Survival of the Fittest and the Sexiest: Evolutionary Origins of Adolescent Bullying

Abstract

The central idea of evolutionary psychology theory (EPT) is that species evolve to carry or exhibit certain traits/behaviors because these characteristics increase their ability to survive and reproduce. Proponents of EPT propose that bullying emerges from evolutionary development, providing an adaptive edge for gaining better sexual opportunities and physical protection, and promoting mental health. This study examines adolescent bullying behaviors via the lens of EPT. Questionnaires were administered to 135 adolescents, ages 13 to 16, from one secondary school in metro Vancouver, British Columbia. Participants were categorized into one of four groups (bullies, victims, bully/victims, or bystanders) according to their involvement in bullying interactions as measured by the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Four dependent variables were examined: depression, self-esteem, social status, and social anxiety. Results indicate that bullies had the most positive scores on mental health measures and held the highest social rank in the school environment, with significant differences limited to comparisons between bullies and bully/victims. These results lend support to the hypothesis that youth bullying is derived from evolutionary development. Implications for approaching anti-bullying strategies in schools and directions for future studies are discussed.

Keywords

bullying victimization evolutionary theory adolescents schools

Introduction

Youth bullying is a widespread and common occurrence. In Canada, using self-report surveys from a nationally representative sample of 11- to 15-year-olds, Molcho et al. (2009) found that at least one in three adolescents reported being bullied once or twice in the past 2 months. Likewise, Craig and Harel (2004) noted that approximately 31% of girls and 41% of boys bullied another at least once during the past 2 months, while 43% of girls and 40% of boys reported bully victimization.

More than 80% of Canadian parents and non-parents agree or strongly agree that bullying is one the most serious problems young people confront (Canadian Council of Learning, 2007). Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the detrimental psychosocial harms of bully victimization, such as increased levels of depression and suicide, decreased health-related quality of life, lower self-esteem, higher social anxiety, aggression, and delinquency (e.g., Frisén & Bjarnelind, 2010; Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Wong & Schonlau, 2013). In a study that examined more than 120,000 students from 28 countries, Due et al. (2005) found that victims were almost twice as likely to experience headaches, stomach aches, and backaches, relative to their non-bullied counterparts. Furthermore, the scholars noted that victims were 1.5 to 7.5 times more likely to experience psychological symptoms such as loneliness, nervousness, and helplessness.

It would seem logical that, with decades of targeted research and prevention efforts, bullying would be a rather elusive occurrence. Yet, the opposite is true. Youth bullying continues to be a ubiquitous phenomenon, existing in both urban and rural settings, face-to-face and cyber environments, and across different cultures (e.g., Litwiller & Brausch, 2013). Why is that so? The present study seeks to provide evidence for why this pervasive problem persists.

Theoretical Explanations for Bullying

Crucial to the design of appropriate alternatives for intervention and prevention is an understanding of why bullying occurs. There are numerous theories for this phenomenon (see Rigby, 2004; Wong, 2009, for reviews). For example, one perspective attributes bullying to a maldevelopment of “theory of mind”: the ability to understand and predict other people’s mental states and beliefs (Myers, 2007). A poor theory of mind can lead to misunderstandings of other people’s emotions and intentions, and lack of ability to pick up social cues, which can lead to unwarranted aggression (Shakoor et al., 2012). Another explanation stems from social learning theory, which rests on the premise that aggression is a learned behavior (Bandura, 1977) and that children learn to bully by imitating others or from witnessing other aggressive behaviors (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997).

Most of the popular theories on bullying have focused on social influences while overlooking the biological component (Kolbert & Crothers, 2003). Some bullying researchers have recently re-approached bullying with a biological lens (e.g., Ellis et al., 2012), using evolutionary psychology theory (EPT) as a framework. EPT borrows concepts from Darwin’s evolution theory and tailors them to explain human behaviors and psychology (Barret, Dunbar, & Lycett, 2002; Workman & Reader, 2008). The present study follows in this tradition and tests EPT as an explanation for adolescent bullying.

Evolutionary Psychology

The central idea of EPT is that species evolve to carry or exhibit certain traits/behaviors because these characteristics increase their ability to survive and reproduce. Proponents of EPT propose that bullying is an adaptive behavior that emerges from evolutionary development (Volk, Camilleri, Dane, & Marini, 2012). These academics argue that bullying provides an adaptive edge for gaining better sexual opportunities and physical protection, and promotes mental health. Using Darwin’s principles of evolution, there are two primary forces that outline the process of evolutionary selection: (a) natural selection and (b) sexual selection.

Natural section

The main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, that is, “survival of the fittest,” a process through which heritable, survival-promoting traits are selected (Barret et al., 2002). There are three components that must be fulfilled for a characteristic to be naturally selected: advantageous variation, heritability, and offspring.

Advantageous variation

The first element of natural selection is advantageous variation, which requires a variation in some physiological, morphological, and/or behavioral characteristic that assists with survival—such as superior ways of finding food, escaping predators, or promoting one’s health (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000). Some researchers suggest that youth bullying fulfills this first component (see Volk et al., 2012). One benefit is physical and economic protection from future conflicts, as bullies carry a reputation as aggressors (DeRosier, Cillessen, Coie, & Dodge, 1994). Archer and Benson (2008) found that adolescent boys perceived as being tough were less likely to be targeted for aggression, even if they provoked others. In other words, as bullies aggress against others, they gain a reputation that provides protection from other potential aggressors.

