participation in programs which afford involvement in prosocial activities. In doing so negative leadership through bullying can be transformed to positive leadership within the school context (see Pepler, 2006). It is important, however, that such activities help bullies to maintain their social positioning and status among peers.

The reinforcing role played by peers should alert schools and program developers that bullying is a relationship problem whereby those who bully are learning to use power and aggression to control and distress others; this clarifies that relationship problems require relationship solutions (Pepler, 2006). Initiating interventions that support and enhance an individual’s relationship capacity and which also mobilize and transform the central systems in their lives so as to promote healthy relationships (Pepler, 2006) are therefore a priority for schools. Given the central role of peers in promoting (or reducing) bullying dynamics (Craig & Pepler, 1997) schools should seek to maximize opportunities to structure children’s peer groups to promote positive peer experiences and deconstruct negative peer experiences (Pepler, 2006; Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001). In doing this, schools should not underestimate the potential for bystanders to break the cycle of bullying. Given that bystanders are usually the majority of participants in bullying situations (Oh & Hazler, 2009), strategies that foster positive bystander responses should be developed, implemented, and evaluated.

Therefore, we argue that interactive multimedia-based interventions which remove the immediate presence of an audience offers great potential for preventing children’s and early adolescents’ involvement in bullying and halting their progression along the trajectory toward greater involvement in more serious antisocial behavior. Without the social backdrop of a peer group, a nonconforming reputation is hard to sustain (Reicher & Emler, 1986). Interactive multimedia-based interventions also reduce the likelihood that bullies will be grouped together in one program setting. In doing so it reduces the potential to create the reputation of choice and for the bully to behave in ways consistent with the label of bully. Perhaps multimedia-based interventions therefore offer a potential for turning around the lives of early adolescent bullies.

Prior to concluding, it must be acknowledged that the sample comprised a relatively small number of early adolescents who were suspended from school for bullying and as such may have been more extreme in their bullying behaviors than others. Therefore, any generalizability of the findings must be treated with some degree of caution. In addition, it is acknowledged that the authors’ subjectivity may have guided the development of some of the questions asked of the participants, primarily because of the findings from the quantitative research from which the present study emanated. However, great care was taken to be open to the possibility that questions which were of relevance to the participants would emerge and that these would be pursued.

In conclusion there can be little doubt that the school experience should allow students to feel safe and protected from violence in any form (Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010). The present findings show that much of the bullying perpetrated by Western Australian early adolescents is a choice and that there are clear reasons for this. By supporting the development of relationship capacity and by providing social contexts that promote healthy relationships, schools are well placed to make significant contributions to improving the short- and long-term outcomes for young people who are bullied and/or who bully others. Such an approach needs, however, to be understood in relation to the social purposes the bullying serves and the goals that are met by undertaking it. More research is therefore necessary to fully understand the social-psychological factors that underpin specific behavioral choices that sustain involvement in bullying, including the variables that influence the different bystander roles, if promising interventions which focus on social group processes are to make a difference.

Footnotes

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Stephen John Houghton, PhD, is director of the Centre for Child and Adolescent Related Disorders. His area of research is child and adolescent psychopathology, particularly conduct disorder and the construct of juvenile psychopathy.

Elijah Nathan, PhD, researches and works with early adolescents in the area of bullying. He has developed and delivered school-based bullying programs to schools throughout Western Australia.

Myra Taylor, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Western Australia, researches and works with adolescents in the area of antisocial behavior and the delivery of community-based programs.

References

Agnew

(1991). The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology, 29, 47-72.

Alikasifoglu

Erginoz

Ercan

Uysal

Albayrak-Kaymak

(2007). Bullying behaviours and psychosocial health: Results from a cross-sectional survey among high school students in Istanbul, Turkey. European Journal of Pediatrics, 166, 1253-1260.

Astor

R. A.

Meyer

H. A.

Pitner

R. O.

(2001). Elementary and middle school student’s perceptions of violence prone school sub contexts. Elementary School Journal, 101, 511-528.

Atlas

R. S.

Pepler

D. J.

(1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. American Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-99.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Census of population and housing: Socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2001 (ABS Cat. No. 2033.0.30.001). Canberra, Australia: Author.

