Low Self-control and School Bullying: Testing the GTC in Nigerian Sample of Middle School Students

Abstract

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime’s (GTC) claim to explain crime, at all times, and in all places, has received considerable empirical support using Western, Scandinavian, and Asian samples. However, the theory is yet to be tested using a Nigerian sample. Using cross-sectional data from a sample of 1,192 junior secondary school (middle school) students in Nigeria, this study examines the explanatory power of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s GTC in predicting bullying perpetration and victimization in that context and culture. Binomial logistic regression was used to test the hypothesis that the bullying perpetration and victimization experiences of these students would be negatively related to self-control. Study provides support for the cross-cultural potency of the GTC as low self-control predicted the bullying and victimization experiences of these students regardless of gender. Students’ perception of a negative school environment was also a significant predictor of bullying. This is the first test of the GTC with a Nigerian sample and hopefully, will be a springboard for effective bullying prevention policy/programs in Nigerian schools. The public policy implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

self-control Nigeria school bullying victimization gender

Introduction

School bullying is not new (Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Omoteso, 2010); it used to be viewed as a rite of passage (Opara, 2014; Popp et al., 2014). However, the advent of the internet has brought it into the public sphere, and its consequences transcend the early school years (Olweus, 2001). There is an abundance of research on the prevalence, correlates, consequences, and the negative long-term effect of bullying on both victims and perpetrators (Fenny & Falola, 2020; Owusu, Hart, Oliver, & Kang, 2011; Rodkin et al., 2015). Risks include adult mental health outcomes (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005), significant health problems (Arseneault et al., 2010), depression (Cornell & Mehta, 2011), higher risk of offending (Piquero et al., 2013), and PTSD (Khamis, 2015). Theoretical explanations for bullying behavior include strain (Moon et al., 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011), social learning, differential association (Moon et al., 2011), and low self-control (Chui & Chan, 2015; Moon & Alarid, 2015). This study’s preference for General Theory of Crime (GTC) is predicated on its ability to explain diverse behaviors across offending samples and cultures (Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007).

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) GTC has been described as one of the most influential theories in criminology (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). The theory not only argues that an individual trait called low self-control, is the main explanation for crime and analogous behaviors, but rejects prior sociological explanations of crime and delinquency. The theory’s claim that “a single theory can encompass the reality of cross-cultural differences in crime rates” (p. 175) has received considerable empirical support using American (Unnever & Cornell, 2003), English (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011), Thai (Kerley, Xu, & Sirisunyaluck, 2008), Roma (Vazsonyi et al., 2016), Hungarian (Vazsonyi, Pickering, & Junger, 2001), Swiss (Vazsonyi et al., 2001), Korean (Yu, 2015), Macanese (Chui & Chan, 2015), Canadian (LaGrange & Silverman, 1999), Hong Kong (Cheng, Cheung, & Cheung, 2008), and Chinese (Zhu & Chan, 2015) samples, as well as in cross-national research (Vazsonyi et al., 2001).

The studies referenced above utilized samples mainly from Western, Scandinavian, and Asian samples, and there is yet to be a test of the GTC with a Nigerian sample. This is especially important because Nigeria is the largest country in Africa and Africa’s largest economy. It is therefore apposite to test the GTC with a Nigerian sample. Current study therefore tests the explanatory power of the GTC on the bullying and victimization experiences of a sample of Nigerian secondary school students.

The General Theory of Crime

GTC is arguably the most tested (Cohn & Farrington, 1999; Siegfried & Woessner, 2016) and possibly the most controversial criminological theory (Kerley, Xu, & Sirisunyaluck, 2008; Pratt, 2016). The theory’s claim to explain crime in “all places” has also received considerable support in the literature. In a four-nation comparative study of the predictive value of self-control on deviance, Vazsonyi et al. (2001) found self-control predicted deviance for both males and females, aged 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Similarly, in a cross-cultural test of GTC, Kerley, Xu, and Sirisunyaluck (2008), found that self-control explained the offending and victimization in a sample of 794 married women living in Bangkok, Thailand. The ability of low self-control to explain deviant behavior and offending has also been established in studies of Korean youths (Hwang & Akers, 2003; Moon & Jang, 2014; Yu, 2015) African Americans and Caucasians, and across samples and cultures (Vazsonyi, Jiskrova, Kelley, et al., 2016).

Despite, or perhaps because of, misgivings by scholars (Akers, 1991; Pratt, 2016; Simpson & Piquero, 2002) about the generalizability and versatile claims of the GTC, the theory has enjoyed considerable scholarly and interdisciplinary attention (Burt et al., 2006; Delisi, 2013). Regardless of how it is operationalized, self-control has been found to explain crime and analogous behavior across age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, and among varied populations (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Vazsonyi et al., 2001; Vazsonyi, Mikuska, & Kelley, 2016). Additionally, key concepts of the theory—low self-control explains crime and analogous behavior, ineffective parenting produces low self-control, and the role of opportunity in self-control—have enjoyed considerable support in the literature (Arneklev et al., 1993; Grasmick et al., 1993; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Hay, 2001; Nofziger, 2008; Piquero et al., 2002; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Kerley et al., 2008; Piquero et al., 2010; Moffitt et al., 2011).

Nigeria’s cultural emphasis on good parenting and the influence of the “village” in children’s upbringing (Umunna, 2012) aligns with a core concept of the GTC. GTC posits that ineffective parenting results in low self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) stated that ineffective parents fail to monitor, recognize, and sanction deviant behavior, and consequently, children are less likely to develop self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 97). On the other hand, effective parents monitor a child’s behavior, recognize, and sanction bad behavior. Children raised by effective parents are more likely to develop self-control by age 10, and self-control is a protective factor against crime and analogous behavior.

A Nigerian proverb says, “ile latin kesho rode,” meaning that the home is the principal place for the transmission of good values. Also, the “effective parenting practices” anticipated by GTC, are the responsibility of the entire Nigerian “village.” It is therefore conceivable that children brought up by the “village” will exhibit higher levels of self-control and are less likely to engage in bullying perpetration or victimization behavior. Nigeria is therefore an ideal culture to test the predictive value of GTC on bullying and victimization behavior of this sample of middle school students. All things being equal, GTC should predict bullying and victimization behavior, and those with low self-control should be more likely to bully and experience victimization.

