Changes in Bullying in Relation to Friends,Competitiveness,and Self-Worth

Abstract

The relationship between social-emotional experiences — number of friends, competitiveness, and self-worth — and changes in bullying behaviour was investigated among students in Grades 5 to 7. This two-wave study included 235 students for the first data collection and 237 students for the second data collection, with a final sample of 227 students who had participated at both time points. Following Zumbo, results of multiple regression analyses, using residualized difference scores, indicated that changes in the school variables (number of friends, competitiveness, and self-worth) were associated with changes in reported bullying behaviour from the middle to the end of the school year. In particular, children’s beliefs about their self-worth were important in predicting changes in bullying behaviour, with increased self-worth being associated with a decrease in reported bullying behaviour.

Keywords

bullying social and educational environment social-emotional well-being early adolescence changes two-wave data

For three decades, bullying has been recognized as a serious problem in schools around the world (Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage, 2015). Given that bullying involves a power differentiation between the bully and victim, in which the bully intentionally harms the victim repeatedly (Olweus, 1978, 1999, 2001; Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002; Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003), such behaviours constitute a powerful stressor in a young person’s life. Not surprisingly, then, being victimized by peers has been linked to a broad range of difficulties, both immediate and long-term, in the areas of mental health, academic performance, and overall well-being (see McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015, for a review). Given this, it becomes important to identify the factors that might contribute to the likelihood of bullying others. This was one goal of the present study.

Most bullying occurs at school and among schoolmates (Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Nansel et al., 2001). Schools are among the most pervasive contexts in which students are encouraged to make friends and individual achievement has been emphasized through ability comparisons (Davies, 2005). However, little is known about whether and how such traditionally promoted school factors contribute to increases or decreases in bullying behaviours, particularly among earlier adolescents. Of particular interest was how changes in having friends and competitiveness might contribute to the likelihood of bullying in school.

During early adolescence, peer groups become increasingly important as young people start to seek autonomy from their parents (e.g., Brown & Larson, 2009; Harter, 1990). Friends, however, appear to play a mixed role in relation to bullying. Having more friends has been found to be negatively associated with victimization, suggesting a protective role of having friends (Fox & Boulton, 2005; Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). However, adolescents who identified themselves as bullies were less likely to be socially isolated (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007). In one national survey of U.S. youth (Grades 6-10), having more friends was associated with more bullying behaviours (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Similar findings have been reported among Norwegian students, aged 11 to 15 years, with bullies reporting having more friends than peers not involved in bullying behaviours (Meland, Rydning, Lobben, Breidablik, & Ekeland, 2010). Finally, an international study of both elementary and secondary students has documented a greater number of friends among bullies as compared with victims (Eslea et al., 2004). The present study sought to extend these findings by examining the relationship between bullying behaviours and changes in the number of friends over time, using a Canadian sample of early adolescents.

In the academic domain, the promotion of individual achievement often involves an emphasis on competitiveness and relative ability comparisons among students (Davies, 2005). One’s competitive orientation may need to be considered when examining bullying behaviours, given that bullying can be viewed as a harmful strategy used to compete for prestige and status in the social hierarchy (Di Stasio, Savage, & Burgos, 2016; Ojala & Nesdale, 2004). For instance, Choi, Johnson, and Johnson (2011) found that upper elementary school children with a competitive predisposition (i.e., a strong preference for individualistic behaviours that aim to benefit oneself with little or no regard for others) were more likely to engage in harm-intended aggression, such as bullying. Furthermore, albeit indirect support for the hypothesized relationship between competiveness and bullying comes from studies linking bullying with different indicators of competitiveness among secondary students, such as social dominance (Nocentini, Menesini, & Salmivalli, 2013), participation in competitive sports (Volk & Lagzdins, 2009), and involvement in a learning environment that fosters status hierarchy and competition (Bibou-Nakou, Tsiantis, Assimopoulos, Chatzilambou, & Giannakopoulou, 2012; Di Stasio et al., 2016; Garandeau, Lee, & Salmivalli, 2014). However, because extant studies have mainly explored competitiveness in terms of engagement in social competitions, it remains unclear the extent to which competitiveness, as a general predisposition, contributes to bullying. As such, this study sought to elucidate the link between competiveness and bullying by considering competitiveness as a general predisposition.

