Week 11 Assignment

ORIGINAL PAPER

Students with Exceptionalities and the Peer Group Context of Bullying and Victimization in Late Elementary School

David B. Estell Æ Thomas W. Farmer Æ Matthew J. Irvin Æ Amity Crowther Æ Patrick Akos Æ Daniel J. Boudah

Published online: 5 June 2008

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract We examined bullying and victimization in 5th

grade classrooms in relation to students’ education status

and peer group membership. The sample consisted of 484

participants (258 girls, 226 boys), including 369 general

education students, 74 academically gifted students, and 41

students with mild disabilities. Students with mild dis-

abilities were more likely to be perceived as being bullies

by both teachers and peers. Teachers also rated students

with mild disabilities significantly higher for being bullied

by peers. Academically gifted students were rated by

teachers as the lowest for both bullying and being bullied.

Associating with aggressive or perceived-popular peers

increased the likelihood of being perceived as a bully.

Social isolates were more likely to be bullied than students

who did not associate with perceived-popular peers who, in

turn, were more likely to be bullied than students who

associated with perceived-popular peers. Students with

mild disabilities who had aggressive and perceived-popular

associates had more peer nominations for bullying than

all others. In contrast, students in general education with

neither aggressive nor perceived-popular associates had the

fewest peer nominations for bullying. We discuss impli-

cations for research and intervention.

Keywords Bullying � Victimization � Mild disabilities � Giftedness � Peer groups

Introduction

In recent years, several distinct lines of inquiry have helped

to inform current perspectives on bullying and aggression

in schools. This includes research on the social and

behavioral characteristics of youth who are at risk for

bullying and victimization (Hodges and Perry 1999;

Pellegrini et al. 1999; Schwartz 2000), developmental

patterns of victimization (Hanish and Guerra 2002;

Pellegrini and Bartini 2000; Smith et al. 2004; Troop-

Gordon and Ladd 2005), broader classroom social

dynamics and aggression in the peer group (Farmer et al.

2002; O’Connell et al. 1999; Salmivalli et al. 1997) and

linkages between bullying, victimization, and other school

adjustment factors (Glew et al. 2005; Schwartz et al.

2005). Collectively, these studies indicate that students

involved in bullying and victimization are more likely to

have academic and social adjustment problems, that social

roles and peer group processes support bullying, and that

the late elementary school years are a time when classroom

social dynamics may be particularly important to bullying

and victimization.

D. B. Estell (&) Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana

University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

T. W. Farmer

Department of Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and

Special Education, Pennsylvania State University, University

Park, PA, USA

M. J. Irvin � A. Crowther Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

P. Akos

Human Development and Psychological Studies Area, School of

Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel

Hill, NC, USA

D. J. Boudah

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Special Education,

East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

123

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

DOI 10.1007/s10826-008-9214-1

Most research on bullying and victimization focuses on

general school populations. Little work explicitly examines

the involvement of students with exceptionalities. In the

current climate of inclusion, students who receive excep-

tional children’s services tend to make up 10–20% or more

of the public school population and are integrated at least

part of the school day with their general education peers.

While it is likely that many studies on bullying include

students who receive exceptional services within their

samples, these children are typically not identified and it is

not possible to determine the degree to which they impact

results. This is potentially an important oversight because

students at the extremes of school functioning (students

with pronounced learning problems, and students achieving

at advanced levels) may have differential social experi-

ences that impact the degree to which they are involved

in bullying relative to their general education peers

(Kaukiainen et al. 2002; Peterson and Ray 2006). Peer

group affiliations are associated with students’ level of

involvement as bullies and victims (Estell et al. 2007;

Salmivalli et al. 1997), and students who are at the

extremes of school functioning tend to have peer affiliation

patterns that are distinct from those of general education

students (Farmer and Hollowell 1994; Pearl et al. 1998). It

is possible that exceptional students’ involvement in bul-

lying and victimization is related to their peer group

affiliations. Information along these lines could help clarify

how individual and peer group level factors come together

to impact bullying and victimization in the classroom.

Peer dynamics are important part of development. In

late elementary school, children form hierarchical social

structures in which some individuals and peer groups are

more popular and central than others (Adler and Adler

1996; Farmer and Rodkin 1996). Taunting, teasing, direct

confrontation, and physical attacks are forms of aggression

that children (particularly boys) use to demonstrate their

prowess and to establish and protect their positions in the

social structure (Adler and Adler 1996; Farmer 2000;

Pellegrini 1998; Rodkin and Hodges 2003). While physical

aggression is almost universally related to being disliked

(i.e., having low social preference; Asher and Coie 1990),

aggressive behavior has a close association with perceived

popularity (Rose et al. 2004), and social dominance—

while eventually adapting a more affiliative nature—often

begins with aggressive behavior (Pellegrini and Bartini

2000). Not only is aggression a common part of the daily

interpersonal dynamics in school, distinct subtypes of

aggressive youth can be differentiated in terms of popu-

larity (Estell et al. 2002; Estell et al. 2003; Rodkin et al.

2000). Popular aggressive youth are more likely to asso-

ciate with other popular and aggressive peers while

unpopular aggressive youth are more likely to associate

with non-aggressive and unpopular peers (Bagwell et al.

2000; Farmer et al. 2002). In short, while aggression and

dominance are often related to being disliked, they can lead

to high social status and perceived popularity (Estell et al.

2003).

Social dominance and influence in the social structure

also come into play in bullying. Although some bullies are

themselves aggressive victims, many others have high

social positions and are able to engage peers to support

their behavior (Atlas and Pepler 1998; Salmivalli et al.