Another advantage of bullying is enhanced physical and mental health (Sentse, Scholte, Salmivalli, & Voeten, 2007). Bullies tend to suffer less frequently from physical issues such as headaches, sore throats, colds, coughs, and breathing problems than do victims (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2004). Moreover, past research has illustrated that bullies have similar or better mental health than victims (Frisén & Bjarnelind, 2010). For example, Juvonen et al. (2003) studied 1,985 sixth-grade students from 11 schools and found that bullies were psychologically strongest relative to victims and bully/victims, who exhibited higher levels of depression, social anxiety, and loneliness.

Heritability

The second element is heritability of the advantageous trait/behavior (Barret et al., 2002). To prove that bullying fulfills this element, evidence must demonstrate that the gene responsible for bullying is passed from one generation to the next. Although it is difficult to provide solid evidence that bullying is heritable, twin and animal studies can provide insight.

There is a large literature on twin studies that establishes a clear genetic influence of aggressive behaviors such as bullying. For instance, van Beijsterveldt, Bartels, Hudziak, and Boomsma (2003) compared genetic and environmental influences on the stability of aggressive behaviors among more than 16,000 twin pairs. The authors found that, averaged across boys and girls, genetic influence accounted for 65% of aggressive behaviors. These findings were consistent in Ball et al.’s (2008) twin study consisting of 1,116 adolescents, in which the scholars found that genetic variation accounted for 73% of the variation for being a victim and 61% for being identified as a bully.

Animal studies provide further evidence that bullying has a heritable component. Bullying-like behaviors are found in many species in the animal kingdom such as chickens, mongoose, wild African dogs, and various non-human primates (Bell, Nichols, Gilchrist, Cant, & Hodge, 2012; de Villiers, van Jaarsveld, Meltzer, & Richardson, 1997; Maslow, 1940). These behaviors generally function to establish a social hierarchy. For instance, Masure and Allee (1934) examined the interactions between chickens. The scholars found that the larger, dominant chickens pecked at the smaller, inferior birds, creating a social order within the coop. Consequently, chickens at the lower levels were always subservient to the dominant birds during food and water breaks. Similarly, human bullies tend to be bigger than the general population, including victims (Olweus, 1978). Gallup, White, and Gallup (2007) examined aggression, hand grip strength, and physical size among college students. The scholars found that bigger individuals with stronger hand grips tended to be more aggressive toward others than physically smaller individuals. Developing a social ranking system is one of the fundamental principles of biology (Masure & Allee, 1934), and it promotes the maximal likelihood of survival of the entire species.

Offspring

The final element of the natural selection principle is that individuals with an advantageous, heritable trait will leave more offspring relative to members of the same species without the trait (Barret et al., 2002; Buss, 2004). The success of that trait being propagated to the next generation, in comparison with other traits, is known as its “fitness.” There is some scholarship that suggests bullies have greater fitness than victims. For instance, Gallup et al. (2007) found that bigger and more aggressive individuals engaged in sex more often and at an earlier age than smaller individuals, suggesting that bullies have more opportunities to reproduce than non-bullies. Moreover, Pellegrini and Bartini (2001) found that dominant behaviors were significantly correlated with engaging in heterosexual romantic relationships among males. These illustrations do not demonstrate that bullies necessarily leave more offspring, nor do they indicate that bullies are more sexually aggressive, but they suggest that bullies may have better fitness than non-bullies in terms of increased sexual opportunities.

Sexual selection

In contrast to the principle of natural selection, which emphasizes the selection of traits based on their survival advantages, sexual selection promotes evolution by choosing features that assist the individual to gain better sexual access for mating opportunities (Buss, 2004). This principle is sometimes phrased as “survival of the sexiest” (Workman & Reader, 2008, p. 65). In the animal kingdom, mating typically consists of one sex trying to impress the other (e.g., a peacock’s glamorous tail), most often males trying to woo and court females. Females generally approve the mating process because they typically have more risks and burdens in the reproduction process (long gestation and child rearing).

Men and women have evolved to seek out certain characteristics, such as athleticism, in the opposite sex as they serve as indicators of one’s health or resources (Buss, 2004). Studies have repeatedly found that one valuable feature women seek in potential mates is social status (e.g., Hatfield & Sprecher, 1995). As demonstrated by Buss (1989), in a study involving 25 countries with different marriage and political systems, individuals with high status traditionally gain more resources, such as food and health care, than those at the bottom. Buss (2004) claims that women have evolved to seek out mates with a high social status because greater resources indicate potentially greater security and provision for a woman and her offspring.

Evolutionary psychologists argue that youth bullying developed as a means to gain social status, to obtain better access to highly desirable mates (Volk et al., 2012). Bullying allows the aggressor to demonstrate his or her physical strength, dominance over others, and rank in the social hierarchy. Studies often find that bullies are as popular as other students (e.g., Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003). Juvonen and colleagues (2003) found that bullies were rated as “cool” by their classmates, which may suggest that bullies are admired by peers. Pellegrini and Long (2002) noted that male dominance and status are positively associated with their attractiveness to females. In other words, as boys aggressed against others, they appeared more attractive to girls.

Intersexual competition may also explain female bullying trends. Female bullies often use indirect or relational means of bullying to victimize other females (e.g., rumor-spreading, manipulation, social exclusion; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Past research has repeatedly found that males seek out physical attributes, such as smooth skin and luscious hair, as well as chastity in potential mates (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Buss (2004) suggested that physical attributes provide physical cues of an individual’s health, which is important when deciding on the mother of one’s future offspring, and chastity in female mates assisted our male ancestors in determining that any offspring was biologically theirs. Several academics argue that while males bully to gain social status, females bully to attack another’s status for the purpose of “knocking out” their competition for resource-rich or desirable men (e.g., Volk et al., 2012). For example, Campbell (1995) examined 251 aggressive female adolescents in Britain. She found that female aggression was heavily associated with attacking one’s reputation and fighting over specific males, such as accusations of promiscuity (e.g., “slut”) and infidelity. Campbell noted that these verbal attacks were likely specifically chosen to damage the reputations of rivals and make them appear less sexually appealing.