Barker

N. C.

(2002). Foundations in qualitative methods. In Barker

Pistrang

Elliott

(Eds.), Research methods in clinical psychology: An introduction for students and practitioners (pp. 5-72). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Buelga

Musitu

Murgui

Pons

(2008). Reputation, loneliness, satisfaction with life and aggressive behavior in adolescence. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 192-200.

Burns

Maycock

Cross

Brown

(2008). The power of peers: Why some students bully others to conform. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1704-1716.

Campbell

M. A.

(2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 15(1), 68-76.

10.

Carroll

Houghton

Durkin

Hattie

(2009). Adolescent reputations and risk: Developmental Trajectories to Delinquency. New York, NY: Springer.

11.

Carroll

Houghton

Hattie

Durkin

(1999). Adolescent reputation enhancement: Differentiating delinquent, nondelinquent, and at-risk youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 593-606.

12.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Mayeux

(2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.

13.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

(1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41-59.

14.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

Atlas

(2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22-36.

15.

Dodge

K. A.

(1991). Emotion and social information processing. In Garber

Dodge

K. A.

(Eds.), The development of emotional regulation and dysregulation (pp. 159-188). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Emler

(1984). Differential involvement in delinquency: Toward an interpretation in terms of reputation management. In Maher

B. A.

Maher

W. B.

(Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp. 173-237). New York, NY: Academic Press.

17.

Emler

(1990). A social psychology of reputation. In Stroebe

Hewstone

(Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 171-193). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

18.

Emler

Reicher

(1995). Adolescence and delinquency. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

19.

Emler

Reicher

(2005). Delinquency: Cause or consequence of social exclusion? In Abrams

Marques

Hogg

(Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

20.

Estell

D. B.

Farmer

T. W.

Cairns

B. D.

(2007). Bullies and victims in rural African American youth: Behavioral characteristics and social network placement. Aggressive Behavior, 33(2), 145-159.

21.

Farrington

(1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and Justice, 17, 381-458.

22.

Gamliel

Hoover

J. H.

Daughtry

D. W.

Imbra

C. M.

(2003). A qualitative investigation of bullying: The perspectives of fifth, sixth, and seventh graders in a USA parochial school. School Psychology International, 24, 405-420.

23.

Gini

(2006). Bullying as a social process: The role of group membership in students’ perception of inter-group aggression at school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 51-65.

24.

Gold

Petronio

R. J.

(1980). Delinquent behavior in adolescence. In Adelson

(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 495-535). New York, NY: John Wiley.

25.

Hawkins

Pepler

Craig

(2001). Peer interventions in playground bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.

26.

Hawley

(1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97-132.

27.

Hawley

Little

Card

(2008). The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviours among adolescent males and females. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 76-88.

28.

Hawley

Vaughn

(2003). Aggression and adaptive functioning: The bright side to bad behaviour. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 239-242.

29.

Hazler

R. J.

Hoover

J. H.

Oliver

(1992). What kids say about bullying. Executive Educator, 14, 20-22.

30.

Hopkins

Emler

(1990). Social network participation and problem behavior in adolescence. In Hurrelmann

Losel

(Eds.), Health hazards in adolescence (pp. 385-407). Oxford, UK: Walter De Gruyter.

31.

Isernhagen

Harris

(2002). A comparison of 9th and 10th grade boys’ and girls’ bullying behaviors in two states. Journal of School Violence, 2(2), 67-80.

32.

Juvonen

Graham

Schuster

M. A.

(2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231-1237.

33.

Kaltiala-Heino

Rimpela

Rantanen

Rimpela

(2000). Bullying at school—An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661-674.

34.

Kowalski

Limber

(2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 22-30.

35.

Kumpulainen

Rasanen

(2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary school age: Their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence—An epidemiological sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1567-1577.

36.

Kyriakides

Kaloyirou

Lindsay

(2006). An analysis of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781-801.

37.

Loeber

Coie

(2001). Continuities and discontinuities of development, with particular emphasis on emotional and cognitive components of disruptive behaviour. In Hill

Maughan

(Eds.), Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (pp. 379-407). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Menesini

Codecasa

Benelli

Cowie

(2003). Enhancing children’s responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29(1), 1-14.