Self-control and Bullying

Consistent findings in the literature show that self-control is a robust predictor of crime and analogous behaviors (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Vazsonyi et al., 2016). It is therefore conceivable that low self-control should predict bullying behavior (Unnever & Cornell, 2003). The link between bullying and low self-control has been established in the literature (Chui & Chan, 2015; Endresen & Olweus, 2001; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011; Moon & Alarid, 2015; Moon et al., 2011; Unnever, 2005; Unnever & Cornell, 2003). Concepts of self-control: including impulsivity, apathy, and anger, are predictive of bullying behavior (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011). Empirical findings show that a wide array of behavioral problems in children are attributable to low self-control (Hay, 2001; Meece & Robinson, 2014; Perrone et al., 2004; Slee & Rigby, 1993; Wang et al., 2009). For example, Moon and Alarid’s (2015), study of 300 U.S. middle school students and found that those with low self-control were more likely to bully than others while Chui and Chan (2015) study of 365 Macanese students found that the bullying perpetration and victimization experiences in their sample of students were negatively related to their level of self-control.

Children in school have some free time; they are often unsupervised while walking in school hallways. They spend time with each other for up to 6 hours daily, and those in the boarding schools, are around each other for extended periods of time and are less likely to be constantly supervised (Chui & Chan, 2015). Evidence exists that juveniles engaged in unstructured activities are more likely to engage in deviant acts (Moon & Alarid, 2015; Osgood et al., 1996). Also, because criminal opportunity is ubiquitous, individuals with low self-control are less likely able to restrain themselves from taking advantage of readily available opportunities for mischief (Cho, 2019; Moon & Alarid, 2015). It is therefore conceivable that because students spend considerable time in both supervised and unsupervised activities, the school environment may create an environment conducive for bullying and victimization occurrences.

Explanations for bullying behavior includes both personal and contextual factors. Individual factors shown in the literature to be related to bullying include age (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Chui & Chan, 2015), race (Marsh & Cornell, 2001), and gender (Connell et al., 2017; Cook et al., 2010; Popp et al., 2014). Some researchers suggest that the adolescent and middle school years are the peak years for bullying victimization (Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Varjas, Henrich, & Meyers, 2009; Gendron et al., 2011). Studies show a positive effect for age in the different types of peer victimization: younger students were more likely to be victims of bullying (DeVoe et al., 2004)

Moreover, students in rural schools experience a higher rate of verbal and physical bullying compared to those in urban schools (Olsen, 2010), and relative to other bullying studies, Dulmus et al. (2004) found a relatively higher number of bully-victims in their sample of students. Finding also shows that bullying incidents are more likely to happen on school grounds, and younger students, minorities, and females are more likely to experiences a higher rate of bullying (Smokowski et al., 2013).

The gendered effect of bullying and victimization experiences of adolescents is well documented in the literature (Warden & MacKinnon, 2003; Graham et al., 2003; Jeong & Lee, 2013). Consistent findings show that boys were more often involved in physical/direct bullying as both bullies and victims, while girls were disproportionately represented in relational bullying (Jeong et al., 2013; Li, 2007; Duncan, 1999). Similarly, Kowalski and Limber (2007) found that girls were more likely to be cyberbullies than boys, while Popp et al. (2014) found that though bully victimization had a negative effect on educational outcome for both genders, the effect was greater for girls than the boys in the sample. In addition, Haddow and Haddow (2006) found that unlike the boys, girls who reported being bullied were more likely to lie and cheat than those who did not, have trouble sleeping, and be unhappy. Taken together, these findings suggest that treatment strategies for bully-victims should account for the gender difference in its consequences.

Self-control and Victimization

Early studies on victimization focused on the idea that victims precipitate their victimization (von Hentig, 1948), the lifestyle theory (Garofalo, 1987), and the victims’ routine activities (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Research shows offenders are often crime victims (Schreck, 1999), and correlation exists between factors that predict offending and victimization (Lauritsen & Laub, 2007; Schreck, Stewart, & Osgood, 2008). Scholars posit that in most instances, the same underlying traits that predict offending predicts victimization; explaining victimization is therefore central to understanding crime and the factors that heighten the risk for victimization. The GTC posits that individuals with low self-control have, among other traits, impulsivity, risk-taking, and prefer physical rather than mental tasks. Consequently, they are more likely to engage in impulsive and risky behaviors, which could potentially result in victimization experiences. Empirical studies have established the link between low self-control and victimization among adolescents (Chui & Chan, 2015; Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2006; Unnever & Cornell, 2003). In one of the earliest studies of this relationship, Nofziger (2009) examined over 1,200 middle and high school students and found that higher level of self-control decreased bully/victimization in his sample of students. Similarly, in their study of Saudi Arabian high school students, Sacarellos et al. (2016) found that low self-control predicted the victimization experiences in their sample of students. Studies also associate low self-control with the risk for self-reported delinquency (Sacarellos et al., 2016), gang membership (Childs et al., 2009). Schreck et al. (2006) found that low self-control measured at an earlier time is associated with later victimization, and low self-control appears to influence the relationship between earlier victimization and later lifestyles.

Contributions of the Current Study

Following the example of Kerley et al. (2008), current study tests the robustness of the GTC in explaining crime and delinquent behavior in an understudied population—Nigerian middle school students—and culture, outside of the Western, Asian, and Scandinavian countries. This study also adds an African flavor to the cross-cultural applicability of the GTC. The relatively limited knowledge of the prevalence of bullying, and lack of theoretically anchored explanations for the behavior on the African continent, has hampered the development and implementation of bullying prevention strategies in schools on this very strategic continent, and consequently, compromises children’s safety in the Nigerian school environment. Hopefully, findings from this study will be the springboard for effective bullying prevention strategies in Nigerian secondary schools.

Current study tested the following hypotheses:

H1: As proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi, bullying perpetration behavior would be negatively related to self-control.

H2: As proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi, bullying victimization experiences of these students would be negatively related to self-control.

H3: Male students will exhibit lower levels of self-control, and consequently be involved in higher levels of bullying perpetration and victimization behavior than females.