When students begin engaging in social comparisons, they start evaluating their own self-worth, using information about how they compare with other individuals to characterize and evaluate themselves. Individuals evaluate their self-worth as either high or low based upon their positive and negative self-perceptions; for example, failure in competition can lead to frustration and low self-worth (Davies, 2005). Recent studies on the association between self-worth and bullying have documented greater reports of bullying behaviours among individuals with lower levels of overall self-worth (Fanti & Henrich, 2015; O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001; Tsaousis, 2016). A study in Ireland demonstrated that primary and secondary students who frequently bullied others reported lower levels of self-worth as compared with those uninvolved in bullying (O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001). Among early adolescents (aged 11-13 years) from middle schools in Cyprus, Fanti and Henrich (2015) also found lower self-worth among bullies compared with those uninvolved in bullying. Finally, a recent meta-analysis of bullying and self-worth shows that the negative association between self-worth and bullying perpetration was larger among adolescents (older than 12.5 years) than among younger children (younger than 12.5 years; Tsaousis, 2016), concluding that self-worth plays a critical role, particularly during adolescence. Of interest in the present study was how self-worth contributes to changes in bullying behaviours over time among Canadian adolescents.

Current Study

The primary aim of the present study was to examine how traditionally promoted school components (i.e., number of friends, competitiveness, and self-worth) might be associated with changes in bullying over time among early adolescents. A second goal of the present investigation was to extend previous research by evaluating changes in bullying over time using a statistical approach proposed by Zumbo (1999) regarding residualized difference scores with a two-wave data set (i.e., Time 1 vs. Time 2). Although some researchers have criticized the use of two-wave designs to measure change (in favour of multiwave designs), others have argued that two-wave designs are still useful under certain conditions, although it is incumbent on researchers to determine whether simple difference scores can be used or whether residualized difference scores are more appropriate (Zumbo, 1999). This is critical, especially given the fact that researchers often face challenges such as financial and time constraints that limit the study design including the length of the research project (e.g., two-time design instead of three- or four-wave design). The present study utilized recommendations and guidelines proposed by Zumbo to examine changes in bullying over time, using a two-wave data analysis. Specifically, we investigated: (a) whether bullying behaviours among students changed significantly over a 5-month period, from the middle to the end of the year (Time 1 to Time 2); and (b) how number of friends, competitiveness, and self-worth would be associated with changes in bullying over time among early adolescents. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that greater number of friends and competiveness, but lower self-worth, would be associated with greater reports of or increased bullying behaviours over time.

Method

Participants

Students in Grades 5 through 7 (aged 10-13 years; M = 11.15 years at the first wave of the testing) from two elementary schools in southwestern Canada who had received parent permission for participation were included in the present study. The first wave of data collection included 108 girls and 127 boys; the second wave included 109 girls and 128 boys, with a total of 227 children available at both time points. The overall participation rate was 87%.

Procedures

Before embarking on this research, the study was reviewed and approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at a university and by the school district. Students took letters home explaining the purpose and nature of this research, requirements for consent, and acknowledgment of confidentiality. The same information was provided to students as part of written and oral instructions for the survey. Those who received parental permission and who themselves agreed to participate took part in a single group-testing session (50-60 min) at each of the two time points, January 2005 (Time 1) and June 2005 (Time 2). Teachers remained in the classroom to oversee student behaviour but were otherwise uninvolved in the survey procedures. At each time point, students completed a number of paper-and-pencil self-report surveys, only some of which were utilized for this investigation. Of interest in the present study were self-reports of bullying, the reported numbers of friends at school and outside school, competitiveness, and self-worth.

