6200WK7 DISCUSSION 1

retrieve.pdf

Home >Education homework help >6200WK7 DISCUSSION 1

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors Associated With Bullying

Lyndsay N. Jenkins Eastern Illinois University

Michelle K. Demaray and Jaclyn Tennant Northern Illinois University

Abstract. The purpose of the current study was to understand the association between bullying experiences (i.e., bullying, victimization, and defending) and social, emotional, and cognitive factors. The social factor was social skills (i.e., empathy, assertion, cooperation, responsibility); the emotional factor was emo- tional difficulties (i.e., personal adjustment, internalizing problems, school prob- lems), and the cognitive factor was executive functioning skills (i.e., self-moni- toring, inhibitory control, flexibility, emotional regulation). Data on students’ perceptions of their own social skills, emotional difficulties, and bullying role behavior were collected from 246 sixth- through eighth-grade students. Teachers provided reports of students’ executive functioning skills. Results indicated that (a) emotional difficulties were significantly and positively associated with vic- timization for boys and girls, (b) emotional difficulties were significantly and positively associated with defending for girls, (c) executive functioning was significantly and negatively associated with defending for boys, and (d) social skills were significantly and positively related to defending behavior for boys and girls. These results emphasize the importance of examining the social, emotional, and cognitive factors associated with bullying. Social skills and emotional and executive functioning appear to vary systematically across bullying roles and should be considered when developing targeted social–emotional interventions to stop bullying, increase defending, and support victims or those at risk for victimization.

The goal of the current study was to examine social, emotional, and cognitive pre- dictors of bullying, victimization, and defend- ing among sixth- through eighth-grade stu- dents. The social competence and emotional health of individuals directly (bullies, victims) and indirectly (defenders, outsiders) involved in bullying have been the topic of investiga-

tions over the past few decades. Many studies have attempted to explain the behavior of in- dividuals who demonstrate aggressive and prosocial behavior or experience victimiza- tion, and most of these studies have included social (e.g., social skills), emotional (e.g., in- ternalizing problems), and cognitive (e.g., so- cial information processing, executive func-

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Lyndsay Jenkins, Department of Psychology, Eastern Illinois University, 600 Lincoln Avenue, Charleston, IL 61920; e-mail: [email protected]

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1, pp. 42–64

tioning) variables as either predictors or out- comes associated with different bullying role behaviors. However, no known study has exam- ined these characteristics with three types of bullying role behaviors in a single investigation.

Research on bullying has attempted to elucidate the social and emotional competence of individuals in specific bullying roles. For example, the social skills deficit model (Crick & Dodge, 1994) suggested that aggressive participants of bullying (bullies and assistants) have impaired social skills; however, Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham (1999a, 1999b) argued that impaired cognitive processes are related to aggression, not social skills deficits. Exec- utive functioning skills, including emotional regulation, flexible thinking, planning, and goal setting, are socially oriented cognitive pro- cesses used to process information in social situations (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Riggs, Jahromi, Razza, Dill- worth-Bart, & Mueller, 2006) and may help to explain why individuals engage in or expe- rience bullying, victimization, and defend- ing. Though social and cognitive skills are related to emotional difficulties, the exact association of these three characteristics in relation to aggressive, victim, and prosocial behaviors has not been investigated. Both observable social skills and less observable, underlying cognitive processes should be considered in order to more fully understand bullying role behavior.

Emotional difficulties, social skills, and executive functioning skills are intertwined, and their development is interdependent. For example, social skills develop when children have opportunities to interact with other peers and adults; however, opportunities for practice are not the only requirement. Executive func- tioning skills are necessary in order for chil- dren to process social information processing properly (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Crick & Dodge, 1994), so executive functioning is partially a prerequisite for engaging in produc- tive social interactions. Without proper exec- utive functioning skills, children are less likely to have opportunities to interact with others (Beck, 2011). In addition, a hallmark of emo- tional difficulties is that these symptoms can

interfere with everyday functioning, such as social interactions. Being withdrawn or anx- ious may reduce the number of opportunities to interact; thus, there are fewer opportunities for social skill use and development (Beck, 2011).

The current study focuses on the associ- ation of emotional difficulties, social skills, and executive functioning skills in relation to three bullying roles: bully, victim, and defender. Though there are other roles (e.g., outsiders, assistants, and reinforcers), these three are the most commonly studied and most prevalent (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). A bully is an individual who perpetrates aggressive (i.e., verbal, physi- cal, or relational) acts on peers, while a victim is the recipient of that aggression. A defender is a prosocial individual who intervenes either by stopping bullying or reporting bullying to an adult or by trying to help a victim by becoming the victim’s friend, including the victim, or oth- erwise consoling the victim after bullying has occurred (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

EMOTIONAL DIFFICULTIES AND BULLYING ROLE BEHAVIOR

Emotional health is critical to appropri- ate social and emotional competence. Individ- uals in various bullying roles tend to have differing levels of emotional difficulties. One of the most commonly studied negative out- comes of bullying is emotional difficulties, such as anxiousness, depressive symptoms, and school avoidance (Swearer-Napolitano, 2011). In fact, one reason that bullying is so frequently studied is arguably because of the negative social and emotional outcomes of both bullies and their victims. Although exact results vary from study to study, there is overwhelming support that both perpetrators and recipients of peer aggression have emotional difficulties to some degree (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010). Card et al. (2008) noted that some studies show bullies have no internalizing problems but others do find evidence of internalizing problems. In their meta-analysis, Card et al. found that indirect aggression (i.e., relational aggression) had a

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

greater association with emotional difficulties compared to direct aggression (i.e., physical and verbal aggression). Victims tend to show high levels of emotional difficulties, such as depression, anxiety, loneliness, and difficulties with self-esteem, when compared to other stu- dents (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010). On the other hand, very few studies have investigated the emotional diffi- culties of students who engage in defending, but early studies suggest that defenders are less likely than victims to have emotional dif- ficulties (Janosz et al., 2008). Though emo- tional difficulties (or the lack of emotional difficulties) of bullying participants have re- ceived much attention in the literature, there are other variables, including social skills and executive functioning skills, that are also re- lated to different bullying role participants.

SOCIAL SKILLS AND BULLYING ROLE BEHAVIOR

Social skills (Gresham & Elliott, 2008) and executive functioning skills (Riggs et al., 2006) are two individual characteristics that are vital to appropriate social and emotional development and are also related to each other. Social skills are observable behaviors often used to determine if someone has social competence, such as empathy, assertiveness, cooperation, and responsibility (Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

Some theories postulate that bullies do not have social skills deficits; instead, they use sophisticated social skills to manipulate others in social situations (Sutton, Smith, & Swetten- ham, 1999a, 1999b). Nonaggressive youth with strong social and perspective-taking skills may be more likely to engage in prosocial behavior, such as defending. Individuals with high lev- els of bullying and defending behavior may have similar levels of social skills but use them in very different ways. In fact, Gasser and Keller (2009) found bullies and prosocial children received similar scores on measures of social competence but bullies had signifi- cantly lower scores on measures of moral competence. This is supported by a line of research by Hawley et al. that focuses on the

influence and uses of power in childhood (Hawley, 2003, 2007; Hawley, Little, & Pasu- pathi, 2002; Hawley, Shorey, & Alderman, 2009; Hawley & Williford, 2015). This work examined bullying from a social psychological perspective and postulated that high social power among children and adolescents can be used in a positive way (i.e., defending) or negative way (e.g., bullying). Those with high power often have well-developed social com- petence as well but can wield their power in beneficial or destructive ways.

Generally, studies have found that vic- timized students tend to have low social skills and that bullies and defenders have high levels of some social skills (assertiveness for both bullies and defenders, empathy and self-con- trol for defenders) but lower levels of other social skills (cooperation and self-control for bullies; Jenkins, Demaray, Fredrick, & Sum- mers, 2014). More specifically, when investi- gating social skills of 800 middle school stu- dents in relation to bullying role behaviors, Jenkins et al. (2014) found that victimization was negatively associated with cooperation, assertion, empathy, and self-control. Other studies have found similar results (e.g., Cham- pion, Vernberg, & Shipman, 2003; Egan & Perry, 1998; Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012). Jenkins et al. found bullying behavior to be negatively associated with cooperation and self-control but positively associated with assertion, which is supported by other stud- ies as well (e.g., Chui & Chan, 2013; Perren & Alsaker, 2006; Unnever & Cornell, 2003). Finally, they found a positive association between defending behavior and assertion, empathy, and self-control, which corrobo- rates findings from other studies on defend- ing (e.g., Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe, 2007; Nickerson, Mele, & Princiotta, 2008; Thornberg & Jungert, 2014).

EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING AND BULLYING ROLE BEHAVIOR

Executive functioning encompasses a set of self-regulatory processes responsible for problem solving and the management of goal- oriented behavior (Séguin & Zelazo, 2005).

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

Executive functioning is a somewhat mallea- ble construct that could be targeted through intervention to improve social–emotional function of children and adolescents in an effort to reduce occurrences and negative out- comes of victimization. However, to date, in- terventions focused on promoting social–em- otional well-being have largely ignored exec- utive functioning skills (Riggs et al., 2006). Deficits in executive functioning have been associated with difficulties in the social do- main. Working memory, attention control, and inhibition are some executive functioning skills that have implications for social–em- otional well-being and social competence (Riggs et al., 2006). Deficiencies in these skills may impair an individual’s ability to take others’ perspectives, shift attention, or recognize and consider the potential conse- quences of behavior.

The social information processing the- ory links executive functioning to social com- petence (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Crick & Dodge, 1994). The social information pro- cessing theory explains how individuals per- ceive and react to social stimuli though five cyclical mental steps and an ultimate sixth step during which they enact their plan. The first five steps involve encoding and interpreting social cues (Steps 1 and 2), clarifying goals (Step 3), searching for response options (Step 4), and selecting a response (Step 5). Execu- tive functioning skills are used throughout this model. Executive functioning ability and emo- tions affect social information processing. For example, individuals who are high in negative emotionality and are easily emotionally aroused may have their executive functioning re- sources flooded during stressful social interac- tions such that they cannot cope effectively and they consequently engage in maladaptive social information processing (Ferrier, Bas- satt, & Denham, 2014). On the basis of this evidence, impaired executive functioning may account for poor social competence through interfering with social information processing. Using this theory, Camodeca and Goossens (2005) found victims and bullies to engage in more hostile interpretation, anger, retaliation, and aggression than their peers. Conversely,

defenders of victims demonstrated more adap- tive social information processing with signif- icantly fewer interpretation errors and lower likelihood of engaging in retaliation.

Several studies have been conducted that provide corroborating evidence that dif- ferences in executive functioning underlie the likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior. When examining the association between bul- lying role behavior and executive control among a sample of early elementary students, Verlinden et al. (2013) found that domains of executive functioning predicted risk for bully- ing and victimization. Specifically, inhibition problems, working memory deficits, and global executive functioning were predictive of being a bully, while inhibition problems and low intelligence were predictive of being a victim. The authors did not explore prosocial behav- ior. Other studies with preschoolers have also found impaired executive functioning and the- ory of mind among aggressors (Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2005). Defenders in this study performed the best on theory of mind, decep- tion, planning, and inhibition, while aggres- sors demonstrated the lowest performance. These results suggest that executive function- ing supports prosocial behavior and deficits in executive functioning promote aggression. Preschoolers tend to engage in direct aggres- sion more often than indirect aggression, and the latter type likely requires better theory of mind and planning. Therefore, these results may not generalize to older age groups whose members engage in more indirect aggression.

Among middle school students, bullying behavior was significantly correlated with im- pairments in three areas of executive function- ing: metacognition, social judgments, and de- cision making (Coolidge, DenBoer, & Segal, 2003). Toblin, Schwartz, Gorman, and Abou- Ezzeddine (2005) compared the behavioral characteristics of bullies, aggressive victims, passive victims, and peers. Similar to Verlin- den et al. (2013), they also found evidence for executive functioning impairments among vic- tims, with aggressive victims demonstrating significantly greater emotion dysregulation than all other groups. Mahady-Wilton, Craig, and Pepler (2000) also found evidence that

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

bullies and victims demonstrated unique pat- terns of emotional displays and emotion dys- regulation. Specifically, bullies demonstrated high levels of anger and contempt, which pre- sumably motivated them to engage in aggres- sion to achieve personal desires. Both passive and aggressive victims most frequently en- gaged in maladaptive displays of emotion and emotion regulation. Fox and Boulton (2005) also found that victims demonstrated poor emotion regulation and concluded that this may be a result of high negative emotionality and emotional reactivity that impaired coping through the use of executive functioning. Poor peer relationships have also been associated with impaired cognitive flexibility. Alterna- tively, prosocial behavior, observed among defenders, is associated with strong regulation ability, low emotionality, and constructive problem solving (Eisenberg, Carlo, Murphy, & Van Court, 1995). Executive functioning skills and deficits appear to predict bullying roles. Specifically, response inhibition and working memory problems predict proactive aggression (bullying); planning deficits, inhi- bition problems, cognitive inflexibility, and emotion dysregulation predict reactive aggres- sion and victimization; and cognitive flexibil- ity, emotion regulation, and planning skills predict defending behaviors.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STUDY VARIABLES

There are notable gender differences in many of the variables in this study, so relations among emotional difficulties, so- cial skills, executive functioning, and bullying role behavior were explored separately for boys and girls. Studies suggest boys and girls have a tendency to display different types of bullying behaviors. Although boys are more likely to physically victimize, recent meta- analyses indicate that girls are not more likely to display relational aggression, as widely thought (Card et al., 2008). Girls are more likely to take on the role of the outsider or the defender, whereas boys are more likely to take on the role of the assistant or reinforcer (Salmivalli et al., 1996). In addition, boys are

more likely to be traditional bullies, victims, and bully–victims than girls (Espelage & Holt, 2007).

There are also notable gender differ- ences in emotional difficulties and social skills. Boys are more often identified with behavioral at-risk screening tools (such as the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition [BASC-2] Behavioral and Emotional Screening System [BESS] measure used in the current study) than girls (Dowdy, Doane, Eklund, & Dever, 2011). However, girls often have higher levels of internalizing problems (Verhulst & Ende, 1992). Further- more, bullying has been found to have a stron- ger association with internalizing problems for girls than boys (Ledwell & King, 2015). Gen- der differences in social skills have also been found. For example, girls have been found to score higher than boys on responsiveness, em- pathy, and emotional regulation (Anme et al., 2010). Girls also tend to be rated higher than boys in social skills (e.g., cooperative, asser- tive, responsible, and self-control) by teachers and parents (Abdi, 2010). Finally, inconsistent gender effects have been found on executive functioning skills; some studies have found that girls outperform boys on executive func- tioning measures of verbal skill and inhibitory control (Berlin & Bohlin, 2002; Carlson & Moses, 2001; Levin et al., 1991; Reader, Har- ris, Schuerholz, & Denckla, 1994), but others have found no gender effects (Welsh, Pen- nington, & Groisser, 1991). Therefore, execu- tive functioning was also explored separately for boys and girls.

CURRENT STUDY

Previous research has found that bully- ing, victimization, and defending have unique associations with social skills, emotional dif- ficulties, and cognitive processes, but these characteristics have not been examined simul- taneously as predictors of bullying role behav- iors (e.g., in a single model where social, emotional, and cognitive predictors predict victimization). There is evidence that social skills, lack of emotional difficulties, and exec- utive functioning are all indicators of healthy

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

social and emotional development and the ability to interact appropriately with others in social situations; thus, including all these vari- ables as predictors is important in order to determine which is most strongly related to bullying role behaviors. By examining the rel- ative strength of the association of these vari- ables in a single model, the importance of these individual variables can be elucidated. Determining which of these predictors may be most important would inform prevention and intervention programs that are currently being developed or already implemented in schools. To this end, the current study tested three separate models using structural equation modeling. See Figure 1 for an example of the theoretical model. Each model was tested sep- arately for boys and girls because of gender differences in the experience of and outcomes of emotional problems (Card et al., 2008), social skills (Gresham & Elliott, 2008), and bullying role behaviors (Salmivalli et al., 1996). In each model, social skills, emotional difficulties, and executive functioning served as predictors of bullying role behavior. The model was tested three times with bullying behaviors, defending behaviors, and victim- ization serving as three separate dependent variables (see Figure 1).