Method

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, data were collected from a convenience sample of students from seven secondary schools in south-western Nigeria over a 10-day period in March 2016. The schools included: one co-educational private school in Lagos (commercial capital of Nigeria); two co-educational rural schools in Osun state (the home to many cultural landmarks in the country); one single-sex (boys) school in Ibadan (the third-largest city in Africa); a single-sex (girls) school in Ibadan; and two urban co-educational public schools in Ibadan. Letters explaining the nature, purpose, and procedures of this study were sent to about 20 schools requesting their support and permission to conduct the survey. The researcher followed up with telephone calls, but some of the schools declined to participate. Consent forms explained the purpose of the study, assured participants of anonymity, and required the signature of a parent. Only students who returned signed parental consent forms and gave assent participated in the study.

Sample

Overall, 1,192 students completed the survey; 55.6% (667) were female, and the average age was 14.2 years. Students were in grades 6–8; 17% (222) attended a private school, 24.4% (291) attended single-sex schools, and 13.5% (161) attended rural schools. Also, 72.7% (867) lived with their biological parents, 10.6% (121) were boarding students, and 66.3% (762) were Christians. The ethnic composition was 74.7% Yoruba, 16.3% Ibo, and 2.4% Hausa. The location of the schools explains the high percentage of Yoruba’s and Christians. T-test and chi-square analyses showing no statistically significant differences in the results for the 839 students with completed data, and the 353 students with at least one missing variable.

Measures

Dependent variables.

The dependent variables in this study are bullying perpetration and victimization. To measure bullying perpetration, students were asked to self-report on their bullying behavior and 8 items measuring this behavior were combined into a bullying index tapping into whether the respondent had bullied another person in the past year (KR20 = .71). The Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR 20) is a variant of the Cronbach’s alpha appropriate for dichotomous variables (Kuder & Richardson, 1937). The mean for bullying perpetration is 1.46 (SD = 1.73) with responses ranging from 0 to 8. The 8 items are adapted from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) measuring different forms of direct and indirect bullying behavior that occurred in the past year (Kim et al., 2004). Items include have you: (a) made fun of someone, (b) spread rumors about someone, (c) threatened someone with harm, (d) pushed someone, (e) tried to make someone do things that they did not want to do, like give you money or things, (f) have you excluded someone from activities, (g) destroyed someone else’s property, and (h) have you bullied a junior student. The response option is dichotomous; 0 = No, and 1 = Yes. To be described as a bully, the respondent must be involved in at least one form of bullying in the past year. A higher score on the bullying index is indicative of a higher involvement in bullying behavior.

Student’s victimization experiences were also measured using 8 binary items measuring respondents’ experiences with various types of victimization—verbal, physical, and psychological—in the past year (KR20 = .74). Students were asked whether, since the start of the school year, another student: (a) made fun of you, called you names or insulted you in any hurtful way, (b) spread rumors about you or tried to make others dislike you, (c) beat you up, (d) tried to force you to do things you did not want to do, like give them money or things, (e) excluded you from activities, (f) destroyed your property on purpose, (g) have you been bullied by someone in your class, and (h) have you been bullied by a senior (an upper-class student). The response option is dichotomous; 0 = No, and 1 = Yes. Respondents who have experienced at least one of these behaviors at least once in the past year are coded as being victimized. The average score for bullying victimization (mean = 2.69) and the range was from 0 to 8, with a standard deviation of 2.07. A higher score on the victimization index is indicative of a relatively higher rate of victimization experience.

Independent variables.

To measure self-control, a modified Grasmick et al. (1993) scale comprised of 17 items measuring various dimensions of self-control such as impulsivity, preference for simple tasks, risk-taking, and temper was used. Students responded to the following statements: (a) sometimes I get restless when I sit in a chair for very long, (b) generally say things without stopping to think, (c) sometimes break the rule without thinking things out, (d) need a lot of self-control to keep myself out of trouble, (e) sometimes put down the first answer that comes to my head during a test and forget to check it later, (f) often get in trouble because I do things without stopping to think, (g) usually think carefully before doing anything, (h) mostly speak without thinking things out, (i) often get involved in things I later wish I can get out of, (j) usually think carefully before doing anything, (k) mostly speak without thinking things out, (l) often get involved in things you later wish you could get out of, (m) get bored more easily than most people doing the same old things, (n) get very annoyed if someone keeps me waiting, (o) get very restless if I have to stay around home for any length of time, (p) usually work quickly without checking my answer, and (q) sometimes break the rules without thinking about it. The response option is dichotomous; 0 = No, and 1 = Yes. The mean of the self-control index was 8.10 (SD = 3.53), ranging from 0 to 16. The self-control index was the summation of all the items (KR20 = .75). The self-control index was coded so that a higher score on the self-control index is indicative of low self-control.

Control variables.

Variables found in prior studies to be significantly related to school bullying were included as control variables in this study. Sex is coded as male = 0, and female = 1. Age is a continuous variable measured in years with an average age of 14.2 years (SD = 1.4) ranging from 11 to 18 years. Family structure is a dummy variable coded as, living with both parents = 1, others = 0. Religion was coded 1 = Christians, Muslim = 0; while ethnicity was disaggregated into, Yoruba, Ibo, and Hausa. Schools were coded as Rural = 1, others = 0; private = 1, others = 0, and single-sex = 1, others = 0.

School climate has been found in prior studies to impact students bullying behavior (Azeredo et al., 2015; Connell et al., 2014; Gendron, Williams, & Guerra, 2011). A school climate index was therefore created to account for the effect of school climate on the bullying behavior of the sample. A seven-variable school climate index (Cronbach’s α = .62) was included. The response options for the index was from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Questions include: (a) everyone knows what school rules are, (b) the school rules are okay, (c) the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are, (d) school rules are strictly enforced, (e) if a school rule is broken, students know what kind of punishment will follow, (f) teachers treat students with respect, and (g) teachers care about students. Higher scores indicate positive school climate, while lower scores are indicative of a negative school climate. The mean for school climate was 21.34 (SD = 3.95) with scores ranging from 4 to 28.

Results

Table 1 shows that overall, 679 students (56.9%) were engaged in at least one bullying perpetration incident, while 1,127 students (78.5%) were victimized at least once in the preceding year. Table 2 shows the gender differences in reported experiences; females reported fewer levels of bullying behavior (M = 1.2, SD = 1.7).

Table 1.

Sample Demographics.