Measures

Demographic information

Participants were asked to provide information on their: (a) sex, (b) birth date/age, (c) grade, and (d) ethnic background.

Numbers of friends

At each time point, participants were asked to indicate the number of friends they had at school and outside school on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = none, 2 = one, 3 = two or three, 4 = four or more).

Competitiveness

Feelings of competitiveness were assessed at each time point using a three-item scale developed by Taki (2006) on which children rated how “unhappy” they felt if they did not do better than peers in terms of: (a) schoolwork, (b) appearance/looks, and (c) sports/hobbies (e.g., “I feel unhappy if I don’t do better than my classmates in my schoolwork.”). For each item, students responded on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = no, strongly disagree; 2 = no, disagree a little; 3 = yes, agree a little; 4 = yes, strongly agree). All three items were retained based on factor analysis, with 43% for Time 1 and 47% for Time 2 of total variance explained, a one-factor model observed on the scree plot, and factor loadings of .52 to .77 for Time 1 and .57 to .83 for Time 2. Responses to all three items were averaged to create an overall index of children’s perceived competitiveness that ranged from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicative of higher competitiveness (internal consistency, α = .71 for Time 1 and .73 for Time 2).

Self-worth

The Self-Worth subscale of Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ; Marsh, 1985, 1987) was used to measure students’ self-worth (e.g., “In general I like being the way I am.”). Participants responded to eight items on a 4-point Likert-type scale in terms of how true the statement was about themselves (1 = no, not at all; 2 = no, not much; 3 = yes, a little; 4 = yes, very much). Factor analytic results confirmed inclusion of all eight original items, with 43% (Time 1) and 47% (Time 2) of total variance explained, a one-factor model observed on the scree plot, and factor loadings of .33 to .74 for Time 1 and .30 to .74 for Time 2. Responses to the eight items were averaged to create an overall index of self-worth that ranged from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicative of higher (more positive) feelings of self-worth (overall internal consistency: α = .81 at Time 1 and .83 at Time 2).

Bullying behaviour

Involvement in bullying others was assessed using five items, each reflecting a different type of bullying—physical, verbal, social/relational, and cyber/electronic bullying (e.g., “How often have you taken part in being mean or negative to others . . . by excluding or ignoring them, spreading rumours or saying mean things about them to others, or getting others not to like them?”). For each item, participants indicated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 2 = once or twice, 3 = about once a week, 4 = several times a week) how often they had taken part in each behaviour toward their peers in the past 2 months. A one-factor model was supported on the scree plot, with 51% for Time 1 and 55% for Time 2 of total variance explained, and factor loadings of .44 to .72 for Time 1 and .47 to .80 for Time 2. Responses to these five items were averaged to create an overall bullying composite, with higher scores indicating higher (more frequent) levels of overall bullying (internal consistency, α = .74 at Time 1, .79 at Time 2).

Analytical Strategy

To decide whether to use simple difference scores or residualized difference scores for the two-wave analyses, the guidelines presented by Zumbo (1999) and Williams and Zimmerman (1983) were applied in this study. According to these authors, a residualized difference score is a more valid measure of change if, and only if, the ratio of Time 1 and Time 2 standard deviations is greater than or equal to the correlation between the measures at Times 1 and 2 (i.e., $ρ {[X}_{1} {, X}_{2}] \leq σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2}$ ). If the ratio of the Time 1 and Time 2 standard deviations is less than the correlation between the measures at Times 1 and 2 (i.e., $ρ {[X}_{1} {, X}_{2}] > σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2}$ ), then the simple score is more valid.