On the basis of previous studies inves- tigating individual characteristics and bullying role behaviors, it was hypothesized that (a) bullying behavior would be negatively associ- ated with social skills and executive function- ing skills (Chui & Chan, 2013; Coolidge et al., 2003; Jenkins et al., 2014; Mahady-Wilton

et al., 2000; Monks et al., 2005; Perren & Alsaker, 2006; Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Ver- linden et al., 2013); (b) victimization would be negatively related to social skills and execu- tive functioning skills but positively related to emotional difficulties (Champion et al., 2003; Egan & Perry, 1998; Fox & Boulton, 2005; Jenkins et al., 2014; Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012; Mahady-Wilton et al., 2000; Toblin et al., 2005; Verlinden et al., 2013); and (c) defending behaviors would be positively asso- ciated with social skills and executive func- tioning skills (Eisenberg et al., 1995; Gini et al., 2007; Jenkins et al., 2014; Monks et al., 2005; Nickerson et al., 2008; Thornberg & Jungert, 2014).

METHOD

Student participants completed three rat- ing scales (Bully Participant Behavior Ques- tionnaire [BPBQ], Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scale, and BESS, described below) as part of a school-wide universal screening evaluation. Teacher participants completed one rating scale, Comprehensive Executive Functioning Index.

Participants

There were 246 participants in sixth through eighth grade, including 136 boys (55.3%) and 110 girls (44.7%). There were 90 sixth graders (36.6%), 83 seventh graders (33.7%), and 73 eighth graders (29.7%). Thirty- one of the students were in special educa- tion (12.6%), but additional information re- garding eligibility or type of program was not available. Approximately 72% of the school completed the survey. According to Illinois Interactive Report Card, of the 343 students enrolled in the school, 14.9% received special education services and 53.1% were low in- come, and the ethnic makeup of the school was 97% White and 3% two or more races. Ratings by teachers occurred approximately one month after the students completed their survey, as described in the Procedures section below. Fourteen teachers provided ratings for students, and the number of students they rated ranged from 12 to 22. In order to provide

Figure 1. Theoretical Model

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

ratings, teacher participants had to have the student in at least one academic class and to have known the student for at least 6 weeks.

Procedures

Students completed their rating scales in large groups during their physical education class. To reduce the chance of missing data, teachers checked for skipped items as students turned in rating scales. Items were read aloud to students receiving special education ser- vices for reading. Teachers completed their ratings within 1 month of the student data collection. Students and teachers both used school-issued identification numbers so that data would remain anonymous to researchers but the rating scales could be connected later for research purposes. Active consent from teacher participants was collected as part of the original institutional review board. Later, institutional review board approval was given for access to the extant student survey data, and the two datasets were combined using identification numbers.

Measures

Student participants completed three self-report rating scales and teacher partici- pants completed one rating scale. Each scale is described below.

Bully Participant Behavior Questionnaire The BPBQ (Summers & Demaray,

2008) is a 50-item self-report questionnaire that assesses participation in bullying situa- tions across several roles. The measure has five subscales: Bully, Assistant, Victim, De- fender, and Outsider. Only the Bully, Victim, and Defender subscales were used in the cur- rent study, for example, “I have pushed, punched, or slapped another student” (Bully); “People have tried to make others dislike me” (Victim); and “I defended someone by telling people that a rumor is not true” (Defender). For each item, participants are asked how of- ten they have performed or experienced the behavior over the past 30 days and respond using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (seven or more times). Higher scores

indicate more frequent engagement in or ex- perience of behavior associated with that role.

Psychometric support for the BPBQ is strong. This measure has demonstrated high internal consistency with � coefficients of 0.88 for the Bully subscale, 0.93 for the Victim subscale, and .94 for the Defender subscale (Demaray, Summers, Jenkins, & Becker, 2014). In the current study, � coeffi- cients were 0.84, 0.93, and 0.94 for the Bully, Victim, and Defender subscales, respectively. According to Demaray et al. (2014), subscale– to–total correlations for the total sample were all moderate to high and significant, p � .01. Item–subscale correlations ranged from r � .51 to .80 for the Bully subscale, from r � .73 to .84 for the Victim subscale, and from r � .76 to .85 for the Defender subscale. The fac- tor structure was supported via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Alpha coef- ficients for each subscale ranged from 0.88 to 0.94. See Demaray et al. (2014) for addi- tional evidence of reliability and validity.

Student Version of Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scale

The student version of the Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scale (SSIS; Gresham & Elliott, 2008) consists of 76 items designed to measure social skill performance and engagement in problem behavior. For each item, participants decide how true it is for them and respond using a four-point Likert scale (not true to very true). Only the social skills items were used in the current study. The social skills items represent acquired be- haviors that positively benefit social interac- tions and address communication, cooperation, assertion, responsibility, empathy, engagement, and self-control. Psychometric evidence for the SSIS student version is strong. According to the manual (Gresham & Elliott, 2008), internal consistency estimates for both scales and all subscales range from 0.72 to 0.95. In the current study, � coefficients were 0.81, 0.73, 0.82, and 0.79 for the Empathy, Assertion, Cooperation, and Responsibility subscales, re- spectively. For more detailed information on scoring and the psychometric support for the

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

SSIS, see the manual (Gresham & Elliott, 2008).

BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System

The student version of the BASC-2 BESS (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007) is de- signed for students in Grades 3 through 12 and consists of 30 items designed to measure stu- dents’ behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses. For each item, participants decide how often a statement is true for them and respond using a four-point Likert scale (never to always). Items assess a range of positive behaviors and behavioral problems, including internalizing problems, externalizing prob- lems, school problems, and adaptive skills. Psychometric evidence for the BESS Student Form is strong. Internal consistency estimates are excellent and range from 0.90 to 0.93 across norm types and age groups according to the manual (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007). For more detailed information on scoring and the psychometric support for the BESS, see the manual (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007).

Although the BESS is intended to be used as a screening tool to estimate a student’s general risk for experiencing social and emo- tional difficulties, Dowdy, Twyford, et al. (2011) performed a factor analysis of the scale and found evidence of four discrete subscales: Personal Adjustment (9 items), Inattention– Hyperactivity (5 items), Internalizing Prob- lems (10 items), and School Problems (6 items). The current study used the Internaliz- ing Problems, Personal Adjustment, and School Problems frequency scores in the anal- yses. The Inattention–Hyperactivity items were not used. Though externalizing problems are common among children who engage in bullying, inattention is not commonly associ- ated with bullying, victimization, or defender behavior. Internalizing Problems reflect possi- ble depressed thoughts, high amounts of worry or fear, and self-blame and criticism (e.g., “I feel like my life is getting worse and worse”). Finally, Personal Adjustment reflects how comfortable students feel around others and how well they fit in with peers (e.g., “I feel out of place around people”). School Problems

represents a student’s positive or negative per- ceptions about school and feelings toward teachers and classmates (e.g., “School is bor- ing”). Scores for Internalizing Problems can range from 10 to 40; Personal Adjustment, 8 to 32; and School Problems, 4 to 16. In the current study, � coefficients were .85, .87, and .83 for the Personal Adjustment, Internalizing Problems, and School Problems subscales, respectively.

Comprehensive Executive Functioning Index

The teacher version of the Comprehen- sive Executive Functioning Index (CEFI; Na- glieri & Goldstein, 2012) was used to assess executive functioning. The CEFI is a 100-item rating scale intended to measure behaviors associated with the executive functioning of children and adolescents age 5 to 18 years. It includes items addressing strengths and weak- nesses in attention, emotion regulation, flexi- bility, inhibitory control, initiation, organiza- tion, planning, self-monitoring, and working memory, resulting in a full-scale score and nine subscale scores. Two additional scales assess positive and negative impressions. The teacher is asked to report how often specific behaviors have been observed during the past 4 weeks. For each item, the teacher re- sponds using a six-point Likert scale ranging from never to always. For the purposes of the current study, only the Emotion Regulation, Flexibility, Inhibitory Control, and Self-Mon- itoring subscales were used. An example item from the Emotion Regulation subscale is, “During the past 4 weeks, how often did the child wait patiently?” An exemplar item from the Flexibility subscale is, “During the past 4 weeks, how often did the child solve a prob- lem in different ways?” An example Inhibitory Control item is, “During the past 4 weeks, how often did the child have trouble waiting his/her turn?” Finally, an example item from the Self- Monitoring subscale is, “During the past 4 weeks, how often did the child make careless errors?” Scores are based on a normative sam- ple consisting of 1,400 students age 5 to 18 years. The normative sample was stratified in terms of race–ethnicity, geographic region,

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

and parent education level and was equally composed of male and female students.