(N = 1,192)
Variable	n	%
Female	667	55.6
Family Structure
Living with both parents	867	72.7
Living with one parent	191	16.0
Living with other family member	49	4.1
Others	14	1.3
Religion
Christian	762	66.9
Muslim	381	32.0
Private school
Yes	202	17.0
No	990	83.0
Rural school
Yes	161	13.5
No	1031	86.5
Single-sex school
Yes	291	24.4
No	901	75.6
Ethnicity
Yoruba	890	74.7
Ibo	194	16.3
Hausa	28	2.4
Age		x– = 14.2

Note. Number of missing data: Gender = 51, Family structure = 71, Religion = 49, Ethnicity = 80.

Table 2.

Gender Differences in Reported Experiences.

	Males (N = 431)		Females (N = 667)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t-test	p
Perpetration	1.8	1.9	1.2	1.5	5.81	<.0001
Victimization	3.1	2.2	2.3	1.9	6.45	<.0001
Self-control^a	8.2	3.4	7.9	3.6	1.79	.07
Age	14.4	1.7	14.2	1.3	2.61	.009
School climate	20.6	4.1	21.9	3.7	−5.96	<.0001
		N	%		N	%
Not living with both parents		117	27.2		175	26.2
Ethnicity
Yoruba		301	73.8		530	82.9
Ibo		93	22.8		96	15.0
Hausa		14	3.4		13	2.0
Religion
Christian		255	61.6		450	69.1
Muslim		155	37.4		200	30.7
School classification A
Urban		363	84.2		580	86.9
Rural		68	15.8		87	13.0
School classification B
Public		332	77.0		574	86.1
Private		99	23.0		93	13.9
School classification C
Single-sex		431	90.9		427	64.0
Co-educational		43	9.1		240	36.0

Note. ^aHigher score indicates low self-control.

Zero-order correlations among self-control, bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and control variables presented in Table 3 show significant positive relationships between the dependent and independent variables. Consistent with GTC’s claim, low self-control predicted the bullying and victimization experiences of the students. Similarly, statistically significant relationships at the bivariate level presented in Table 4 are gender (female), rural/urban school, single-sex/co-educational school, private/public school, and ethnicity. The perpetration score for males was higher than females, living with both parents was a protective factor against bullying perpetration and victimization, and students in urban schools were more likely to be bullies and victims than students in rural and single-sex schools.

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficients.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Self-control	1.00
2. Perpetration	.37*	1.00
3. Victimization	.34*	.46*	1.00
4. Age	–.04	–.006	–.06*	1.00
5. School climate	–.19	–.21*	–.29*	–.02	1.00
6. Sex	–.05	–.18*	–.19*	–.08*	.18*	1.00
7. Ethnicity	.13*	.14*	.06*	–.11*	–.06*	–.10*	1.00
8. Religion	–.11*	.01	–.05	.22*	–.04	–.07*	–.21*	1.00
9. Family structure	.04	.06	.08*	.11*	–.03	–.01	–.08*	.11*	1.00
10. School	.16*	.05	–.01	–.13*	–.08*	.19*	.26*	–.26*	–.11*

Note. *p < .05.

Table 4.

Bivariate Analysis.

	Perpetration				Victimization
	N	Index Score Mean (SD)	t- or f-statistic	p*	N	Index Score Mean (SD)	t- or f-statistic	p
Gender			5.81	<.0001			6.45	<.0001
Male	453	1.81 (1.9)			448	3.16 (2.2)
Female	636	1.17 (1.5)			633	2.3 (1.9)
Family structure			−1.82	.07			−2.50	.01
Living with both parents	830	1.40 (1.7)			817	2.59 (2.0)
Not living with both parents	305	1.62 (1.6)			310	2.95 (2.2)
Religion^a			1.11	.25			−2.04	.04
Christian	726	1.44 (1.7)			721	2.77 (2.1)
Muslim	366	1.44 (1.8)			362	2.50 (2.0)
Religiosity^b			.56	.57			2.63	.008
Highly religious	327	1.32 (1.7)			321	2.39 (2.0)
Not highly religious	641	1.39 (1.7)			640	2.75 (2.1)
School classification A		3.50	.0006				2.52	.013
Rural	154	1.06 (1.5)			152	2.33 (1.9)
Urban	981	1.52 (1.8)			975	1.75 (2.1)
School classification B			−5.87	<.0001			−4.24	<.0001
Private	194	2.21 (2.0)			191	3.28 (2.1)
Public	941	1.30 (1.6)			936	2.57 (2.0)
School classification C			7.00	<.0001			6.58	<.0001
Single-sex (female)	232	.86 (1.3)			234	1.91 (1.9)
Co-educational	861	1.58 (1.8)			849	2.84 (2.0)
Ethnicity			15.25	<.0001			3.29	.04
Yoruba	890	1.30 (1.7)			838	2.60 (2.0)
Ibo	194	2.05 (1.9)^c			187	3.02 (2.1)^c
Hausa	28	1.63 (1.9)			27	2.81 (2.2)

Note. *Student t-test or Analysis of variance (ANOVA).

^aOther religions removed due to small number (n = 5).

^b“Highly religious” defined as upper 25 percentile in terms of how often the individual prays.

^cTukey’s post hoc test shows Ibo ethnicity’s perpetration and victimization scores are statistically significantly greater than Yoruba but not different from Hausa.

Table 5 presents the result of the binomial logistic regression examining the relationship among bully perpetration, self-control, and the control variables by gender. Binomial logistic regression was most appropriate for the analysis due to the dichotomous nature of the dependent variables. The self-control score is positive and significant (OR = 1.27; p < .001) which supports our H₁; other significant variables are, gender, ethnicity (Ibo), religion (Muslim), rural school, and school climate. The model shows overall that, for each unit increase in the self-control score, the odds of bullying perpetration increased by 27%; odds for females was 34% less than males (OR = .66; p < .05). The odds for Muslims was 30%, attending rural school reduced the odds by 40%, while perception of a negative school climate increased it 6%.

Table 5.

Predicting Bullying Perpetration by Gender Using Binomial Logistic Regression.