For all five variables used in this study, the ratio of Time 1 and Time 2 standard deviations was greater than the correlation between the measures at Time 1 and 2:

Number of friends at school : ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) = . 36, σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2} = . 61 / . 51, ρ (X 1, X 2) < σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2};

\begin{array}{l} Number of friends outside school : ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) = . 66, σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2} = . 77 / . 68, \\ ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) < σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2}; \end{array}

Competitiveness : ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) = . 54, σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2} = . 74 / . 72, ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) < σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2};

Self-worth : ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) = . 75, σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2} = . 44 / . 45, ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) < σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2};

Bullying : ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) = . 51, σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2} = . 38 / . 42, ρ {(X}_{1} {, X}_{2}) < σ_{x 1} / σ_{x 2} .

Accordingly, residualized difference scores were used to evaluate changes over time in the present analysis. Specifically, residualized difference scores were estimated from the regression analysis of the observed Time 2 measure on the observed Time 1 measure for all five variables (i.e., number of friends at school, number of friends outside school, competitiveness, self-worth, and bullying), that is, ordinary least squares regression predicting Time 2 from Time 1.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive statistics of the study variables and correlations among them are presented in Table 1. Bullying was positively correlated only with the Time 2 friends variable both at school and outside school, except that there was no significant correlation between Time 1 bullying and Time 2 outside friends. Both Time1 and Time 2 competitiveness were positively correlated with Time 2 bullying, but Time 1 bullying was correlated only with Time 1 competitiveness. At both Time 1 and Time 2, self-worth was negatively correlated with bullying.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Friends at school T1	1
2. Friends at school T2	.35**	1
3. Friends outside school T1	.25**	.20**	1
4. Friends outside school T2	.12*	.28**	.66**	1
5. Competitiveness T1	−.01	−.15*	−.00	.03	1
6. Competitiveness T2	.09	−.13*	−.05	−.06	.54**	1
7. Self-worth T1	.20**	.30**	.24**	.25**	−.13*	−.01	1
8. Self-worth T2	.17**	.21**	.16**	.28**	−.11*	−.09	.76**	1
9. Bullying T1	−.04	−.15*	−.01	−.03	.13*	.07	−.39**	−.33**	1
10. Bullying T2	−.12	−.41**	−.10	−.16*	.24**	.28**	−.46**	−.46**	.37**	1
M	3.75	3.83	3.58	3.75	2.01	1.98	3.29	3.29	1.23	1.23
SD	0.63	0.54	0.79	0.70	0.76	0.73	0.46	0.47	0.38	0.43

Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Two-Wave Data Analyses

To examine whether bullying behaviour among students changed significantly over a 5-month period, from the middle to the end of the year (Time 1 to Time 2), a paired-samples t test was conducted. The results indicated a significant time effect, t = −2.85, p < .01, with overall reported level of bullying increasing over time (M = 1.22, SD = 0.37 at Time 1; M = 1.30, SD = 0.46 at Time 2). It is important to recognize, however, that the paired-samples t test only provides information about general mean differences in bullying behaviour between Time 1 and Time 2; it does not tell us about individual differences in the change in bullying behaviour. Individual differences in changes of bullying behaviour are suggested by the variance of difference score (in this case, residualized difference score) for bullying, σ²Δ = .14 (not zero), which is of sufficient magnitude to indicate a situation where all the individuals did not change the same amount over this time period, despite the overall significant mean change.

Two Models for Bullying

The primary focus of the present study was to examine how changes in the school-related variables (i.e., numbers of friends at school, number of friends outside school, competitiveness, and self-worth) over 5 months influenced changes in levels of bullying over the same period. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of the school variables on bullying behaviour. Prior to examining changes over time, however, we first evaluated the degree to which school-related variables could predict Time 1 and Time 2 bullying concurrently.

Time 1 model

At Time 1, results of a simultaneous regression analysis predicting reported bullying at Time 1 from reported self-worth, competitiveness, and number of friends in and out of school as measured at Time 1 were significant, R² = .17, adjusted R² = .16, F(4, 223) = 12.24, p < .001. However, only lower self-worth significantly predicted greater bullying, β = –.41, t = −6.58, p < .001.