Psychometric evidence for the CEFI Teacher Form version is excellent. Internal consistency estimates for both the full scale and all subscales range from 0.90 to 0.99 according to the manual (Naglieri & Gold- stein, 2012). In the current study, � coeffi- cients were .74, .93, .89, and .92 for the Self- Monitoring, Inhibitory Control, Flexibility, and Emotion Regulation subscales, respec- tively. The manual reported that test–retest reliability was high across subscales (adjusted r � .82 to .91). Interrater reliability for the Teacher Form was moderate (adjusted r � .54 to .68). Validity of the CEFI Teacher Form was supported by moderate and directionally appropriate subscale intercorrelations. For more detailed information on scoring and the psychometric support for the CEFI, see the manual (Naglieri & Goldstein, 2012).

Plan of Analysis

A multigroup structural equation model- ing method was used to determine if the direct and indirect effects of social skills, emotional difficulties, and executive functioning on bul- lying role behaviors (i.e., bullying, victim, de- fender) varied by gender. To achieve adequate power (0.8), it was estimated that a minimum of 290 participants would be required to detect an effect, and the recommended sample size to infer a strong model structure was 956 (Co- hen, 1988; Soper, 2015; Westland, 2010). The current study included only 246 participants, but paths were tested using bootstrapping (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002), which allows researchers to have more robust estimates, even with a small sample (i.e., as small as 20–80 cases; Shrout & Bolger, 2002), and is viewed as a superior method for testing direct effects compared to the causal steps (i.e., Baron & Kenny, 1986) approach (Hayes, 2009). The direct effect of each pre- dictor (executive functioning, emotional diffi- culties, and social skills) on each bullying role behavior was estimated, in addition to the di- rect effect of emotional difficulties on execu-

tive functioning, social skills, and bullying role behavior (see Figure 1).

Separate models were tested with each type of bullying role behavior serving as the outcome variable. For each model, one for each bullying role behavior, there were three predictors, or latent variables: executive func- tioning, emotional difficulties, and social skills. There were four indicators for the ex- ecutive functioning latent variable: emotion regulation, self-monitoring, flexibility, and initi- ation. There were three indicators for emo- tional difficulties: personal adjustment, in- ternalizing problems, and school problems. There were four indicators for the social skill latent variable: responsibility, empathy, asser- tion, and cooperation. Indicators for the bul- lying role behavior variable were individual items from the BPBQ that were associated with each respective subscale. Model fit was evaluated based on five measures of fit based on recommendations by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008): �2, comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RM- SEA), and parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI). It is desirable to have a nonsignificant �2 value (Barrett, 2007); however, there are some cautions when interpreting model fit us- ing �2; thus, other fit indices were also con- sidered. Models may be considered to have adequate fit with CFI values above .90 (Browne & Cudeck, 1989) or .95 (Schermel- leh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003), SRMR values below .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), RMSEA values below .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and PNFI values greater than .50 (Mulaik et al., 1989). To test for significant differences in the strength of the direct effects for boys and girls, critical ratios were calcu- lated. To test for differences between path coefficients, critical ratios employ a z test; thus, absolute values exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the path coefficients.

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, and analy- sis-of-variance F and p values comparing mean scores for boys and girls are presented

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

in Table 1. Comparison of mean values of bullying, victimization, and defending across

gender indicated that girls reported signifi- cantly higher levels of defending than boys,

Table 1. Main Study Variables and MANOVA Results

M SD Minimum Maximum F p

Empathy Boys 12.64 3.43 1.00 18.00 22.73 .001 Girls 14.65 3.09 3.00 18.00

Assertion Boys 13.80 3.38 3.00 21.00 1.14 .287 Girls 14.29 3.80 3.00 21.00

Cooperation Boys 15.44 3.55 4.00 21.00 7.95 .005 Girls 16.74 3.62 6.00 21.00

Responsibility Boys 15.60 3.54 4.00 21.00 3.93 .049 Girls 16.49 3.44 4.00 21.00

Personal adjustment Boys 5.85 4.63 0.00 22.00 0.45 .502 Girls 6.27 5.32 0.00 22.00

Internalizing problems Boys 6.59 5.33 0.00 24.00 3.68 .056 Girls 8.05 6.58 0.00 29.00

School problems Boys 3.70 3.10 0.00 12.00 8.27 .004 Girls 2.66 2.39 0.00 10.00

Self-monitoring Boys 26.60 7.20 13.00 41.00 1.04 .308 Girls 27.46 5.70 15.00 41.00

Inhibitory control Boys 33.50 10.96 3.00 50.00 1.39 .240 Girls 34.98 8.16 8.00 50.00

Flexibility Boys 18.60 7.30 3.00 35.00 0.03 .861 Girls 18.75 6.03 6.00 35.00

Emotion regulation Boys 31.90 9.10 4.00 45.00 0.02 .880 Girls 32.06 7.94 3.00 45.00

Bullying Boys 3.21 4.25 0.00 25.00 1.39 .240 Girls 2.61 3.56 0.00 22.00

Victimization Boys 6.63 7.34 0.00 40.00 3.42 .066 Girls 8.59 9.29 0.00 39.00

Defending Boys 9.62 8.03 0.00 36.00 6.23 .013 Girls 12.57 10.53 0.00 40.00

Note. Differences between boys and girls on the main study variables were assessed using MANOVA. Corresponding F and p values are listed. Significant analyses are in boldface. MANOVA � multivariate analysis of variance.

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

but there were no gender differences for bul- lying and victimization. Gender comparisons also indicated that girls had significantly higher empathy, cooperation, and responsibil- ity scores and significantly lower school prob- lems scores compared to boys.

Bivariate correlations among all study variables by gender are reported in Table 2. For girls and boys, bullying and victimization were significantly and negatively related to all four social skills, except correlations between victimization and empathy and between victim- ization and assertion were not significant for girls. Defending was significantly and positively related to all social skills for girls but only sig- nificantly related to empathy for boys. For girls, bullying was significantly and negatively related to personal adjustment and positively related to internalizing problems and school problems, but it was significantly and positively related to per- sonal adjustment, internalizing problems, and school problems for boys. The same pattern emerged for victimization. For girls, defending was significantly and positively related to per- sonal adjustment and school problems, but none of these correlations were significant for boys. For girls and boys, bullying and victimization were significantly and negatively related to all executive functioning variables, with the excep- tion of the correlation between bullying and self- monitoring. Correlations between the defending and executive functioning variables were not significant for boys or girls.

Bullying Role Behavior Model 1 tested the direct effect of exec-

utive functioning, emotional difficulties, and social skills on bullying behavior, as well as the direct effect of emotional difficulties on executive functioning and social skills, which then affects bullying behavior. Table 3 con- tains the standardized and unstandardized co- efficients, standard errors, and p values for the measurement and structural models, and Fig- ure 2 presents a diagram of all standardized path coefficients. The �2 value was significant, �2(366) � 581.11, p � .001, but because other fit indices indicated acceptable fit, CFI � .93, SRMR � .07, RMSEA � .05, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.04, .06], PNFI � .73, the struc-

tural components of the model were inter- preted. All path coefficients for both boys and girls were significant and in the expected direction, except for the paths between ex- ecutive functioning and bullying behavior, as well as emotional difficulties and bully- ing, which were not significant. The critical- ratio z test was significant for the path be- tween social skills and bullying (stronger association for boys). There was not a sig- nificant difference between girls and boys for the other path coefficients.

Victim Role Behavior Model 2 tested the direct effect of exec-

utive functioning, emotional difficulties, and social skills on victim behavior, as well as the direct effect of emotional difficulties on execu- tive functioning and social skills. Table 4 con- tains the standardized and unstandardized coef- ficients, standard errors, and p values for the measurement and structural models, and Figure 3 presents a diagram of all standardized path coefficients. All path coefficients for both boys and girls were significant and in the expected direction, except for the paths between social skills and victimization, as well as executive functioning and victimization, which were not significant for either boys or girls. The �2 value was significant, �2(364) � 696.20, p � .001, but because other fit indices indicated acceptable fit, CFI � .93, SRMR � .05, RMSEA � .06, 95% CI [.05, .07], PNFI � .73, the structural compo- nents of the model were interpreted. The critical- ratio z test was significant for the path between executive functioning and emotional difficulties (stronger association for boys). There was not a significant difference between girls and boys for the other path coefficients.

Defender Role Behavior Model 3 tested the direct effect of exec-

utive functioning, emotional difficulties, and social skills on defender behavior, as well as the direct effect of emotional difficulties on executive functioning and social skills. Table 5 contains the standardized and unstandard- ized coefficients, standard errors, and p values for the measurement and structural models, and Figure 4 presents a diagram of all stan-

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

T ab

le 2.