	Full Sample		Males Only		Females Only
	(N = 853)		(N = 354)		(N = 499)
	β (SE)	OR	β (SE)	OR	β (SE)	OR
Self-control index^b	.24(.03)***	1.27	.27 (.05)***	1.32	−.22 (.03)***	.80
Female gender	−.41(.16)*	.66	–	–	–	–
Age	−.02 (.06)	.99	.06 (.09)	1.07	.08 (1.00)	1.09
Ethnicity
Yoruba	Reference	–	Reference		Reference
Ibo	.77(.24)**	2.17	1.41 (.42)***	4.08	−.49 (.29)	.61
Hausa	.09 (.48)	1.10	−.64 (.65)	.53	−.74 (.73)	.48
Muslim religion (versus Christian)	.53(.18)**	1.70	.93 (.30)**	2.52	−.36 (.23)	.70
Not living with both parents	−.03 (.18)	.97	.18 (.31)	1.19	.12 (.23)	1.13
Rural school (versus urban)	−.51 (.24)*	.60	−.68 (.37)	.51	.36 (.31)	1.43
School climate index	−.06 (.02)**	.94	−.12 (.04)**	.89	.03 (.03)**	1.03
Model fitness: AIC Deviance/df	999.31.178**		377.8 1.049		624.51.264***

Note. OR = Odds ratio; df = Degrees of freedom; AIC = Akaike information criterion. ns = Not significant.

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

^aZ = (b1–b2)/sqrt(SEb₁² + SEb₁²), where Z = z score, b1 and b2 = Beta estimates; SE = Standard errors.

^bHigher score indicates low self-control index.

Table 6 presents the result of the relationship among self-control, bully victimization, control variables by gender. As hypothesized, the results show that across the models, self-control predicted bully perpetration and victimization experiences for both genders. The H₂ was supported as result show that for each unit increase in the self-control index (i.e., low self-control), the odds of bullying victimization increased by 30% (OR = 1.30; p < .001). Conversely, school climate showed negative but statistical significance with a 9% increase in the odds of bullying victimization.

Table 6.

Predicting Bullying Victimization by Gender Using Binomial Logistic Regression.

	Full Sample		Males Only		Females Only
	(N = 840)		(N = 349)		(N = 491)
	β (SE)	OR	β (SE)	OR	β (SE)	OR
Self-control index^b	.26 (.03)***	1.30	.21(.06)***	1.24	.30 (.05)	1.35
Female gender	−.38 (.21)	.69	–	–	–	–
Age	−.05 (.08)	.92	−.18 (.12)	.83	.08 (.11)	1.08
Ethnicity
Yoruba	Reference	–	Reference		Reference
Ibo	−.25 (.29)	.78	.33 (.55)	1.38	−.58 (.35)	.56
Hausa	.16 (.68)	1.17	−1.17 (.77)	.31	14.35(734.0)	small n
Muslim religion (versus Christian)	.02 (.22)	1.02	.19 (.38)	1.21	−.12 (.28)	.88
Not living with both parents	−.10 (.23)	.91	.96 (.47)*	2.61	−.44 (.27)	.65
Rural school (versus Urban)	−.04 (.29)	.97	−.56 (.47)	.57	.19 (.39)	1.20
School climate index	−.10(.03)***	.91	−.08 (.05)	.93	−.12 (.04)	.89
Model fitness: AIC Deviance/df	684.0 .787		250.6 .684		426.3 .825

Note. OR = Odds ratio; df = Degrees of freedom; AIC = Akaike information criterion. ns = Not significant.

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

^aZ = (b1–b2)/sqrt(SEb₁² + SEb₁²), where Z = z score, b1 and b2 = Beta estimates; SE = Standard errors.

^bHigher score indicates low self-control index.

The gender specific models examining the relationship between self-control and bullying perpetration shows a curious but interesting pattern. Overall, for males, OR = 1.32; p < .001), and females (OR = .80; p < .001). Ibo males (OR = 4.08; p < .001); Muslim males (OR = 2.52; p < .01). A negative perception of school climate for males (OR = .89; p < .01), and a positive school climate for females (OR = 1.03; p < .01). Result indicates that students with low self-control are more likely to be both bully perpetrators and bully victims. Significant factors for victimization were low self-control and school climate but, none of the control variables found to predict perpetration was significant for victimization.

Discussion

Current research tests the cross-cultural applicability of arguably the most tested criminological theory in explaining the bullying and victimization experiences of a sample of Nigerian middle school students. Prior research on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s claim that GTC explains all crimes, in all places, have been largely tested with Western, Scandinavian, and Asian samples. Consistent with the theory’s claim and prior research (Bae, 2016; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2015; Vazsonyi et al., 2016; Vazsonyi et al., 2001; Yu, 2015), this finding indicates that the explanatory power of the GTC is not limited by geography or culture. The “all places” reach of the GTC extends to Nigeria. Findings from this study and contributions to research are discussed below.

Our H₁ that the bullying perpetration experiences of these students will be negatively related to self-control was largely supported. Self-control had an inverse relationship with the bullying perpetration behavior of these students; the lower the level of self-control, the higher the level of bully perpetration behavior exhibited by the students (see Figure 1). Other significant variables apart from self-control were gender, age, and the school climate. Although some studies found that the predictive value of self-control waned with the introduction of other variables in the model (Moon et al., 2011), the effect of self-control in this study held up against the other variables. Also, none of the other variables were as significant a predictor of the behavior of these students as self-control.

Figure 1.

Note. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of this relationship between self-control and victimization.

The H₂ that the bullying victimization experiences of the students will be negatively related to self-control was also supported in this study. Consistent with the finding on the H₁, self-control had an inverse relationship with bullying victimization; students with low self-control were more likely to experience victimization (see Figure 1). The only opportunity variable in the study–school climate showed statistical significance to bully victimization in this study. This is consistent with prior studies (Azeredo et al., 2015; Connell et al., 2014; Gendron et al., 2011; Gottfredson et al., 2005) showing that a negative school climate is a significant predictor of both bullying perpetration and victimization. The finding that perceived positive school climate was a protective factor for both bullying perpetration and victimization was an expected finding, and probably suggest the need to include more opportunity factors in future studies to see if the impact of low self-control wanes in the face of such factors.