Time 2 model

At Time 2, results of a similar simultaneous regression analysis again yielded significant results, R² = .12, adjusted R² = .10, F(4, 223) = 8.16, p < .001, with Time 2 bullying being predicted by a combination of Time 2 variables, including self-worth, β = –.24, t = −3.82, p < .001; number of friends at school, β = –.15, t = −2.34, p < .05; and competitiveness, β = .14, t = 2.25, p < .05. Thus, at Time 2, students who had lower self-worth, fewer friends at school, and who were more competitive reported more bullying of others.

Next, we considered whether changes in bullying behaviour from winter to spring could be predicted by the school-related variables when considered statistically. For these analyses, residualized difference (change) scores for bullying were predicted from either Time 1 or Time 2 school variables.

Model 1 predictors related to changes in bullying

Results indicated that the linear combination of the school variables at Time 1 was not significantly related to observed changes in reported bullying, F(4, 223) = 1.11, ns. None of the individual predictors (i.e., numbers of friends in school and outside school, competitiveness, and self-worth) made a significant contribution to the prediction equation.

Model 2 predictors related to changes in bullying

Similarly, the linear combination of the school variables at Time 2 was not significantly related to reported changes in bullying from Time 1 to Time 2, F(4, 223) = 0.62, ns, and none of the individual predictors made a significant contribution to the prediction equation.

Changes in predictor variables to changes in bullying

A final multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well Time 1 to Time 2 changes in the school-related variables predicted Time 1 to Time 2 changes in bullying behaviour. All predictors (i.e., residualized difference scores for number of friends students have at school as well as outside of school, competitiveness, and self-worth) were entered simultaneously into the model in predicting changes in bullying behaviour. The linear combination of the residualized difference scores was significantly associated with the residualized difference score of bullying, F(4, 222) = 2.83, p < .05. The multiple correlation coefficient was .22, indicating that approximately 5% of variance in bullying from Time 1 to Time 2 in the present sample could be accounted for by the model. The primary predictor was the Time 1 to Time 2 change in self-worth (see Table 2). Examination of the negative unstandardized (B) and standardized beta (β) coefficients suggest that, as self-worth increased from the middle to the end of the school year, reported bullying decreased, t = −2.45, p < .05. Subsequent analyses, examining whether differences in changes in bullying over time between girls and boys, revealed no significant differences (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Changes in Bullying.

Variable	B	SE B	β
Residualized difference score of “number of friends at school”	−.04	.05	−.05
Residualized difference score of “number of friends outside school”	−.01	.05	−.01
Residualized difference score of “competitiveness”	.07	.04	.12
Residualized difference score of “self-worth”	−.20*	.08	−.17*

p < .05.

Table 3.

Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Changes in Bullying by Sex.

Variable	B	SE B	β
Residualized difference score of “number of friends at school”	−.04	.05	−.05
Residualized difference score of “number of friends outside school”	−.00	.05	−.01
Residualized difference score of “competitiveness”	.08	.04	.13
Residualized difference score of “self-worth”	−.20*	.08	−.16*
Sex (boy = 1, girl = 2)	−.05	.05	−.07

p < .05.

Discussion

The present study examined change in bullying behaviour over a 5-month period, and the extent to which changes in school-related variables — number of friends at and outside school, competitiveness, and self-worth — were associated with changes in bullying behaviours over time by using a two-wave data set. This study highlights the importance of looking at how changes in the school variables are related to increases or decreases in adolescents’ experiences of bullying over time.

Consistent with previous studies that show bullying behaviours peak around early adolescence (Nansel et al., 2001), results showed an increase of bullying behaviour from Time 1 to Time 2. Nonetheless, because two-wave, one-group designs do not lend themselves to causal statements, careful attention to possible threats to internal validity as well as the conduct of multiwave design studies should be considered in future research to minimize limitations.