In te

rc or

re la

ti on

s A

m on

g M

ai n

St u

dy V

ar ia

bl es

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

1. E

m pa

th y

.7 2*

* .6

8* *

.7 5*

* –.

40 **

–. 35

** –.

46 **

.2 8*

* .3

9* *

.2 8*

* .3

9* *

–. 46

** –.

33 **

.2 2*

* 2.

A ss

er tio

n .5

4* *

.6 6*

* .6

9* *

–. 40

** –.

34 **

–. 33

** .2

7* *

.3 5*

* .2

1* .3

7* *

–. 50

** –.

29 **

.1 4

3. C

oo pe

ra tio

n .6

7* *

.5 8*

* .7

8* *

–. 49

** –.

41 **

–. 54

** .3

4* *

.4 6*

* .3

5* *

.4 4*

* –.

54 **

–. 34

** .0

8 4.

R es

po ns

ib ili

ty .7

8* *

.5 8*

* .8

1* *

–. 47

** –.

42 **

–. 43

** .3

5* *

.4 2*

* .3

4* *

.4 5*

* –.

51 **

–. 34

** .1

3 5.

Pe rs

on al

ad ju

st m

en t

–. 41

** –.

42 **

–. 44

** –.

56 **

.6 8*

* .4

8* *

–. 36

** –.

42 **

–. 38

** –.

41 **

.3 1*

* .4

9* *

.0 2

6. In

te rn

al pr

ob le

m s

–. 27

** –.

27 **

–. 31

** –.

42 **

.7 7*

* .5

0* *

–. 45

** –.

51 **

–. 46

** –.

50 **

.2 2*

* .5

5* *

.0 5

7. Sc

ho ol

pr ob

le m

s –.

37 **

–. 39

** –.

47 *

–. 48

** .5

1* *

.4 7*

* –.

28 **

–. 36

** –.

32 **

–. 32

** .4

3* *

.4 0*

* –.

14 8.

Se lf

-m on

ito ri

ng .1

7 .1

3 .1

5 .2

1* –.

20 *

–. 29

** –.

14 .8

6* *

.9 2*

* .7

9* *

–. 12

–. 31

** –.

14 9.

In hi

bi to

ry co

nt ro

l .1

9* .1

1 .2

9* *

.3 0*

* –.

28 **

–. 34

** –.

25 **

.7 2*

* .8

4* *

.9 3*

* –.

29 **

–. 43

** –.

14 10

. Fl

ex ib

ili ty

.1 5

.1 1

.2 2*

–. 22

* –.

29 **

–. 22

* .8

2* *

.6 8*

* .7

7* *

–. 13

–. 34

** –.

12 11

. E

m ot

io n

re gu

la tio

n .1

3 .0

4 .2

6* *

.2 5*

* –.

22 *

–. 28

** –.

14 .5

1* *

.8 6*

* .5

0* *

–. 31

** –.

43 **

–. 11

12 .

B ul

ly in

g –.

38 **

–. 30

** –.

44 **

–. 42

** .2

5* *

.1 9*

.3 4*

* –.

09 –.

27 **

–. 24

* –.

24 *

.4 2*

* –.

07 13

. V

ic tim

iz at

io n

–. 16

–. 17

–. 23

* –.

29 **

.5 6*

* .6

7* *

.4 0*

* –.

30 **

–. 31

** –.

33 **

–. 17

.3 6*

* .2

3* *

14 .

D ef

en di

ng .4

1* *

.3 7*

.3 1*

* .3

2* *

.0 1

.2 0*

–. 07

–. 08

–. 09

–. 15

–. 05

–. 09

.3 2*

N ot

e. C

or re

la tio

ns ab

ov e

th e

di ag

on al

ar e

fo r

bo ys

; th

os e

be lo

w th

e di

ag on

al ar

e fo

r gi

rl s.

*p �

.0 5.

** p

� .0

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

dardized path coefficients. All path coeffi- cients for both boys and girls were significant and in the expected direction, except for the paths between executive functioning and de- fending for girls, as well as between emotional difficulties and defending for boys, which were not significant. The �2 value was signif-

icant, �2(368) � 621.30, p � .001, but be- cause other fit indices indicated acceptable fit, CFI � .95, SRMR � .07, RMSEA � .05, 95% CI [.05, .06], PNFI � .75, the structural com- ponents of the model were interpreted. The critical-ratio z test was significant for the path between emotional difficulties and defending

Table 3. Standardized and Unstandardized Coefficients for Model 1 (Bullying)

Boys Girls

90% CI 90% CI

B SE p � LL UL B SE p � LL UL

SS Empathy 0.90 .07 *** .83 .75 .89 0.76 .06 *** .81 .72 .88 Assertion 0.85 .07 *** .79 .72 .85 0.74 .09 *** .63 .50 .74 Cooperation 0.97 .07 *** .86 .80 .91 0.95 .07 *** .85 .78 .91 Responsibility 1.00 .89 .85 .93 1.00 .95 .91 .99

Emo diff Personal adjustment 1.86 .26 *** .80 .69 .88 3.51 .55 *** .92 .85 .99 Internalizing problems 2.18 .30 *** .81 .70 .89 3.91 .62 *** .83 .74 .89 School problems 1.00 .64 .51 .75 1.00 .58 .40 .73

EF Self-monitoring 0.73 .04 *** .86 .83 .89 0.60 .07 *** .72 .64 .79 Inhibitory control 1.28 .04 *** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.19 .07 *** .99 .99 .99 Flexibility 0.72 .05 *** .84 .81 .88 0.60 .07 *** .68 .59 .76 Emotion regulation 1.00 .93 .91 .95 1.00 .86 .81 .90

Bullying behavior Bad names 1.00 .91 .84 .96 1.00 .85 .64 .97 Made fun of 0.83 .06 *** .83 .72 .90 0.52 .08 *** .63 .45 .81 Left out 0.62 .06 *** .77 .64 .86 0.31 .06 *** .51 .28 .70 Push, punch, slap 0.54 .05 *** .72 .55 .84 0.42 .07 *** .58 .24 .82 Told lies 0.22 .05 *** .41 .17 .58 0.38 .06 *** .57 .28 .80 Make people dislike 0.11 .03 *** .32 .11 .53 0.31 .06 *** .47 .04 .78 Stolen things 0.04 .02 * .21 .03 .43 0.10 .03 *** .36 .07 .69 Thrown things 0.35 .05 *** .55 .33 .72 0.16 .05 ** .30 .08 .52 Said bad things 0.24 .05 *** .39 .12 .60 0.82 .09 *** .79 .55 .89 Talked behind back 0.31 .06 *** .42 .20 .62 0.90 .11 *** .74 .50 .84

Structural model Emo diff 3 EF –2.58 .45 *** –.60 –.71 –.47 –1.74 .54 ** –.35 –.51 –.17 Emo diff 3 SS –1.05 .18 *** –.66 –.78 –.54 –1.43 .29 *** –.61 –.75 –.43 Emo diff 3 bullying 0.02 .07 .77 .04 –.22 .33 –0.01 .07 .91 –.02 –.31 .27 EF 3 bullying –0.01 .01 .61 –.05 –.22 .13 –0.02 .01 .13 –.15 –.39 .05 SS 3 bullying –0.17 .04 *** –.58 –.78 –.32 –0.09 .03 *** –.44 –.73 –.12

Note. The table presents standardized and unstandardized coefficients, 90% CIs, standard errors, and p values for Model 1 (bullying). CI � confidence interval; EF � executive functioning; Emo diff � emotional difficulties; LL � lower limit; SS � social skills; UL � upper limit. *p � .05. **p � .01. ***p � .001.

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

(with a stronger association for girls but it was not significant for boys). There was not a significant difference between girls and boys for the other path coefficients.

DISCUSSION

The goal of the current study was to understand the associations among bullying experiences (i.e., bullying, victimization, and defending) and social skills (i.e., empathy, assertion, cooperation, responsibility), emo- tional difficulties (i.e., personal adjustment, internalizing problems, school problems), and executive functioning skills (i.e., self-monitor- ing, inhibitory control, flexibility, emotional regulation). Learning more about social skills, emotional difficulties, and executive function- ing skills of students in relation to bullying experiences may help inform intervention ef-

forts. Data were collected in a sample of 246 sixth- through eighth-grade students via self- report (i.e., bullying behaviors, social skills, emotional difficulties) and teacher report (i.e., executive functioning skills). On the basis of previous studies investigating individual char- acteristics and bullying role behaviors, it was hypothesized that (a) bullying behavior would be negatively associated with social skills and executive functioning skills (Chui & Chan, 2013; Coolidge et al., 2003; Jenkins et al., 2014; Mahady-Wilton et al., 2000; Monks et al., 2005; Perren & Alsaker, 2006; Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Verlinden et al., 2013); (b) victimization would be negatively related to social skills and executive functioning skills, but positively related to emotional difficulties (Champion et al., 2003; Egan & Perry, 1998; Fox & Boulton, 2005; Jenkins et al., 2014;

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model for Model 1 (Bullying)

Note. The structural equation model shows standardized path coefficients for boys/girls, with p � .001 unless otherwise noted. ** p � .01, NS � not significant.