The H₃ on the gender difference in the predictive value of self-control presents a curious but interesting result. The gender-specific models show that gender had opposing effects on the impact of self-control on the bullying perpetration and victimization behavior in this sample. Although the relationship between self-control and victimization was positively significant for males and females, females had higher odds of victimization than males. Also, the only statistically significant variable for victimization apart from low self-control was school climate. The findings show that male students with low self-control had greater odds of bullying perpetration than females. However, for bullying victimization, females had higher odds of being victimized than males. This inverse relationship was in the expected direction; consistent with prior research (Popp et al., 2014) and predictable in the Nigerian culture and context. There is a cultural expectation for males to be “in charge” and show manliness, while females are socialized to be empathetic, nurturing, and protective of younger and more vulnerable people. The finding that females were less likely to engage in bullying perpetration behavior and that attending a rural school, was a protective factor for females, makes conventional sense in the context and culture of Nigeria. Relative to Western cultures, gender roles are still enforced in Nigeria, and standards of morality in the rural areas especially for females, are higher than in the urban areas. Religion (Muslim) and Ethnicity (Ibo) appear to have significant effects on bullying perpetration and victimization, but his result should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small sample size of Muslims and students of Ibo ethnicity.

International and cross-cultural studies of bullying, and previous tests of the cross-cultural relevance of the GTC did not include Nigeran students (Vazsonyi et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2004) This study is an exploratory study and has laid the groundwork for future tests of the GTC which hopefully will include a nationally representative sample of the different offending populations in Nigeria in particular, and Africa in general. Hopefully, findings from this study will be the springboard to the creation of a positive school climate and effective bully intervention programs in Nigerian secondary schools. While this study used a modified self-control scale, future research should include the full Grasmick et al. (1993) scale and/or a culturally sensitive scale and a nationally representative sample of Nigerian middle school students.

Current study is not without some limitations. First, data were cross-sectional from a convenience sample of students in the south-western part of Nigeria which does not represent all Nigerian students; both factors limit the generalizability of our findings. Second, the study utilized a modified Grasmick et al. (1993) self-control scale which does not capture all the dimensions of self-control. This scale may not be the most robust measure of self-control in this population. Future research should consider a more robust and culturally sensitive measure of self-control among this population to test the robustness of our findings. Third, data only captured bullying behavior in the past year but did not include the context, consistency, or seriousness of the behavior. A longitudinal study would be an important step in overcoming this limitation. Also, there are nuances and contextual issues with a study like this that a quantitative study is unable to get at due to its design. A qualitative study will be ideal to study the nuances of the relationship among these students and the context of the perpetration and the victimization experiences that were uncovered in this study. Fourth, our data studied bullying generally and did not distinguish between direct and indirect forms of bullying. Future studies should distinguish between these forms of bullying. Also, the internet has been described as the new “playground for bullies” (Connell et al., 2014); but due to the relatively lack of/limited internet access in Nigeria especially for students in the age group captured in this study, the focus was on traditional forms of bullying. Future studies of Nigerian students should include measures of cyberbullying to capture the full ramification of bullying behaviors.

Fifth, the limitation of self-report studies is well documented. Although it is a preferred method for studying behavior, it is subject to over or under reporting which may confound our findings. Future studies should include other forms of data collection such as peer report, teacher, and parent report to authenticate the self-report.

The current study provides additional support for the “all places” reach of the GTC. Self-control was an independent predictor of bullying perpetration and victimization in this sample. The finding also supports the theory’s claim of gender neutrality and advances knowledge by testing the predictive value of one of the Western criminological theories on the African continent. Further, findings emphasized the importance of a positive school climate for both males and females, the need for proactive bullying containment measures, and self-control improvement programs (Molcho et al., 2009; Piquero et al., 2010; Swearer et al., 2010; Piquero et al., 2016). The ethnic differences in the findings may signify the need for culturally sensitive responses to the bullying and victimization problem in Nigerian schools.

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.

ORCID iD

Omobolanle Atinuke Fenny

Author Biography

Omobolanle Atinuke Fenny, PhD, received her PhD in Criminology from the University of Texas at Dallas. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Criminology at Troy University Alabama. She is a Member of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Alabama State Bar, and the Nigerian Bar Association. Her research interests include Juvenile Delinquency, Gender, Domestic Violence, International Criminology, and Religion.

References

Akers

R. L.

(1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 7(2), 201–211.

Arneklev

B. J.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

(1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(3), 225-247.

Arseneault

, Bowes

, & Shakoor

L. B. S.

(2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing?” Psychological Medi-cine , 40(5), 717.

Azeredo

C. M.

, Rinaldi

A. E. M.

, de Moraes

C. L.

, Levy

R. B.

, & Menezes

P. R.

(2015). School bullying: A systematic review of contextual-level risk factors in observational studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 22, 65–76.

Bae

H. O.

(2016). Bullying involvement of Korean children in Germany and in Korea. School Psychology Inter-na-tional , 37(1), 3–17.

Burt

C. H.

, Simons

R. L.

, & Simons

L. G.

(2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology , 44(2), 353–396.

Cheng

S. T.

, Cheung

K. C.

, & Cheung

C. K.

(2008). Peer victimization and depression among Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 64(6), 766–776.

Childs

K. K.

, Cochran

J. K.

, & Gibson

C. L.

(2009). Self-control, gang membership, and victimization: An integrated approach. Journal of Crime and Justice , 32(1), 35–60.

Cho

(2019). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and bullying victimization among Korean youth: Estimating a second-order latent growth model. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 28(8), 2131–2144.

10.

Chui

W. H.

, & Chan

H. C. O.

(2015). Self-control, school bullying perpetration, and victimization among Macanese adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Stud-ies , 24(6), 1751–1761.

11.

Cohen

L. E.

, & Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American So-ciological Review , 44(4), 588–608.

12.

Cohn

E. G.

, & Farrington

D. P.

(1999). Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice , 27(4), 345–359.

13.

Connell

N. M.

Morris

R. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2017). Exploring the link between being bullied and adolescent substance use. Victims & Offenders , 12(2), 277–296.

14.

Connell

N. M.

, Schell-Busey

N. M.

, Pearce

A. N.

, & Negro

(2014). Badgrlz? Exploring sex differences in cyberbullying behaviors. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 12(3), 209–228.

15.

Cook

C. R.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

Kim

T. E.

Sadek

(2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School psychology quarterly , 25(2), 65–83.

16.

Cornell

, & Mehta

S. B.

(2011). Counselor confirmation of middle school student self-reports of bullying victimization. Professional School Counseling , 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1101400402

17.