In line with the hypothesis that school-related variables would predict changes in bullying over time, results of multiple regression analyses revealed that the linear combination of residualized difference scores of these variables predicted decreases in reported levels of bullying behaviours for both boys and girls. However, only self-worth emerged as a significant predictor, suggesting that the more children felt positive and confident in themselves, the less likely they were to bully others. These findings are thus consistent with extant studies suggesting that children are less likely to bully if they have a greater sense of self-worth (Fanti & Henrich, 2015; O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001; Tsaousis, 2016). In other words, increased self-worth might serve as a potential moderator which could, if increased, help reduce the likelihood of children and adolescents’ involvement in bullying.

There are two possible reasons why other school-related variables (i.e., number of friends and competitiveness) did not emerge as significant predictors of changes in bullying. The first explanation is related to time. In the beginning of the second semester, young adolescents might still be warming up to the new classroom, and thus, friendships might be less established and information that facilitates competitions is unlikely to be present. As such, the extent to which they would engage in bullying at Time 1 is most likely associated with individual characteristics, such as one’s self-worth. To the extent that friendships would be formed over the semester and that information about peers would become readily available, it is possible that other school-related variables, such as the number of friends and competitiveness, would play a more salient role in influencing behaviours. In light of this, it would be important for future studies to adopt a more longitudinal approach so as to examine this speculation.

Another plausible explanation for these findings is related to the characteristics of the participants, who were in the transition from primary to middle school. Specifically, because peer affiliations among young adolescents tend to be lower during school transitions and recover over time (Pellegrini & Long, 2002), school variables that rely on the presence of others (i.e., number of friends and competitions) might have been less relevant in predicting bullying behaviours at Time 1 as compared with Time 2. Nonetheless, because the nonsignificant role of competitiveness at Time 1 is inconsistent with findings that have indicated its significant role at predicting baseline bullying (e.g., Nocentini et al., 2013), further research is needed to understand how associations between bullying and school-related variables change over time.

Limitations and Future Directions

Some limitations of the present study need to be considered. First, the time lapse between Time 1 and Time 2 (5 months) might have been too short to allow all school-related variables to facilitate significant changes in bullying behaviours. Indeed, previous studies have found that significant change spans across years (e.g., Nocentini et al., 2013). Therefore, longitudinal studies that trace children across years are needed to examine changes in bullying across time as a function of changes in school-related variables. The use of a single item to assess friends may represent another limitation. Inclusion of more items may be necessary to strengthen the reliability of the measure.

Finally, this study focused only on specific school-related variables without accounting for contextual influences that might have facilitated or impeded these outcomes. For example, the number of friends that children have or their level of competitiveness might be related to the overall classroom or school atmosphere. Recent studies have suggested that a school climate that emphasizes academic achievement could indirectly foster bullying behaviours by increasing the level of competition among students (e.g., Bibou-Nakou et al., 2012). Future studies are needed to understand potential interactions between individual and contextual characteristics (e.g., classroom and school climate) on bullying.

Notwithstanding these limitations, this study has several strengths. First, bullying was measured by a multi-item composite as opposed to a single item, thus offering a more reliable and valid evaluation of the behaviour (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009); nonetheless, it should be noted that previous studies have recognized both strengths and limitations with respect to the number of items used to measure bullying (e.g., Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Second, the age range of the sample (i.e., Grades 5-7) captures the developmental stage when bullying appears to be the most prevalent, as indicated by previous studies that have found an increase in bullying during childhood and a peak during middle school (Grades 6-8; Nansel et al., 2001).

Third and finally, despite criticisms (e.g., Cronbach & Furby, 1970) of the use of two-wave designs to measure change, in favour of multiwave designs, this study demonstrates the potential utility of examining changes in social-related variables and bullying behaviour using residualized differences scores (Zumbo, 1999) and providing useful information in understanding the development of bullying. Nonetheless, researchers need to be careful in determining whether to use simple difference scores or residualized difference scores in maximizing reliability.