Domination for social status to increase one’s sexual access (mating opportunities) is common within the animal kingdom as well (see Buss, 2004). Through conflict, contestants fight to gain greater access to key resources that contribute to survival or reproduction. For instance, de Waal (1998) studied hierarchies among chimpanzees and found that dominance among chimps had a clear benefit—greater sexual access. A dominant chimp within a colony, consisting of up to half a dozen other males, controlled 50% to 75% of all copulations. Studies such as these illuminate the relationship between establishing a social hierarchy and gaining sexual opportunities.

The Current Study

Method

The present study seeks to test the hypothesis that adolescent bullying is an adaptive behavior derived from evolution. Specifically, the study examines the concepts of EPT in a sample of adolescents aged 13 to 16 years. We compare the psychosocial health among the four different groups involved in bullying interactions (bullies, victims, bully/victims, and bystanders) to answer two research questions.

Research Question 1: Do bullies differ in their mental health from victims and bully/victims?

As noted, there are three components to fulfill to demonstrate that a trait is naturally selected. The present study tests whether bullying fulfills the first component, advantageous variation, by examining the relationship between bullying and mental health. Social rank has a notable influence on mental health, wherein individuals with higher status tend to have better mental health than those at the bottom. Studies have traditionally found that bullies have higher social status than victims and bully/victims (e.g., Olweus, 1978). As such, we hypothesize that bullies will have better mental health and a more positive outlook than victims and bully/victims.

To answer this question, three constructs are examined: depression, self-esteem, and social status. Depression was chosen because it can have a major impact on mental health, for example, severe levels of depression can deter individuals from interacting and co-operating with others (Buss, 2004). Self-esteem was chosen because it plays a critical role in psychological development and in the derivation of a social identity during adolescence. An average to high self-esteem increases one’s happiness and satisfaction, and circumvents deleterious mental health issues such as depression (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). With respect to social status, for adolescents, status is expressed through peer acceptance and rank in the social hierarchy. Popularity is an important factor in gaining sexual opportunities and is, in part, established by level of peer acceptance.

Research Question 2: Do bullies differ in their sexual access from victims and bully/victims?

The second research question examines the groups in bullying interactions to test whether bullying evolves via intersexual competition. We hypothesize that bullies will have a higher status—and thus better sexual access—than victims and bully/victims.

Three constructs were measured to help answer the second research question: social status, social anxiety, and self-esteem. As illustrated above, individuals (particularly males) with high social status are perhaps seen as more sexually appealing and have more sexual access/mating opportunities than those with low status. In a similar vein, self-esteem plays an important role in measuring one’s self in the social hierarchy and in interacting with others (Buss, 2004); therefore, this construct is also used to address sexual access. Last, as mating is generally preceded by courting (Workman & Reader, 2008), we examined social anxiety as a representation of an individual’s ability to adequately converse and interact with members of the opposite sex. Social anxiety can be described as the fear of situations in which individuals are placed under scrutiny (Child Study Center, 2000), and is an important factor during adolescence because of its role in developing personal and social relationships (Inderbitzen-Nolan & Walters, 2000). Social anxiety can affect the host in their ability to engage in heterosexual relationships, hence affecting their sexual opportunities.

Participants and Procedure

The participants were drawn from one suburban secondary school in the metro Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada. Study approval was obtained from the school district, the school principal, and Simon Fraser’s University’s Office of Research Ethics. Fifteen teachers were contacted by email and asked to participate; 10 teachers agreed to take part in the study.

Thirteen Grade 8, 9, and 10 classrooms formed the final sample, each ranging in size from 20 to 25 students. Accounting for the students who were present in more than 1 of the 13 classes, approximately 250 students were asked to participate in the study. Roughly 2 weeks prior to the questionnaire administration dates, a parental consent form was distributed to all students; active parental consent was required for student participation. A lottery system of a US$50 cash prize for the winning student was used to encourage a high response rate. In total, 135 (54%) out of the 250 students agreed to participate and submitted both parent consent and student assent forms.

Questionnaires were administered over a 2-week period in February, 2014. A single researcher administered paper and pencil questionnaires during class period; the surveys took approximately 30 min to complete and were typically conducted in a silent room in the school library. On two occasions, this room was not available; in these situations, the questionnaires were completed in the regular classrooms, and non-participating students completed silent homework during questionnaire administration. A standardized explanation regarding the different sections in the survey, how to answer the questions (i.e., yes/no questions vs. Likert-type scales; not circling more than one response), and a quick review of what actions do and do not constitute bullying was provided (e.g., that bullying is a repeated phenomenon that typically involves an imbalance of power between bully and victim). Questionnaires were collected one-by-one by the researcher to ensure confidentiality.

Measures

Bullying and victimization

To measure the participants’ level of involvement in bullying and victimization, the questionnaire incorporated a modified version of Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1986; Strohmeier, Kärnä, & Salmivalli, 2011). This instrument is designed to assign participants to one of four groups: bully, victim, bully/victim (those students who report both bullying behavior and victimization experiences), or bystander (those uninvolved in bullying interactions). The scale includes 18 items (e.g., “I was hit, kicked or shoved”), which were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from never to several times a week. Nine items asked about the respondent’s participation as a bully and the other nine about their involvement as a victim. The OBVQ has good reliability and validity (Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, 2006) and addresses different types of bullying, such as relational and electronic forms.

Depression

The participants’ levels of depression were examined via a modified 13-item version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbauch, 1961). Reynolds and Gould (1981) compared the original BDI with the modified edition, and found the instruments were very similar in their ability to assess levels of depression. This adapted version of the BDI included factors such as Sadness, which prompted participants to match how they felt to a specific statement for each factor (e.g., “I do not feel sad”).