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012; Mahady-Wilton et al., 2000; Toblin et al., 2005; Verlinden et al., 2013); and (c) defending behaviors would be positively associated with social skills and executive functioning skills (Eisen- berg et al., 1995; Gini et al., 2007; Jenkins

et al., 2014; Monks et al., 2005; Nickerson et al., 2008; Thornberg & Jungert, 2014).

For all three models (i.e., bullying, vic- timization, and defending), emotional difficul- ties were significantly and negatively associ- ated with executive functioning skills and

Table 4. Standardized and Unstandardized Coefficients for Model 2 (Victimization)

Boys Girls

90% CI 90% CI

B SE p � LL UL B SE p � LL UL

SS Empathy 0.90 .07 *** .83 .76 .88 0.76 .06 *** .81 .71 .87 Assertion 0.84 .07 *** .79 .71 .85 0.72 .09 *** .63 .50 .74 Cooperation 0.96 .07 *** .86 .79 .90 0.93 .07 *** .85 .77 .90 Responsibility 1.00 .90 .85 .94 1.00 .96 .91 1.00

Emo diff Personal adjustment 1.86 .26 *** .79 .69 .87 3.28 .50 *** .87 .79 .94 Internalizing problems 2.25 .31 *** .83 .73 .91 4.03 .62 *** .87 .78 .92 School problems 1.00 .63 .50 .73 1.00 .59 .41 .72

EF Self-monitoring 0.74 .04 *** .88 .84 .91 0.60 .07 *** .71 .60 .80 Inhibitory control 1.26 .05 *** .98 .96 1.00 1.22 .08 *** 1.01 .97 1.05 Flexibility 0.74 .04 *** .87 .82 .90 0.59 .07 *** .66 .55 .76 Emotional regulation 1.00 .94 .91 .96 1.00 .85 .80 .89

Victimization behavior Mean names 1.00 .85 .78 .88 1.00 .91 .86 .94 Made fun of 0.91 .08 *** .84 .75 .90 0.99 .06 *** .93 .89 .96 Purposely left out 0.83 .07 *** .83 .69 .90 0.82 .07 *** .82 .73 .87 Ignored 0.79 .08 *** .73 .58 .84 0.93 .07 *** .86 .81 .90 Punched or slapped 0.42 .08 *** .47 .28 .64 0.74 .06 *** .81 .71 .87 Pushed or shoved 0.48 .07 *** .56 .37 .72 0.71 .07 *** .74 .60 .83 Told lies about me 0.79 .07 *** .78 .66 .86 0.86 .07 *** .81 .68 .89 Others dislike me 0.86 .08 *** .81 .68 .88 0.73 .08 *** .69 .52 .80 Threatened 0.38 .07 *** .47 .29 .65 0.47 .06 *** .66 .51 .77 Things taken 0.37 .07 *** .44 .23 .61 0.44 .07 *** .53 .37 .69

Structural model Emo diff 3 EF –2.66 .46 *** –.61 –.71 –.46 –1.75 .53 *** –.37 –.52 –.20 Emo diff 3 SS –1.06 .18 *** –.65 –.76 –.52 –1.39 .28 *** –.60 –.74 –.38 Emo diff 3 victim 0.36 .09 *** .42 .98 .32 0.63 .13 *** .77 .48 .98 EF 3 victim –0.01 .01 .32 –.10 –.27 .08 –0.01 .01 .34 –.08 –.23 .06 SS 3 victim 0.03 .04 .42 –.09 –.10 .32 0.07 .04 .08 .19 –.05 .43

Note. The table presents standardized and unstandardized coefficients, 90% CIs, standard errors, and p values for Model 2 (victimization). CI � confidence interval; EF � executive functioning; Emo diff � emotional difficulties; LL � lower limit; SS � social skills; UL � upper limit. ***p � .001.

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

social skills for both boys and girls. Greater emotional problems were related to lower so- cial skills and more difficulties with executive functioning. Emotional difficulties were not significantly related to bullying behaviors but were significantly and positively associated with victimization for both girls and boys. Thus, more emotional problems were associ- ated with more victimization. This finding supported the prediction that emotional diffi- culties would be significantly and positively related to victimization and is consistent with prior research findings. Research has consis- tently demonstrated that victims tend to have high levels of emotional problems, such as de- pression, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010).

In addition, emotional difficulties were significantly and positively associated with de- fending behaviors for girls but not for boys.

Thus, more defending behaviors, for girls, were associated with more emotional prob- lems. This finding was not predicted and is somewhat surprising. It may be that girls with more emotional difficulties witness more bul- lying in their peer group and, thus, have more opportunities to defend. Alternatively, defend- ing peers in bullying situations may be stress- ful and may be associated with more emo- tional difficulties. Moreover, victims are likely to play a secondary role as a defender (Salmivalli et al., 1996). The emotional diffi- culties could be an artifact of being victim- ized. The present study did not examine out- comes for students who were both victims and defenders. Moreover, there are gender differ- ences in the type of victimization that girls and boys experience (Card et al., 2008), so female defenders may experience more emotional problems because if they are defending an-

Figure 3. Structural Equation Model for Model 2 (Victimization)

Note. The structural equation model shows standardized path coefficients for boys/girls, with p � .001 unless otherwise noted. NS � not significant.

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

other girl, then they may be witnessing or be indirectly involved in relational aggression. More research needs to be done on the emo- tional health of girls who defend victims of bullying.

Executive functioning was not signifi- cantly related to bullying and victimization for

boys and girls. We predicted that executive functioning would be negatively related to both bullying and victimization because other studies have found that skills in executive functioning are related to bullying and victim- ization (Monks et al., 2005; Verlinden et al., 2013). Prior research investigated specific ar-

Table 5. Standardized and Unstandardized Coefficients for Model 3 (Defending)

Boys Girls

90% CI 90% CI

B SE p � LL UL B SE p � LL UL

SS Empathy 0.91 .07 *** .84 .77 .89 0.77 .06 *** .82 .72 .88 Assertion 0.84 .07 *** .79 .71 .85 0.76 .09 *** .65 .52 .75 Cooperation 0.96 .07 *** .86 .78 .90 0.95 .07 *** .85 .77 .90 Responsibility 1.00 .90 .85 .93 1.00 .95 .90 .98

Emo diff Personal adjustment 1.89 .27 *** .80 .70 .88 3.42 .53 *** .90 .82 .97 Internalizing problems 2.22 .31 *** .82 .71 .90 3.96 .62 *** .84 .75 .90 School problems 1.00 .63 .50 .74 1.00 .59 .40 .73

EF Self-monitoring 0.73 .04 *** .86 .83 .89 0.60 .07 *** .72 .63 .79 Inhibitory control 1.28 .04 *** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.19 .07 *** .99 .99 .99 Flexibility 0.72 .05 *** .84 .80 .87 0.60 .07 *** .68 .59 .75 Emotional regulation 1.00 .93 .91 .95 1.00 .86 .81 .90

Defending behavior Become friends 1.00 .71 .60 .81 1.00 .69 .56 .79 Encouraged to tell 1.03 .13 *** .71 .60 .80 1.53 .18 *** .85 .79 .90 Defend if pushed 0.89 .12 *** .67 .51 .79 1.64 .19 *** .88 .82 .92 Defend things taken 0.75 .11 *** .62 .43 .77 1.40 .17 *** .83 .75 .88 Defend called names 1.08 .12 *** .78 .69 .85 1.46 .19 *** .80 .71 .87 Include 1.03 .12 *** .74 .64 .82 1.29 .17 *** .75 .65 .82 Help books knock out 1.21 .14 *** .78 .66 .87 1.48 .19 *** .78 .66 .84 Help purposely tripped 1.25 .13 *** .83 .74 .90 1.58 .18 *** .89 .84 .93 Told an adult 1.03 .12 *** .76 .64 .85 1.52 .18 *** .84 .76 .90 Defend if tricked 1.07 .12 *** .83 .75 .89 1.54 .19 *** .84 .72 .90

Structural model Emo diff 3 EF –2.61 .46 *** –.60 –.70 –.45 –1.77 .54 *** –.36 –.52 –.18 Emo diff 3 SS –1.06 .18 *** –.66 –.77 –.52 –1.40 .28 *** –.61 –.75 –.41 Emo diff 3 defending 0.03 .06 .63 .08 –.19 .35 0.23 .08 ** .44 .19 .69 EF 3 defending –0.02 .01 * –.27 –.45 –.08 –0.02 .01 .12 –.15 –.31 .02 SS 3 defending 0.08 .03 ** .35 .07 .58 .015 .03 *** .69 .51 .89

Note. The table presents standardized and unstandardized coefficients, 90% CIs, standard errors, and p values for Model 3 (defending). CI � confidence interval; EF � executive functioning; Emo diff � emotional difficulties; LL � lower limit; SS � social skills; UL � upper limit. *p � .05. **p � .01. ***p � .001.