Implications

Findings from the current study provide several implications for school practitioners. Given that a low sense of self-esteem is associated with bullying behaviours, it is imperative for educators to identify different ways to enhance children’s perceptions of their self-worth. This importance is highlighted by the study of O’Moore and Kirkham (2001), which recognize increasing children’s self-worth as a potential way to reduce bullying. It is important to acknowledge, however, that this does not imply that self-worth directly causes bullying.

Several approaches are available for educators to promote student self-worth. First, although the self-esteem movement stresses the offering of praise in augmenting self-worth, school practitioners need to caution against the type of praise that is given. For instance, person praise (i.e., praise for personal qualities) that aims to boost self-worth after a failure can inadvertently lead children to feel ashamed as compared with process praise that emphasizes effort (Brummelman et al., 2014). It is therefore important for educators to be mindful when they use praise to promote self-worth. An interesting alternative is to promote and reward prosocial behaviours. Specifically, McCarty, Teie, McCutchen, and Geller (2016) found that prompting and reinforcing caring behaviour over a 6-week intervention not only reduced bullying but also increased the self-worth of upper level elementary students (i.e., Grades 3-6) as a positive side-effect. Provided that engagement in prosocial behaviour has been positively associated with peer acceptance (Layous, Nelson, Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Lyubomirsky, 2012), promoting prosocial behaviours might be a promising approach to reduce bullying by increasing self-worth, establishing friendship and lowering competitions.

Toward the end of the school year, some students in North American schools receive recognition about their individual accomplishments and achievements (e.g., scholarships, Prom King and Queen, valedictorians, sports scholarships, elections for new student presidents are held). In other words, individualistic achievements are celebrated. In this study, we found that, toward the end of the school year (June), when awards/recognitions are conferred, students reported lower self-worth, fewer friends, and more competitiveness and reported more bullying behaviour. Perhaps if school staff such as administrators, teachers, and school psychologists emphasize a more inclusive and less competitive atmosphere, in other words one with team spirit, the reduced competition and greater inclusivity would foster more friendships and potentially increase students’ self-worth.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Chiaki Konishi is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill University, Canada. Her research has concentrated on understanding the roles of connectedness on children’s and adolescents’ growth and well-being in the framework of social and emotional development.

Shelley Hymel is a professor in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education at University of British Columbia, Canada. Her research addresses the interface of social and academic functioning in school-age children, with the goal of understanding the processes involved in youth social development.

Matthew C. Danbrook is a PhD student in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Canada. His research explores the links between child maltreatment/trauma and suicidal behaviour.

Tracy K. Y. Wong is a PhD student in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Canada. Her research focuses on the roles of parents in socio-emotional and cognitive development, exploring topics such as parenting practices and values transmission. She is now extending her research to school climate and student learning.

References

Bibou-Nakou

Tsiantis

Assimopoulos

Chatzilambou

Giannakopoulou

(2012). School factors related to bullying: A qualitative study of early adolescent students. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 125-145. doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9179-1

Brown

B. B.

Larson

(2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol. 2: Contextual influences on adolescent development (pp. 74-103). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Brummelman

Thomaes

Overbeek

Orobio

Castro

van den Hout

M. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2014). On feeding those hungry for praise: Person praise backfires in children with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143(1), 9-14. doi:10.1037/a0031917

Choi

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

(2011). Relationships among cooperative learning experiences, social interdependence, children’s aggression, victimization, and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 976-1003. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00744.x

Cronbach

Furby

(1970). How should we measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68-80. doi:10.1037/h0029382

Davies

(2005). Schools and war: Urgent agendas for comparative and international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35, 357-371.

Di Stasio

M. R.

Savage

Burgos

(2016). Social comparison, competition and teacher-student relationships in junior high school classrooms predicts bullying and victimization. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 207-216. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.002

Eslea

Menesini

Morita

O’Moore

Mora-Merchan

J. A.

Pereira

Smith

P. K.

(2004). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 71-83. doi:10.1002/ab.20006

Fanti

K. A.

Henrich

C. C.

(2015). Effects of self-esteem and narcissism on bullying and victimization during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 5-29. doi:10.1177/0272431613519498

10.