39.

Murray-Harvey

Slee

(2010). School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International, 31, 271-295.

40.

Nabuzoka

Ronning

Handegard

(2009). Exposure to bullying, reactions, and psychological adjustment of secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 29, 849-866.

41.

Nansel

Overpeck

Pilla

Ruan

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevelance and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285, 2094-2100.

42.

Nathan

Houghton

Tan

Carroll

(2011). Cultivating reputations: The social goal of Western Australian primary school bullies. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 21(1), 33-48.

43.

Nation

Vieno

Perkins

Santinello

(2008). Bullying in school and adolescent sense of empowerment: An analysis of relationships with parents. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 211-232.

44.

Neuman

(2006). Analysis of qualitative data. Boston, MA: Pearson.

45.

Newman

M. L.

Holden

G. W.

Delville

(2005). Isolation and the stress of being bullied. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 343-357.

46.

O’Connell

Pepler

D. J.

Craig

W. M.

(1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.

47.

Hazler

(2009). Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying. School Psychology International, 30, 291-310.

48.

Olweus

(2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In Juvonen

Graham

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Guildford.

49.

Owens

Shute

Slee

(2000). “It hurts a hell of a lot . . .” The effects of indirect aggression on teenage girls. School Psychology International, 21, 359-376.

50.

Pellegrini

Long

(2004). Part of the solution and part of the problem: The role of peers in bullying, dominance and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. In Espelage

Swearer

(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 107-117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

51.

Pepler

(2006). Bullying interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15(1), 16-20.

52.

Pepler

Jiang

Craig

Connolly

(2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79, 325-338.

53.

Pronk

R. E.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2010). It’s “mean,” but what does it mean to adolescents? Relational aggression described by victims, aggressors, and their peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 175-204.

54.

Reicher

Emler

(1986). Managing reputations in adolescence: The pursuit of delinquent and non-delinquent identities. In Beloff

(Ed.), Getting into life (pp. 13-42). London, UK: Methuen.

55.

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.

56.

Rigby

(2008). Children and bullying: How parents and educators can reduce bullying at school. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

57.

Rodriguez

(2004). Social reasoning, negative emotionality, and emotion understanding in rejected aggressive children (Doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

58.

Salmivalli

Lagerspetz

Bjorkqvist

Osterman

Kaukiainen

(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.

59.

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246-258.

60.

Saufler

Gagne

(2000). Maine project against bullying: Final Report. Augusta, GA: Maine State Department of Education.

61.

Scheithauer

Hayer

Petermann

Jugert

(2006). Physical, verbal, and relational forms of bullying among German students: age trends, gender differences, and correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 261-275.

62.

Scholte

Sentse

Granic

(2010). Do actions speak louder than words? Classroom attitudes and behavior in relation to bullying in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, 789-799.

63.

Shariff

(2008). Cyber-bullying. London, UK: Routledge.

64.

Smith

P. K.

Mahdavi

Carvalho

Fisher

Russell

Tippett

(2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.

65.

Solberg

Olweus

Endresen

(2007). Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 441-464.

66.

Stauffacher

DeHart

(2006), Crossing social contexts: Relational aggression between siblings and friends during early and middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 228-240.

67.

Swearer, S., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38-47.

68.

Taylor

S. J.

Bogdan

(1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning. New York, NY: John Wiley.

69.

Tisak

M. S.

Tisak

(1996). Expectations and judgements regarding bystanders and victim’s responses to peer aggression among early adolescents’. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 383-392.

70.

Trach

Hymel

Waterhouse

Neale

(2010). Bystander responses to school bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 114-130.

71.

Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157-176.

72.

Von Marees

Petermann

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

73.

Wilson

Powell

(2001). A guide to interviewing children: Essential skills for counsellors, police lawyers, and social workers. Oxford, UK: Taylor and Francis.

74.

Woods

(2009). The use of aggression in primary school boys’ decisions about inclusion in and exclusion from playground football games. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 223-238.

75.

Woods

White

(2005). The association between bullying behavior, arousal levels, and behavior problems. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 381-395.

76.

Woods

Wolke

(2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 135-155.