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

eas of executive functioning deficits and found significant associations with bullying role be- haviors. For example, bullying behavior has been associated with inhibition problems, working memory deficits, and global execu- tive functioning (Verlinden et al., 2013), as well as problems with metacognition, social judg- ments, and decision making (Coolidge et al., 2003). Victimization has been associated with inhibition and low intelligence (Verlinden et al., 2013). Aggressive victims have been found to have problems with emotional dysregulation (Toblin et al., 2005). For both victims and bul- lies, unique patterns of emotions and emotion dysregulation have been found (Mahady-Wilton et al., 2000). Specifically, bullying has been as- sociated with high levels of anger and contempt. Both passive and aggressive victims engage in maladaptive displays of emotion and emotion regulation. The current study included four areas

of executive functioning: self-monitoring, inhib- itory control, flexibility, and emotional regula- tion. Prior research has investigated some of these areas of executive functioning but also other areas. One reason for the lack of findings in the current study may be different constructs assessed across studies.

Executive functioning was significantly and negatively associated with defending for boys only (the relation was not significant for girls). For boys, higher executive functioning (e.g., higher levels of self-monitoring, emo- tional regulation, and inhibition) was associ- ated with lower levels of defending behavior, which does not support the hypotheses. Prior research has found a positive association be- tween executive functioning tasks and defend- ing. For example, in a study by Monks et al. (2005), defenders demonstrated strong theory of mind, deception, planning, and inhibition.

Figure 4. Structural Equation Model for Model 3 (Defending)

Note. The structural equation model shows standardized path coefficients for boys/girls, with p � .001 unless otherwise noted. ** p � .01, NS � not significant.

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

Eisenberg et al. (1995) found that defending was associated with strong regulation ability, low emotionality, and constructive problem solving.

Youth who engage in defending are tak- ing a “social risk.” Defenders run the risk of becoming a target themselves or being per- ceived as a tattletale if reporting to an adult, or if being friendly toward victimized peers, they may be viewed as having a lower social status. Individuals with high executive functioning tend to be socially aware and likely know their social standing (Monks et al., 2005). So, social self-efficacy, one’s sense of control over one’s social status, may moderate defending behav- ior. Boys who are aware of their social stand- ing, and perhaps concerned about damaging their status, may choose not to defend. It may be that boys who are less inhibited, have less emotional regulation, and less self-monitoring (reflected in lower executive functioning scores) are more likely to defend victims be- cause they are less aware of, or concerned about, their social standing.

Social skills were not significantly re- lated to victimization for boys and girls, coun- ter to hypotheses. Other research has found significant, negative associations among vic- timization and various social skills. For exam- ple, cooperation, assertion, empathy, and self- control were significantly and negatively related to victimization in a recent study (Jenkins et al., 2014); however, the current study in- cluded other variables: executive functioning and emotional difficulties. Including all three of these variables allows the model to statis- tically account for interrelationships among the variables. Although other research has found that social skills are negatively related to victimization, the connections between so- cial skills, executive functioning, and emo- tional difficulties may account for that finding.

As predicted, bullying was significantly and negatively related to social skills. Finally, social skills were significantly and positively related to defending behavior for both boys and girls. This finding supported the predic- tion in the current study and replicated prior research findings (Gini et al., 2007; Nickerson et al., 2008; Thornberg & Jungert, 2014). For example, Jenkins et al. (2014) found a positive

association between defending behavior in middle school students and the social skills of assertion, empathy, and self-control.

Social, emotional, and cognitive skills are all important factors to consider in relation to bullying behaviors, including defending and victimization. It is important to understand the specific skills and characteristics that are as- sociated with engaging in bullying, being vic- timized, or defending victims from bullying. Our findings highlight the importance of in- cluding social, emotional, and cognitive skills in studies on bullying behaviors as each of these constructs was significantly related to at least one of the bully role behaviors.

Limitations and Future Research

The current sample was homogeneous, and consequently, the results may not gener- alize to all populations. Ethnicity, setting (e.g., urban), and age can differentially affect bully- ing and victimization rates and experiences (Swearer-Napolitano, 2011). The relationship between executive functioning skills and bul- lying roles should be examined with diverse populations to determine if the relationship differs across demographics since participants in the current study were from a single school. The sample size is another limitation of the current study. Although some significant re- sults were found, overall the results may not capture all potential effects. Similar studies should be conducted with larger and more di- verse samples. Also, the current study did not address the potential association between exec- utive functioning skills and social skills, and future research may want to include this associ- ation in the analyses to further our understanding of relations among the variables studied.

The present study relied mainly on stu- dent self-report measures in the analyses. When self-report data are being collected, there is always the possibility that students are responding in a biased or dishonest way. Four- teen teachers also provided ratings; this aver- ages to over 17 ratings per teacher. Teachers completed 40 items of the CEFI, which would take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Teachers may have experienced fatigue while

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

completing this many long surveys, and that fatigue may have resulted in response bias. Conclusions drawn from this study would be strengthened by corroborating evidence from more objective forms of data collection such as observation or behavioral experiments. Moreover, longitudinal research is necessary to determine if these individual variables are related to bullying role behaviors over time, in addition to in a cross-sectional manner.

Finally, prior studies have included other types of executive functioning skills. The latent variable of executive functioning created for this study may not correspond ex- actly to conceptualizations of executive func- tioning from other studies. Results should be compared judiciously across studies.

In order to gain a better understanding of the roles that social skills, emotional difficulties, and executive functioning play in bullying situ- ations, observational data and reports from other sources (e.g., teachers, peers, parents) should be collected for these variables. Furthermore, inter- vention programs that target the executive func- tioning of those involved in bullying should be developed and validated. Currently, social–em- otional interventions used for students in- volved in bullying involve social skills les- sons but are not designed to promote exec- utive functioning or emotion regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study investigated the rela- tions among bullying behaviors, social skills, emotional difficulties, and executive function- ing skills for boys and girls in middle school. Results indicated that (a) emotional difficulties were significantly and positively associated with victimization for boys and girls, (b) emo- tional difficulties were significantly and posi- tively associated with defending for girls, (c) executive functioning was significantly and negatively associated with defending for boys, and (d) social skills were significantly and positively related to defending behavior for boys and girls. These results may provide di- rection for future intervention ideas. For ex- ample, given that social skills were signifi- cantly and positively related to defending be-

havior, interventions could be targeted at increasing specific social skills in the school- wide population to give students the tools they need to engage in defending behaviors. More work may be needed to understand why boys with high executive functioning were not en- gaging in defending. There may be specific executive functioning skills that are the true mechanism (versus a global executive func- tioning score) that need to be developed. The study highlights the importance of addressing associated emotional difficulties in schools for both boys and girls who are victims and for girls who are defending others. These different associations demonstrate the importance of considering different skills and characteristics of boys and girls in relation to engaging in or receiving bullying behaviors.