DeLisi

, Vaughn

M. G.

, Gentile

D. A.,

Anderson

C. A.

, & Shook

J. J.

(2013). Violent video games, delinquency, and youth violence: New evidence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 11(2), 132–142.

18.

Devoe

J. F.

Peter

Kaufman

Miller

Noonan

Snyder

T. D.

Baum

(2004). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004. Education Statistics Quarterly , 6.

19.

Dulmus

C. N.

Theriot

M. T.

Sowers

K. M.

Blackburn

J. A.

(2004). Student reports of peer bullying victimization in a rural school. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis , 7(1), 1–16.

20.

Duncan

R. D.

(1999). Peer and sibling aggression: An investigation of intra-and extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 14(8), 871–886.

21.

Endresen

I. M.

, & Olweus

(2001). Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationship to bullying. In Bohart

A. C.

Stipek

D. J.

(Eds.), Constructive & destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, & society (pp. 147–165). American Psychological Association.

22.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School psychology review , 32(3), 365–383.

23.

Fenny

, & Falola

M. I.

(2020). Prevalence and correlates of bullying behavior among Nigerian middle school students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 64(5), 564–585.

24.

Garofalo

(1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. In Gottfredson

M. R

Hirschi

(Eds.), Positive criminology (pp. 23–42). SAGE Publications.

25.

Gendron

B. P.

, Williams

K. R.

, & Guerra

N. G.

(2011). An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence , 10(2), 150–164.

26.

Gottfredson

G. D.

, Gottfredson

D. C.

, Payne

A. A.

, & Gottfredson

N. C.

(2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 42(4), 412–444.

27.

Gottfredson

M. R.

, & Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime . Stanford University Press.

28.

Graham

, Bellmore

, & Juvonen

(2003). Peer victimization in middle school: When self-and peer views diverge. Journal of Applied School Psychology , 19(2), 117–137.

29.

Grasmick

H. G.

, Tittle

C. R.

, Jr

Bursik

, R.

Arneklev B.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 30(1), 5–29.

30.

Haddow

J. L.

Haddow

J. L.

(2006). Residual effects of repeated bully victimization before the age of 12 on adolescent functioning. Journal of School Violence , 5(2), 37–52.

31.

Hay

(2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology , 39(3), 707–736.

32.

Hay

Forrest

(2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44(4), 739–774.

33.

Hentig

H. von

. (1948). The criminal & his victim: Studies in the sociobiology of crime .

34.

Higgins

G. E.

Jennings

W. G.

Tewksbury

Gibson

C. L.

(2009). Exploring the link between low self-control and violent victimization trajectories in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 36(10), 1070–1084.

35.

Hwang

, & Akers

R. L.

(2003). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In Akers

R. L.

Jensen

G. F.

(Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (Vol. 11, pp. 39–64). Routledge.

36.

Hymel

, & Swearer

S. M.

(2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist , 70(4), 293–299.

37.

Jeong

Kwak

D. H.

Moon

San Miguel

(2013). Predicting school bullying victimization: Focusing on individual and school environmental/security factors. Journal of criminology, 2013 .

38.

Jeong

Lee

B. H.

(2013). A multilevel examination of peer victimization and bullying preventions in schools. Journal of criminology, 2013 .

39.

Jolliffe

, & Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Is low empathy related to bullying after controlling for individual and social background variables? Journal of Adolescence , 34(1), 59–71.

40.

Kerley

K. R.

, Xu

, & Sirisunyaluck

(2008). Self-control, intimate partner abuse, and intimate partner victimization: Testing the general theory of crime in Thailand. Deviant Behavior , 29(6), 503–532.

41.

Khamis

(2015). Bullying among school-age children in the greater Beirut area: Risk and protective factors. Child Abuse & Neglect , 39, 137–146.

42.

Kim

Y. S.

Koh

Y. J.

Leventhal

B. L.

(2004). Prevalence of school bullying in Korean middle school students. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(8), 737–741.

43.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. P.

(2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health , 41(6), S22–S30.

44.

Kuder

G. F.

, & Richardson

M. W.

(1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika , 2(3), 151–160.

45.

LaGrange

T. C.

, & Silverman

R. A.

(1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology , 37(1), 41–72.

46.

Lauritsen

J. L.

, & Laub

J. H.

(2007). Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies , 22, 55–75.

47.

(2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimisation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 23(4), 435–454.

48.

Marsh

Cornell

(2001). The Contribution of Student Experiences to Understanding Ethnic Differences in High-Risk Behaviors at School. Behavioral Disorders , 26, 152–163.

49.

Meece

, & Robinson

C. M.

(2014). Father–child interaction: Associations with self-control and aggression among 4.5-year-olds. Early Child Development and Care , 184(5), 783–794.

50.

Moffitt

T. E.

, Arseneault

, Belsky

, Dickson

, Hancox

R. J.

, Harrington

, Houts

, Poulton

, Roberts

B. W.

, Ross

, Sears

M. R.

, Thomson

W. M.

, & Caspi

(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108(7), 2693–2698.

51.

Molcho

, Craig

, Due

, Pickett

, Harel-Fisch

, & Overpeck

(2009). Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994–2006: Findings from Europe and North America. International Journal of Public Health , 54(2), 225–234.

52.

Moon

, & Alarid

L. F.

(2015). School bullying, low self-control, and opportunity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 30(5), 839–856.

53.

Moon

, Hwang

H-W.

, & McCluskey

J. D.

(2011). Causes of school bullying: Empirical test of a general theory of crime, differential association theory, and general strain theory. Crime & Delinquency , 57(6), 849–877.

54.

Moon

, & Jang

S. J.

(2014). A general strain approach to psychological and physical bullying: A study of interpersonal aggression at school. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 29(12), 2147–2171.

55.

Moon

, Morash

, & McCluskey

J. D.

(2012). General strain theory and school bullying: An empirical test in South Korea. Crime & Delinquency , 58(6), 827–855.

56.

Nansel

T. R.

Craig

Overpeck

M. D.

Saluja

Ruan

W. J.

(2004). Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 158(8), 730–736.

57.

Nofziger

(2008). The “Cause” of Low Self-Control: The Influence of Maternal Self-Control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 45(2), 191–224.

58.

Nofziger

(2009). Victimization and the general theory of crime. Violence and Victims , 24(3), 337–350.