Self-esteem

Self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). This included 10 items rated on a 4-point scale, which prompted participants to indicate their level of agreement with certain statements (e.g., “I feel I have a number of good qualities”). The scale ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with higher scores indicating a higher level of self-esteem. The RSES has a high level of internal consistency, with alphas ranging from .84 to .91 across all 10 items (Donnellan, Kenny, Trzesniewski, Lucas, & Conger, 2012).

Social status

Social status was measured via one cluster from the Piers–Harris Self-Concept Scale (Piers, Harris, & Herzberg, 1984). The cluster was Popularity (12 items; for example, “I am popular with girls”). The instrument is a widely used scale in assessing popularity among children and adolescents (e.g., Parker, 2010). Flahive, Chuang, and Li (2011) conducted multiple tests with this instrument and concluded that it was stable over time with an internal consistency of more than 0.90.

Social anxiety

Last, to measure social anxiety, two of the six clusters in the Social Anxiety and Avoidance Scale for Adolescents (SAAS; Cunha, Gouveia, & do Céu Salvador, 2008) were used. The first factor, Interactions in new social situations, encompassed eight items, and the second cluster (Interaction with the opposite sex) consisted of five items. Each item was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = none, 5 = very much). The SAAS has been found to be a valid measure of social anxiety among youth, with alpha levels ranging from .87 to .91 (Cunha et al., 2008).

Statistical Analysis

Each participant was categorized into one of four groups: bully, victim, bully/victim, or bystander. We used an 85th percentile cut-off to determine group membership, that is, students whose scores fell into the top 15% of the distribution for bullying were identified as bullies. The threshold for bullies was 12 (out of a possible 45), and for victims, 19 (out of a possible 45). Individuals who scored in the top 15% for both constructs were identified as bully/victims. Respondents who failed to meet the threshold for either construct were categorized as bystanders. This mechanism for classifying participants into bully/victim roles has been used in multiple previous studies (e.g., Camodeca, Goossens, Schuengel, & Terwogt, 2003; Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010).

One-way ANOVAs were used to compare differences among the four groups for the dependent variables. Levene’s test was first used to determine the homogeneity of the variance distributions for each construct; if the distribution was not normal, the data were transformed. Games–Howell was selected for the post hoc analysis because of its power (Keselman & Rogan, 1978), ability to control Type 1 error (Keselman & Rogan, 1978), and handling of groups with unequal sizes (Games & Howell, 1976). With respect to missing data, list-wise deletion was used on a construct-by-construct basis.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the sample. A total of 133 students participated in the study, including 68 males (51%) and 65 females (49%). The target population included students in Grades 8 to 10, aged 13 to 16 years. Forty-five percent of the sample was in Grade 8, 29% in Grade 9, and 26% in Grade 10. The participants primarily identified themselves as White (81%), 5% were Latin American, 4% Filipino, and 3% were Black.

Table 1.

Percentage of Participants Identified as Bully, Victim, Bully/Victim, and Bystander (Separated by Gender, Grade, and Ethnicity).

N = 133	Bullyn = 15 (11%)	Victimn = 10 (8%)	Bully/Victimn = 11 (8%)	Bystandern = 97 (73%)
Gender
Male: n = 68 (51%)	11 (73%)	3 (30%)	4 (36%)	50 (52%)
Female: n = 65 (49%)	4 (27%)	7 (70%)	7 (64%)	47 (48%)
Grade
Eight: n = 60 (45%)	10 (67%)	2 (20%)	1 (9%)	47 (48%)
Nine: n = 39 (29%)	2 (13%)	2 (20%)	7 (64%)	28 (29%)
Ten: n = 34 (26%)	3 (20%)	6 (60%)	3 (27%)	22 (23%)
Ethnicity
White: n = 107 (81%)	11 (73%)	10 (100%)	10 (91%)	76 (79%)
Other: n = 25 (19%)	4 (27%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	21 (21%)

Fifteen participants were classified as bullies, making up 11% of the total sample. Ten students were identified as victims (8%), and 11 participants were bully/victims (8%). There were 97 bystanders in the study, comprising 73% of the sample. Among victims, there were more females than males (70% vs. 30%) and likewise among bully/victims (64% female vs. 36% male). Among bullies, the opposite was true (73% male vs. 27% female).

As the descriptives indicated more males than females among those students identified as bullies (17% vs. 27%), we tested whether there was a gender difference in the level of participation in bullying. No significant difference was found. The results also indicated more females than males among those students identified as victims (70% vs. 30%). This difference was statistically significant, t(94.3) = 16.44, p < .05, with males (M = 12.47, SD = 3.47) displaying a substantially lower mean level of victimization than females (M = 14.75, SD = 6.58).

Group Comparisons

Depression

To correct for heteroskedasticity, scores for the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were adjusted using a logarithmic transformation. A one-way ANOVA indicated statistically significant differences among the four groups in their average levels of depression, F(3, 111) = 3.62, p = .015. Post hoc comparisons among the groups revealed that bullies (M = 5.62, SD = 4.21) had a significantly lower level of depression than bully/victims (M = 17.9, SD = 13.14), p = .047. Comparisons of bullies with victims (M = 13.78, SD = 8.39) and bystanders (M = 7.37, SD = 7.45) were not statistically significant (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Means of Each Construct and Comparisons Among Bully, Victim, Bully/Victim, and Bystander Groups.