Fox

C. L.

Boulton

M. J.

(2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 313-328.

11.

Garandeau

C. F.

Lee

I. A.

Salmivalli

(2014). Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1123-1133. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0040-4

12.

Harter

(1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In Sternberg

R. J.

Kolligian

, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

13.

Hodges

E. V.

Boivin

Vitaro

Bukowski

W. M.

(1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101.

14.

Hymel

Swearer

(2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70, 293-299. doi:10.1037/a0038928

15.

Layous

Nelson

S. K.

Oberle

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Lyubomirsky

(2012). Kindness counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-being. PLoS ONE, 7(12), Article e51380. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051380

16.

Marsh

H. W.

(1985). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept. Australian Journal of Psychology, 37, 197-204.

17.

Marsh

H. W.

(1987). Masculinity, femininity and androgyny: Their relations with multiple dimensions of self-concept. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 91-118.

18.

McCarty

Teie

McCutchen

Geller

E. S.

(2016). Actively caring to prevent bullying in an elementary school: Prompting and rewarding prosocial behavior. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 44, 164-176. doi:10.1080/10852352.2016.1166809

19.

McDougall

Vaillancourt

(2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70, 300-310. doi:10.1037/a0039174

20.

Meland

Rydning

J. H.

Lobben

Breidablik

H.-J.

Ekeland

T.-J.

(2010). Emotional, self-conceptual, and relational characteristics of bullies and the bullied. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38, 359-367. doi:10.1177/1403494810364563

21.

Menesini

Nocentini

(2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some critical considerations. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217, 230-232. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.230

22.

Nansel

Overpeck

Pilla

Ruan

Simon-Mortton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094

23.

Nocentini

Menesini

Salmivalli

(2013). Level and change of bullying behavior during high school: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 495-505. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.004

24.

Ojala

Nesdale

(2004). Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 19-35. doi:10.1348/026151004772901096

25.

Olweus

(1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. London, England: John Wiley.

26.

Olweus

(1999). Sweden. In Morita

(Ed.), Sekai no ijime [Bullying of the world] (pp. 90-117). Tokyo, Japan: Kaneko Shobo.

27.

Olweus

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

Graham

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

28.

O’Moore

Kirkham

(2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269-283. doi:10.1002/ab.1010

29.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Long

J. D.

(2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280. doi:10.1348/026151002166442

30.

Raskauskas

Stoltz

A. D.

(2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564-575.

31.

Smith

P. K.

Cowie

Olafsson

R. F.

Liefooghe

A. P. D.

(2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119-1133. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00461

32.

Solberg

M. E.

Olweus

(2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268. doi:10.1002/ab.10047

33.

Spriggs

A. L.

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

Haynie

D. L.

(2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283-293.

34.

Taki

(2006, February). Comparative longitudinal survey for one and half year among Australia, Korea, Canada and Japan. Paper presented at the International Symposium of the National Institute of Educational Research & Ministry of Education in Japan, Tokyo.

35.

Tsaousis

(2016). The relationship of self-esteem to bullying perpetration and peer victimization among schoolchildren and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 186-199.

36.

Vaillancourt

Hymel

McDougall

(2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157-176.

37.

Volk

A. A.

Lagzdins

(2009). Bullying and victimization among adolescent girl athletes. Athletic Insight, 11, 12-25.

38.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021

39.

Williams

R. H.

Zimmerman

D. W.

(1983). The comparative reliability of simple and residualized difference scores. Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 94-97. doi:10.1080/00220973.1982.11011846

40.

Yeager

D. S.

Fong

C. J.

Lee

H. Y.

Espelage

D. L.

(2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36-51. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005

41.

Zumbo

B. D.

(1999). The simple difference score as an inherently poor measure of change: Some reality, much mythology. In Thompson

(Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (Vol. 5, pp. 269-304). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.