59.

Olsen

N. E.

(2010). Bullying trends and reporting preferences among an urban, suburban, and rural school. All Thesis and Dissertations, 2418 . https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/2418

60.

Olweus

(2001). Bullying at school: Tackling the problem. The OECD Observer , (225), 24. https://doi.org/10.1787/15615529

61.

Omoteso

B. A.

(2010). Bullying behaviour, its associated factors and psychological effects among secondary students in Nigeria. Journal of International Social Research , 3(10), 498–509.

62.

Opara

O. V.

(2014). Perceived impact of divorce and geographical separation of couples on bullying behaviour of in-school adolescents in Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences , 5(2), 138–143.

63.

Osgood

D. W.

, Wilson

J. K.

, O’Malley

P. M.

, Bachman

J. G.

, & Johnson

L. D.

(1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. America Sociological Review , 61, 635–655.

64.

Owusu

, Hart

Oliver

Kang

(2011). The association between bullying and psychological health among senior high school students in Ghana, West Africa. Journal of School Health , 81(5), 231–238.

65.

Patchin

J. W.

, & Hinduja

(2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth & Society , 43(2), 727–751.

66.

Perrone

, Sullivan

C. J.

, Pratt

T. C.

, & Margaryan

(2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquency: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally representative sample of youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 48(3), 298–312.

67.

Piquero

A. R.

, Connell

N. M.

, Piquero

N. L.

, Farrington

D. P.

, & Jennings

W. G.

(2013). Does adolescent bullying distinguish between male offending trajectories in late middle age? Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42(3), 444–453.

68.

Piquero

A. R.

, Gibson

C. L.

, & Tibbetts

S. G.

(2002). Does self-control account for the relationship between binge drinking and alcohol-related behaviours? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health , 12(2), 135–154.

69.

Piquero

A. R.

, Jennings

W. J.

, & Farrington

D. P.

(2010). On the malleability of self-control: Theoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly , 27(6), 803–834.

70.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Farrington

D. P.

Diamond

Reingle Gonzalez

J. M.

(2016). A Meta-Analysis Update on the Effectiveness of Early Self-Control Improvement Programs to Improve Self-Control and Reduce Delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 12, 249–264.

71.

Popp

A. M.

, Peguero

A. A.

, Day

K. R .

, & Kahle

L. L.

(2014). Gender, bullying victimization, and education. Violence and Victims , 29(5), 843–856.

72.

Pratt

T. C.

(2016). A self-control/life-course theory of criminal behavior. European Journal of Criminology , 13(1), 129–146.

73.

Pratt

T. C.

, & Cullen

F. T.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology , 38(3), 931–964.

74.

Rodkin

P. C.

, Espelage

D. L.

, & Hanish

L. D.

(2015). A relational framework for understanding bullying: Developmental antecedents and outcomes. American Psy-chologist , 70(4), 311–321.

75.

Sacarellos

C. D.

, Wright

J. P.

, Almosaed

N. F.

, Moghrabi

S. S.

, Bashatah

F. S.

, & Morgan

M. A.

(2016). Crime in the kingdom: The effects of low self-control in a Saudi Arabian sample of youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 14(3), 291–312.

76.

Schreck

C. J.

(1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly , 16(3), 633–654.

77.

Schreck

C. J.

, Stewart

E. A.

, & Fisher

B. S.

(2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 22(4), 319–340.

78.

Schreck

C. J.

, Stewart

E. A.

, & Osgood

D. W.

(2008). A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology , 46(4), 871–906.

79.

Siegfried

, & Woessner

(2016). The explanatory power of the general theory of crime: A comparative analysis of a general population and serious offender sample. Deviant Behavior , 37(5), 509–524.

80.

Simpson

S. S.

, & Piquero

N. L. P.

(2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review , 36, 509–548.

81.

Slee

P. T.

Rigby

(1993). Australian school children’s self-appraisal of interpersonal relations: The bullying experience. Child psychiatry and human development , 23(4), 273–282.

82.

Smokowski

P. R.

Cotter

K. L.

Robertson

Guo

(2013). Demographic, psychological, and school environment correlates of bullying victimization and school hassles in rural youth. Journal of Criminology, 2013 .

83.

Smokowski

P. R.

, & Kopasz

K. H.

(2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools , 27(2), 101–110.

84.

Swearer

S. M.

, Espelage

D. L.

, Vaillancourt

, & Hymel

(2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher , 39(1), 38–47.

85.

Umunna

(2012). Rethinking the neighborhood watch: How lessons from the Nigerian village can creatively empower the community to assist poor, single mothers in America. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law , 20(4), 847–869.

86.

Unnever

J. D.

(2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are they distinct groups? Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression , 31(2), 153–171.

87.

Unnever

J. D.

, & Cornell

D. G.

(2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 18(2), 129–147.

88.

Varjas

Henrich

C. C.

Meyers

(2009). Urban middle school students’ perceptions of bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety. Journal of School Violence , 8(2), 159–176.

89.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

, & Belliston

L. M.

(2007). The family↓ low self-control↓ deviance: A cross-cultural and cross-national test of self-control theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 34(4), 505–530.

90.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

, & Huang

(2015). Hirschi’s reconceptualization of self-control: Is truth truly the daughter of time? Evidence from eleven cultures. Journal of Criminal Justice , 43(1), 59–68.

91.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Jiskrova

G. K.

Kelley

Ksinan

(2016). Online and Offline Bullying Perpetration in a Rural Development Context: The Impact by Social Media Use. Journal of Rural Social Sciences , 31(2), 86–106.

92.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

, Jiskrova

G. K.

, Ksinan

A. J.

, & Blatný

(2016). An empirical test of self-control theory in Roma adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice , 44, 66–76.

93.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

, Pickering

L. E.

, Junger

, & Hessing

(2001). An empirical test of a general theory of crime: A four-nation comparative study of self-control and the prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 38(2), 91–131.

94.

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(4), 368–375.

95.

Warden

Mackinnon

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

96.

J. J.

(2015). First delinquent behavior among pre-pubescent children: A development paradigm alongside family SES. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 60(14), 1609–1622.

97.

Zhu

, & Chan

K. L.

(2015). Prevalence and correlates of school bullying victimization in Xi’an, China. Violence and Victims , 30(4), 714–732.