N = 133	Bully(n = 11)M (SD)	Victim(n = 8)M (SD)	Bully/Victim(n = 10)M (SD)	Bystander(n = 82)M (SD)	F Statistic
Depression (0-39)	5.62 (4.21)	13.78 (8.39)	17.9 (13.14)	7.37 (7.45)	3.62*
Self-esteem (10-40)	27.69 (2.02)	26.5 (2.42)	24.64 (2.38)	26.99 (1.96)	5.28**
Social status (0-12)	9.0 (3.51)	7.2 (2.38)	4.0 (3.71)	8.74 (2.58)	10.06***
Social anxiety (13-65)	38.0 (10.99)	37.7 (7.42)	37.73 (9.72)	35.65 (11.21)	0.36

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Self-esteem

Table 2 presents the findings for self-esteem, with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem. Statistically significant differences were found among the four groups using a one-way ANOVA, F(3, 122) = 5.28, p = .002. Post hoc analysis showed that bullies (M = 27.69, SD = 2.02) had significantly higher self-esteem than bully/victims (M = 24.64, SD = 2.38, p = .015). The analysis also revealed that bystanders (M = 26.99, SD = 1.96) had significantly higher self-esteem than victims (M = 26.5, SD = 2.42), p = .037. The comparison of bullies with victims was not statistically significant.

Social status

On the Piers–Harris Self-Concept Popularity Scale, statistically significant differences were found among the groups in their levels of social status, F(3, 117) = 10.06, p < .001. Post hoc analysis indicated that bullies (M = 9.0, SD = 3.51) had a significantly higher social status than bully/victims (M = 4.0, SD = 3.71), p = .013. The analysis also found that bystanders (M = 8.74, SD = 2.58) had a significantly higher social status than bully/victims, p = .008. The comparison between bullies and victims (M = 7.2, SD = 2.38) was not statistically significant (see Table 2).

Social anxiety

No statistically significant differences among the groups were found on the two clusters of the SAAS.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to test whether adolescent bullying emerges from evolutionary development. Specifically, we examined whether bullying was naturally and/or sexually selected, and posed two questions to test these hypotheses.

Do Bullies Have Better Mental Health Than Victims and Bully/Victims?

The first aim of the study was to examine differences in mental health among bullies, victims, and bully/victims, operationalized as depression, self-esteem, and social status. We hypothesized that bullies would have better mental health than students in the other groups. The results partially matched our hypothesis (see Table 3 for an overview of the rankings of the four bullying groups on the constructs for natural selection).

Table 3.

Rank of Group by Construct for Natural Selection.

	Depression (Lowest)	Self-Esteem (Highest)	Social Status (Highest)
Bully	1^a	1^a	1^a
Bystander	2	2	2
Victim	3	3	3
Bully/victim	4^a	4^a	4^a

The differences between bullies and bully/victims were statistically significant.

Bullies exhibited the lowest levels of depression among the four groups and were identified as having few to no symptoms of depression. In contrast, victims and particularly, bully/victims had the highest scores among the groups and were identified as suffering moderate to high levels of depression. The differences in average scores on the BDI were most glaring between bullies and bully/victims, where bullies had significantly lower levels of depression. Although bullies had lower mean levels of depression than pure victims, the results were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the differences in depression levels among bullying parties were consistent with many past studies (e.g., Juvonen et al., 2003).

In addition, bullies exhibited the highest levels of self-esteem among the four groups, while bully/victims had the lowest. The level of self-esteem in bullies was significantly higher than that of bully/victims; this finding is also consistent with existing scholarship (e.g., Salmivalli, 1998). Finally, results also demonstrate that bullies enjoyed the highest levels of social status among all four groups and a significantly higher social status than bully/victims.

Combined, these findings suggest that being a bully promotes better mental health, whether it is through the bullying behaviors themselves, or as a corollary of being a bully (i.e., being placed higher in the social rank). The results suggest that bullies, particularly in relation to bully/victims, gain specific benefits from their aggression and help provide evidence that bullying fulfills the advantageous variation component of natural selection.

Do Bullies Have Better Sexual Access Than Victims and Bully/Victims?

The second aim of the study was to analyze differences in sexual access; we hypothesized that bullies would have better sexual access than their victimized counterparts because of their elevated social status. To operationalize sexual access in junior high school students, we examined social status, self-esteem, and social anxiety. As discussed, bullies were found to have a higher social status than all other groups involved in bullying interactions. In particular, bullies had a significantly higher social status than bully/victims. These finding are consistent with the majority of the past literature, which finds that bullies enjoy good levels of popularity and have higher social status than victims and bully/victims (e.g., Juvonen et al., 2003; Olweus, 1978).

Bullies also exhibited the highest level of self-esteem among the four groups. See Table 4. Social status and self-esteem have a positive relationship; self-esteem plays an important function in accurately assessing one’s rank in the social hierarchy and involves evaluating who to submit to and who to dominate (Buss, 2004). Inaccurate self-assessment could lead to a loss of social status by submitting to individuals with lower status, or failure when trying to dominate over individuals with high social status (Buss, 2004). As such, it is consistent that bullies scored the highest levels among the four groups for both self-esteem and social status, while victims and bully/victims attained the lowest scores.

Table 4.

Rank of Group by Construct for Sexual Selection.

	Social Status (Highest)	Social Anxiety (Lowest)	Self-Esteem (Highest)
Bully	1^a	4	1^a
Bystander	2	1	2
Victim	3	2	3
Bully/victim	4^a	3	4^a

The differences between bullies and bully/victims were statistically significant.

Bullies gain a sexual advantage from wielding a high social status. This is because social status is a highly desirable attribute, which is an indirect indicator of one’s resources (Buss, 2004). Past scholars argue that bullies purposely dominate over others to gain better social status for the purpose of gaining better sexual access (Volk et al., 2012).