REFERENCES

Abdi, B. (2010). Gender differences in social skills, prob- lem behaviours and academic competence of Iranian Preschool children based on their parent and teacher ratings. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1175–1179. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.256

Anme, T., Shinohara, R., Sugisawa, Y., Tong, L., Tanaka, E., Watanabe, T., & Japan Children’s Study Group. (2010). Gender differences of children’s social skills and parenting using Interaction Rating Scale (IRS). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 260–268. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.008

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid- erations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6. 1173

Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudg- ing model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018

Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2002). Response inhibition, hyper- activity, and conduct problems among preschool chil- dren. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol- ogy, 31, 242–251. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3102_09

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Mul- tivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4

Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 186–197. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x

Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differ- ences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032–1053. doi:10. 1111/1467-8624.00333

Champion, K., Vernberg, E., & Shipman, K. (2003). Non- bullying victims of bullies: Aggression, social skills, and friendship characteristics. Applied Developmental Psy- chology, 24, 535–551. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.08.003

Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2013). Association between self-control and school bullying behaviors among Macanese adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 237–242. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.012.003

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behav- ioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.

Coolidge, F. L., DenBoer, J. W., & Segal, D. L. (2003). Personality and neuropsychological correlates of bul- lying behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1559–1569. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.005

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and refor- mulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

Demaray, M. K., Summers, K. H., Jenkins, L. N., & Becker, L. (2014). The Bully Participant Behavior Questionnaire (BPBQ): Establishing a reliable and valid measure. Journal of School Violence, 15, 158–188. doi:10.1080/ 15388220.2014.964801

Dowdy, E., Doane, K., Eklund, K., & Dever, B. V. (2011). A comparison of teacher nomination and screening to identify behavioral and emotional risk within a sample of underrepresented students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21, 127–137. doi:10.1177/ 1063426611417627

Dowdy, E., Twyford, J. M., Chin, J. K., DiStefano, C. A., Kamphaus, R. W., & Mays, K. L. (2011). Factor struc- ture of the BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screen- ing System Student Form. Psychological Assessment, 23, 379–387. doi:10.1037/a0021843

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.299

Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & Van Court, P. (1995). Prosocial development in late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1179– 1197. 10.2307/1131806

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2007). Dating violence & sexual harassment across the bully-victim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 799–811. doi:10.1007/ s10964-006-9109-7

Ferrier, D. E., Bassatt, H. H., & Denham, S. A. (2014). Relations between executive functioning and emotion- ality in preschoolers: Exploring a transitive cognition- emotion linkage. Frontiers in Psychology, 27, 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00487

Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: Self, peer, and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 75, 313–328. doi:10.1348/000709905X25517

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

Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoe, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and de- fending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467–476. doi:10.1002/ab.20204

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Social skills improvement system: Rating scales manual. Minneap- olis, MN: Pearson Assessments.

Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial mal- adjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00629

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

Hawley, P. H. (2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social competence and aggression may go hand in hand. In P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little, & P. Rodkin (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior (pp. 1–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influencing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 466–473. doi:10. 1080/01650250143000427

Hawley, P. H., Shorey, H. S., & Alderman, P. M. (2009). Attachment correlates of resource control strategies: Pos- sible origins of social dominance and interpersonal power differentials. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- ships, 26, 1097–1118. doi:10.1177/0265407509347939

Hawley, P. H., & Williford, A. (2015). Articulating the theory of bullying intervention programs: Views from social psychology, social work, and organizational sci- ence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 3–15. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.006

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communi- cation Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. doi:10.1080/ 03637750903310360

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Pagani, L. S., Pascal, S., Morin, A. J., & Bowen, F. (2008). Are there detrimen- tal effects of witnessing school violence in early ado- lescence? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 600–608. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.04.011

Jenkins, L. N., Demaray, M. K., Fredrick, S. S., & Summers, K. H. (2014). Associations among middle school students’ bullying roles and social skills. Journal of School Violence, 15, 259–278. doi:10.1080/ 15388220.2014.986675

Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS) manual. Circle Pines, MN: Pearson.

Ledwell, M., & King, V. (2015). Bullying and internaliz- ing problems gender differences and the buffering role of parental communication. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 543–566. doi:10.1177/0192513X13491410

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

Levin, H. S., Culhane, K. A., Hartmann, J., Evankovich, K., Mattson, A. J., Harward, H., . . . Fletcher, J. M. (1991). Developmental changes in performance on tests of purported frontal lobe functioning. Develop- mental Neuropsychology, 7, 377–395. doi:10.1080/ 87565649109540499

Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2012). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotion intelli- gence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadoles- cents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41–58. doi: 10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9

Mahady-Wilton, M., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2000). Emotional regulation and display in classroom bully- ing: Characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors. Social Development, 9, 226–245. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00121

Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2005). Psychological correlates of peer victimization in pre- school: Social cognitive skills, executive functioning and attachment profiles. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 571– 588. doi:10.1002/ab.20099

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of good- ness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psy- chological Bulletin, 105, 430–445. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.105.3.430

Naglieri, J. A., & Goldstein, S. (2012). Comprehensive executive functioning index. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi Health Systems.

Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimiza- tion associated with academic achievement? A meta- analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221–242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x

Nickerson, A. B., Mele, D., & Princiotta, D. (2008). Attach- ment and empathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School Psy- chology, 46, 687–703. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.002

Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kin- dergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 45–57. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01445.x

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing in- direct effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/ BRM.40.3.879

Reader, M. J., Harris, E. L., Schuerholz, L. J., & Denckla, M. B. (1994). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and executive dysfunction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 10, 493–512. doi:10.1080/87565649409540598

Riggs, N. R., Jahromi, L. B., Razza, R. P., Dillworth-Bart, J. E., & Mueller, U. (2006). Executive functioning and the promotion of social-emotional competence. Jour- nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 300– 309. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.04.002

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1�1::AID-AB1� 3.0.CO;2-T.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation mod- els: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 8(2), 23–74.

Séguin, J., & Zelazo, P. (2005). Executive functioning in early physical aggression. In R. E. Tremblay, W. H. Willard, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 307–329). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experi- mental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

Soper, D. S. (2015). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

Summers, K. H., & Demaray, M. K. (2008). Bully par- ticipant behavior questionnaire. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999a). Bullying and “theory of mind”: A critique of the “social skills deficit” view of anti-social behaviour. Social Develop- ment, 8, 117–134. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00083

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999b). So- cially undesirable needs not be incompetent: A re- sponse to Crick and Dodge. Social Development, 8, 132–134. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00085

Swearer-Napolitano, S. M. (2011). Risk factors for and outcomes of bullying and victimization (Paper 132). In Educational Psychology Papers and Publica- tions. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl. edu/edpsychpapers/132

Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2014). School bullying and the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 99–108. doi:10.1002/ab.21509

Toblin, R. L., Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., & Abou- Ezzeddine, T. (2005). Social cognitive and behavioural attributes of aggressive victims of bullying. Applied Development Psychology, 26, 329–346. doi:10.1016/ j.appdev.2005.02.004

Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2003). Bullying, self- control, and ADHD. Journal of Interpersonal Vio- lence, 18, 129–147. doi:10.1177/0886260502238731

Verhulst, F. C., & Ende, J. (1992). Agreement between parents’ reports and adolescents’ self-reports of problem behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 1011–1023. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00922.x

Verlinden, M., Veenstra, R., Ringoot, A. P., Jansen, P. W., Raat, H., Hofman, A., . . . Tiemeier, H. (2013). De- tecting bullying in early elementary school with a computerized peer-nomination instrument. Psycholog- ical Assessment, 42, 953–966. doi:10.1007/s10802- 013-9832-y

Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normative-developmental study of executive functioning: A window on prefrontal function in chil- dren. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 131–149. doi:10.1080/87565649109540483

Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 476–487. doi:10.1016/ j.elerap.2010.07.003

Date Received: April 4, 2015 Dated Accepted: January 7, 2016

Associate Editor: Melissa Holt Article was accepted by former Editor �

Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/132

Lyndsay N. Jenkins, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Eastern Illinois University. Her research interests focus on reducing or preventing mal- adaptive peer interactions, bullying role measurement, understanding characteristics of individuals who engage in bullying roles, and assessing the role of peer and adult bystanders in bullying prevention.

Michelle K. Demaray, PhD, is a professor in the School Psychology Program at Northern Illinois University and is editor of the Journal of School Psychology. She conducts research on social support, as well as bullying and victimization in schools. Her research on bullying includes cyber-victimization and the role of bystanders in the bullying situation.

Jaclyn Tennant is a school psychology doctoral student at Northern Illinois University. Her research interests include peer victimization, emotion regulation, social support, and social–emotional well-being. She is interested in social, emotional, and cognitive factors that differentiate active from passive bystanders as well as factors that promote resiliency for students involved in bullying and other types of adversity.

School Psychology Review, 2017, Volume 46, No. 1

Copyright of School Psychology Review is the property of National Association of School Psychologists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.