There were no significant differences in the levels of social anxiety among the groups involved in bullying. This was inconsistent with some past literature (e.g., Juvonen et al., 2003). It is possible that there were no clear differences simply due to the small sample size of this study, or the fact that social anxiety is a broad social construct, and we focused on only two areas (general anxiety and interactions with the opposite sex).

The findings with respect to social status and self-esteem lend support to the hypothesis that youth bullying confers social hierarchy advantages to bullies and may have evolved through sexual selection. Combined with the findings regarding natural selection, the present study contributes empirical evidence to the literature that youth bullying is an adaptive behavior that emerges from evolutionary development

Limitations

There are several limitations to the present study. These include the small sample size, lack of ethnic diversity, temporal ordering, and threat of omitted variable bias. First, the most obvious limitation is the sample size (n = 135), due in part to the inclusion of only one secondary school and in part to the requirement for active parental consent. As a result, the present study had low statistical power to detect group differences. The results uncovered should thus be considered preliminary, as findings may or may not hold in larger samples.

Another factor that influences the generalizability of the present study’s findings involves the homogeneity of the racial/ethnic background of the sample. Because this sample was predominately composed of one ethnic majority group (White), the results may not generalize to a population that includes mixed ethnicities and potential inter-ethnic group bullying. Future research would benefit from using more diverse samples that represent a greater variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

Another concern is the temporal order of the relationship between the dependent variables and the participants’ involvement in bullying. For example, does being a bully help the individual attain a higher social status, or is it because the individual has a high social status that he or she chooses to aggress against others? Similarly, does being a bully lower the level of depression, or is it that the bully was less depressed to begin with, which made it easier to victimize others? The present study relied on the results of prior research to create an expected temporal order among the constructs, but, due to the cross-sectional nature of the research design, we were unable to test these issues directly. Future research in this area would benefit from the use of a prospective longitudinal design, which would enable the testing of these questions. Given that this design type is often not feasible due to resource limitations, another option would be to use qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups to allow for students to be posed questions that directly or indirectly relate to their motivations for bullying behaviors.

In addition, there is as always the possibility of omitted variables, that is, other factors that may be affecting the variables of interest. For example, psychopathology may influence an individual’s likelihood of becoming a bully, as well as his or her level of depression. The present study only examined four dependent constructs (depression, self-esteem, social status, and social anxiety) and a limited number of demographic variables (gender, age, grade, and ethnicity). Examining more variables and discovering how they interact with one another (e.g., school achievement, socioeconomic status, family background) would expand our understanding of the key elements at play in bullying interactions.

Finally, although the literature on evolutionary psychology suggests there are three components that must be fulfilled for a characteristic to be naturally selected (advantageous variation, heritability, and offspring), the present study only provides insight into the component of advantageous variation. We did not examine, for example, the role of characteristics such as physical size in the likelihood of being a bully or victim, and we did not gather information from the parents of participants as well. The heritability of traits has been assessed in family studies that examine multiple generations (e.g., familial transmission of crime; Rowe & Farrington, 1997), and a similar assessment could be conducted with respect to the heritability of bullying. Information on past behaviors from parents could be used to examine whether bullying youth tend to have parents who were also bullies and victims tend to have parents who were also victims; however, the standard caveats with respect to research of this type would apply: limits to observational data, nature versus nurture arguments (i.e., modeling of parental behavior), and so forth.

Re-Approaching Prevention and Management

Anti-bullying strategies have been emerging for decades, and there are numerous programs and policies in place to reduce and prevent bullying behaviors. Some programs place a greater emphasis on bullies than victims (or vice versa), and some focus on specific type of youths. Other campaigns incorporate key players such as parents and teachers, and broaden the issue to the school climate or school policies, or even the whole community (see Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). These tactics generally involve remedying the detrimental actions of bullying through helping bullies develop inhibition control, conflict resolution skills, and social skills such as active listening, empathy, and problem solving (e.g., Urbanski & Permuth, 2009). In short, there are many anti-bullying programs, and most of them are designed to alter the behaviors of bullies. However, the effectiveness of these strategies is questionable.

Some studies demonstrate that anti-bullying campaigns do not substantially reduce levels of bullying. Merrell and colleagues (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of anti-bullying tactics implemented from 1980 to 2004, roughly a 25-year span. The scholars found that the majority of the strategies had little effect on reducing school bullying. These findings were consistent with Wong’s (2009) and Ttofi and Farrington’s (2011) meta-analyses on school-based bullying programs. In the latter study, the authors examined multiple programs between 1983 and 2009, which included randomized experiments and quasi-experiments. The authors found that bullying programs generally have a small or negligible effect on preventing bullying behaviors.

We surmise that bullying prevention programs may fail because of their conceptualization of why bullying occurs. Many bullying prevention programs base their tactics on the premise that youth bullying is the outcome of maldevelopment and believe that bullies can learn to cease their destructive behaviors (Urbanski & Permuth, 2009). However, some research, including the present study, proposes that bullying is a phenomenon that has existed for hundreds of generations because of its survival and sexual benefits (Kolbert & Crothers, 2003). It is a natural phenomenon that works to establish rank and maximize survival of the species. Most of the current strategies are not effective because they simply try to take away the rewards (e.g., increased social status) from bullies without providing any substitutions for bullies to obtain their goals. This makes these programs highly unattractive for bullies to comply with. Thus, we advocate shifting the scope to implementing strategies that allow ‘bullying’ to occur with a lower level of harm.

Volk and colleagues (2012) discuss creating legitimate ways for bullies to exhibit their physical prowess and dominance over others in an environment that can control aggression levels from escalating to seriously harmful levels. We advocate developing school-based programs that promote competition under the supervision of teachers/staff. This would allow certain types of bullies to demonstrate their prowess and establish rank in a safer environment for victims. For instance, these programs could consist of intramural sports, or non-physical competition events such as chess, debates, and math teams. Other non-physical, non-academic competitions could include artistic or creative endeavors such as art, photography, music, drama, fashion design, web page design, and so forth. What we recommend is implementing a range of programs/activities so that many students would be likely to find something for which they have an existing proficiency or skill or have an interest in developing or increasing their competency. These need not (and should not) be limited to traditional school activities and clubs in the forms of sports and academics, although we recognize that eliciting student participation and engagement may be a challenge. Although reviewing strategies for promoting involvement in these activities is beyond the scope of this article, Lauver (2004) suggests that using current participants in clubs/activities as recruiters is a promising approach, as well as attempting to recruit pairs of students or groups of friends, rather than individuals. We would also suggest developing a school reward system to incentivize participation, such as prizes, recognition in the yearbook, and so forth.

Another direction involves affecting norms of bullying among the student body. Bullying entails calculated cost/benefit actions wherein bullies are cautious to minimize social risk (i.e., peer rejection; Buss, 2004). One way to deter bullying would be to unsettle the balance by greatly increasing the likelihood of peer rejection for bullying behaviors. This would involve decreasing the general acceptance of bullying behaviors among students. Sentse et al. (2007) examined the effect of class norms on levels of acceptance of bullying. The scholars found that when class norms established a lucid disapproval for bullying-like behaviors, bullies faced greater peer rejection than in a class where bullying behaviors were more accepted.

One final tactic to prevent bullying is to instill a greater sense of belongingness among students. In his famous hierarchy of human needs, Maslow identified belongingness and safety as being fundamental (Myers, 2007). We recommend creating open, accessible, and supervised get-togethers, such as clubs and extra-curricular activities, which are inviting and allow students to form social networks. Traditional anti-bullying programs advocate encouraging victims to inform their parents or other authorities. However, students often do not feel their parents and teachers are of any help. Creating places where students can form bonds and help one another provides a practical avenue of managing the negative implications of bullying by offering a place where students can confide in others and create peer groups so individuals do not appear to be “easy” targets.

In sum, present anti-bullying campaigns strive to mitigate the harms of bullying by adjusting the behaviors of bullies. However, many of these programs lack empirical support for reducing bullying aggression (Wong, 2009). We recommend considering the evolutionary perspective, notably by promoting competitive sports and activities, changing norms, and creating safe places for students to form social bonds. Together, these strategies may serve to better reduce and prevent the negative repercussions of bullying. Future research in this area would benefit from using larger samples from more heterogeneous student populations and incorporating additional measures to represent key constructs in EPT. These improvements would help increase the validity and generalizability of results with respect to the evolutionary basis of adolescent bullying behaviors.

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

Jun-Bin Koh is a recent graduate of Simon Fraser University (BA, Hons.). His work focuses on psychological explanations for criminal and delinquent behavior, and he enjoys both qualitative and quantitative methods. His future plans involve law school.

Jennifer S. Wong is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University. Her work uses applied and quantitative methods to study issues of delinquency/crime prevention and intervention, focusing primarily on evaluation and policy analysis in the areas of crime prevention and crime control policy. Her recent publications include an assessment of the effects of early bully victimization on the development of delinquency and aggression, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses on gang prevention programs and community-based prevention programs for youth.

References

Archer

Benson

(2008). Physical aggression as a function of perceived fighting ability and provocation: An experimental investigation. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 9-24.

Ball

H. A.

Arseneault

Taylor

Maughan

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

(2008). Genetic and environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully-victims in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 49, 104-112.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barret

Dunbar

Lycett

(2002). Human evolutionary psychology. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Baumeister

R. F.

Campbell

J. D.

Krueger

J. I.

Vohs

K. D.

(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.

Beck

A. T.

Ward

C. H.

Mendelson

Mock

Erbaugh

(1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.

Bell

Nichols

Gilchrist

Cant

Hodge

(2012). The cost of dominance: Suppressing subordinate reproduction affects the reproductive success of dominant female banded mongooses. Proceedings Biological Sciences/Royal Society, 279, 619-624.

Bjorklund

D. F.

Pellegrini

A. D.

(2000). Child development and evolutionary psychology. Child Development, 71, 1687-1708.

Buss

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

10.

Buss

(2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

11.

Buss

Schmitt

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

12.

Camodeca

Goossens

F. A.

Schuengel

Terwogt

M. M.

(2003). Links between social information processing in middle childhood and involvement in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 116-127.

13.

Campbell

(1995). A few good men: Evolutionary psychology and female adolescent aggression. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 99-123.

14.

Canadian Council of Learning. (2007, November). 2007 survey of Canadian attitudes towards learning: Results for elementary and secondary learning. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/SCAL/2007/SCAL_Report_English_final.pdf

15.

Child Study Center. (2000, February). Social phobia in children and adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.aboutourkids.org/files/articles/jan_feb_4.pdf

16.

Craig

W. M.

Harel

(2004). Bullying, physical fighting and victimization. In Currie

Roberts

Morgan

Smith

Settertobulte

Samdal

Rasmussen

V. B.

(Eds.), Young people’s health in context: Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2001/2002 survey. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization.

17.

Cunha

Gouveia

J. P.

do Céu Salvador

(2008). Social fears in adolescence: The Social Anxiety and Avoidance Scale for adolescents. European Psychologist, 13, 197-213.

18.

DeRosier

M. E.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Coie

Dodge

K. A.

(1994). Group social context and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 65, 1068-1079.

19.

de Villiers

M. S.

van Jaarsveld

A. S.

Meltzer

D. G. A.

Richardson

P. R. K.

(1997). Social dynamics and the cortisol response to immobilization stress of the African wild dog, lycaon pictus. Hormones and Behavior, 31, 3-14.

20.

de Waal

. (1998). Chimpanzees politics: Power and sex among apes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

21.

Donnellan

B. M.

Kenny

D. A.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Lucas

R. E.

Conger

R. D.

(2012). Using trait–state models to evaluate the longitudinal consistency of global self-esteem from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 634-645.

22.

Due

Holstein

B. E.

Lynch

Diderichsen

Gabhain

S. N.

Scheidt

Currie

(2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: International comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 128-132.

23.

Ellis

B. J.

Del Giudice

Dishion

T. J.

Figueredo

A. J.

Gray

Griskevicius

. . . Wilson

D. S.

(2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48, 598-623.

24.

Fekkes

M. D. S.

Pijpers

Verloove-Vanhorick

(2004). Bullying behavior and associations with psychosomatic complaints and depression in victims. Journal of Pediatrics, 144, 17-22.

25.

Flahive

M. W.

Chuang

(2011). Reliability and validity evidence of the Chinese Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale scores among Taiwanese children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 273-285.

26.

Frisén

Bjarnelind

(2010). Health-related quality of life and bullying in adolescence. Acta Paediatrica, 99, 597-603.

27.

Gallup

A. C.

White

D. D.

Gallup

G. G. J.

(2007). Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evolution & Human Behavior, 28, 423-429.

28.

Games

P. A.

Howell

J. F.

(1976). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal N’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 113-125.

29.

Hatfield

Sprecher

(1995). Men’s and women’s preferences in marital partners in the United States, Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 728-750.

30.

Inderbitzen-Nolan

Walters

K. S.

(2000). Social Anxiety Scale for adolescents: Normative data and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 360-371.

31.

Juvonen

Graham

Schuster

M. A.

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

32.

Keselman

H. J.

Rogan

J. C.

(1978). A comparison of the modified-Tukey and Scheffe methods of multiple comparisons for pairwise contrasts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 47-52.

33.

Kolbert

J. B.

Crothers

L. M.

(2003). Bullying and evolutionary psychology: The dominance hierarchy among students and implications for school personnel. Journal of School Violence, 2, 73-91.

34.

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.

35.

Lauver

(2004). Attracting and sustaining youth participation in after school programs. The Evaluation Exchange, X(1), 4-5. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/original/application/c2dda25c82b71415c1ea669ffbf55925.pdf

36.

Litwiller

B. J.

Brausch

A. M.

(2013). Cyber bullying and physical bullying in adolescent suicide: The role of violent behavior and substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 675-684.

37.

Maslow

A. H.

(1940). Dominance-quality and social behavior in infra-human primates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 313-324.

38.

Masure

R. H.

Allee

W. C.

(1934). The social order in flocks of the common chicken and the pigeon. The Auk, 51(1), 306-327.

39.

Merrell

K. W.

Gueldner

B. A.

Ross

S. W.

Isava

D. M.

(2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26-42.

40.

Molcho

Craig

Due

Pickett

Harel-Fisch

Overpeck

(2009). Cross-national time trends in bullying behavior 1994-2006: Findings from Europe and North America. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 225-234.

41.

Myers

(2007). Psychology: First Canadian edition (1st ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

42.

Olweus

(1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

43.

Olweus

(1986). The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire [Mimeo]. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.

44.

Parker

A. K.

(2010). A longitudinal investigation of young adolescents’ self-concepts in the middle grades. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 33(10), 1-13.

45.

Peeters

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Scholte

R. H. J.

(2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1041-1052.

46.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Bartini

(2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 142-163.

47.

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.

48.

Piers

E. V.

Harris

D. B.

Herzberg

D. S.

(1984). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale: Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

49.

Reynolds

Gould

(1981). A psychometric investigation of the standard and short form Beck Depression Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 306-307.

50.

Rigby

(2004). Addressing bullying in schools: Theoretical perspectives and their implications. School Psychology International, 25, 287-300.

51.

Rosenberg

(1965). Conceiving the self. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

52.

Rowe

D. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(1997). The familial transmission of criminal convictions. Criminology, 35, 177-202.

53.

Salmivalli

(1998). Intelligent, attractive, well-behaving, unhappy: The structure of adolescents’ self-concept and its relations to their social behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 333-354.

54.

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

(1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68, 665-675.

55.

Sentse

Scholte

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2007). Person-group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009-1019.

56.

Shakoor

Jaffee

S. R.

Bowes

Ouellet-Morin

Andreou

Happé

. . .Arseneault

(2012). A prospective longitudinal study of children’s theory of mind and adolescent involvement in bullying. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 53, 254-261.

57.

Strohmeier

Kärnä

Salmivalli

(2011). Intrapersonal and interpersonal risk factors for peer victimization in immigrant youth in Finland. Developmental Psychology, 47, 248-258.

58.

Ttofi

Farrington

(2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27-56.

59.

Urbanski

Permuth

(2009). The truth about bullying: What educators and parents must know and do. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

60.

Vaillancourt

Hymel

McDougall

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

61.

van Beijsterveldt

Bartels

Hudziak

J. J.

Boomsma

D. I.

(2003). Causes of stability of aggression from early childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal genetic analysis in Dutch twins. Behavior Genetics, 33, 591-605.

62.

Volk

Camilleri

Dane

Marini

(2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222-238.

63.

Wang

Iannotti

Nansel

T. R.

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

64.

Wong

J. S.

(2009). No bullies allowed: Understanding peer victimization, the impacts on delinquency, and the effectiveness of prevention programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

65.

Wong

J. S.

Schonlau

(2013). Does bully victimization predict future delinquency? A propensity score matching approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 1184-1208.

66.

Workman

Reader

(2008). Evolutionary psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.