1997). In fact, bullying episodes in elementary school tend

to involve several peers as onlookers, helpers, and

encouragers (O’Connell et al. 1999). Although some chil-

dren, usually girls, come to the aid of the victimized child,

many youth appear to respond in ways that are aimed at

protecting their status in the social structure including

currying favor with dominant bullies (Adler and Adler

1995; Hawkins and Pepler 2001).

A recent study of the social dynamics of bullying in two

middle schools comprised almost exclusively of rural

African American youth found that both bullies and vic-

tims tended to have rejected sociometric status. However,

while bullies were well integrated into their peer groups,

victims tended to be withdrawn and marginal in the social

structure (Estell et al. 2007). Bullies were heteroge-

neously dispersed in both popular and unpopular groups

and aggressive and non-aggressive groups and they were

highly likely to be leaders of their peer group. Of particular

interest to us, students who were bullies and/or victims

tended to have behaviors (i.e., higher teacher ratings of

attention problems and hyperactivity) and social skills (i.e.,

lower rates of peer nominations of prosocial behavior) that

are typically associated with students with mild

disabilities.

Exceptional students include such children with mild

disabilities as well as students who are identified as aca-

demically gifted, though it is important to note that in our

study both groups spend the majority of their school days

in general education classrooms. For our purposes, the term

students with mild disabilities refers to children with high

incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, mild

mental retardation, and mild emotional and behavioral

disorders), academically gifted refers to high achieving

children who have been identified for academically gifted

education programs, and general education students refers

to children who are not receiving special services to sup-

port their learning needs. Students with exceptionalities

tend to have patterns of social behavior, peer acceptance,

and peer affiliations that are distinct from their general

education peers. While both academically gifted students

and students with mild disabilities differ from general

education peers in terms of social functioning and social

adjustment, they are also markedly different from each

other.

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 137

123

Prior to diagnosis, students later identified as having

high incidence disabilities display social skill deficits and

have low social status (Vaughn et al. 1990; Walker et al.

1998). In preschool settings, students with mild develop-

mental delays are likely to have significant social

interaction problems (Guralnick and Groom 1987) and

these problems are likely to be sustained from the pre-

school to the early elementary school years (Guralnick

et al. 2006). In late childhood and early adolescence, stu-

dents with mild disabilities tend to have problem social

behaviors, social skills difficulties, and are often not well

accepted by their peers (Estell et al. 2008; Farmer et al.

1999; Frederickson and Furnham 2004; Gresham and

MacMillan 1997; Sale and Carey 1995). In turn, they are

also more likely to be socially isolated (Kavale and Forness

1996; Pearl et al. 1998) and to report less social acceptance

(Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004).

Although they are more likely to have social difficulties,

most students with mild disabilities are members of peer

groups (Farmer and Farmer 1996; Pearl et al. 1998).

However, the group membership of students with mild

disabilities may support social problems as they are more

likely to affiliate with classmates with problematic inter-

personal characteristics and less likely to associate with

peers with prosocial characteristics (Farmer and Hollowell

1994). Students with mild disabilities are also more likely

to develop social roles that support aggression or that

makes them the target of the aggressive behavior of others

(Evans and Eder 1993; Farmer and Farmer 1996; Farmer

and Rodkin 1996). In addition, students with mild dis-

abilities who associate with antisocial peers tend to hold

these peers in high esteem (Rodkin et al. 2006).

These social functioning challenges may place students

with mild disabilities at greater risk for involvement with

bullying as both targets and aggressors. Problems with

social functioning, including social information processing

difficulties, social skills deficits, and social isolation are all

risk factors for being victimized by peers (Fox and Boulton

2006). Likewise, elementary students who are chronically

victimized are more likely to experience academic prob-

lems and internalizing difficulties that may place them at-

risk of later learning and behavior problems (Hodges et al.

1999; Schwartz et al. 2005). In contrast, affiliations with

aggressive and deviant peers tend to be associated with a

greater likelihood of bullying others (Estell et al. 2007).

Collectively, these findings suggest that children with mild

disabilities may be more likely to be involved in bullying

as aggressors and/or targets than their typically achieving

peers. Consistent with this view, extant data suggest that

youth with mild disabilities are more likely to be victims

than are their typically-achieving counterparts and they

may be at increased risk of being bullies and bully-victims

(Kaukiainen et al. 2002; Nazuboka and Smith 1993).

Further, data from the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health, which included 1,301 adolescents with

learning disabilities from a sample of 20,780, indicate that

youth with learning disabilities were significantly more

likely than others to report involvement in violent behav-

iors (31% vs. 25% for boys; 20% vs. 11% for girls) and

were more likely to have witnessed or have been a victim

of a violent act (Svetaz et al. 2000).

In contrast to students with mild disabilities, children

who are identified as academically gifted tend to have

higher levels of social functioning than their general edu-

cation peers. Preuss and Dubow (2004) found that

academically gifted students were more likely to employ

active problem-solving approaches to social stressors, and

that being academically gifted moderated the impact of

stressors on adjustment. Academically gifted students are

rated by teachers as having highly positive levels of social

skills (Janke and Lee 1991) and during the elementary

school years they are likely to experience high levels of

social acceptance and low levels of peer rejection (Austin

and Draper 1981; Luftig and Nichols 1990; Schneider et al.

1989). Academically gifted students are also more likely to

have prosocial or popular friends than their non-gifted

peers and less likely to be socially isolated (Farmer and

Rodkin 1996; Pearl et al. 1998; Schneider and Daniels

1992). On the whole, while they may face considerable

stress due to their own high expectations (Moon 2004),

gifted children are largely socially skilled, use effective

social coping mechanisms, are socially integrated with

prosocial peers, and are well adjusted. These factors tend to

be negatively related to victimization, and may also make

involvement with deviant peers and a subsequent increase

in bullying behavior less likely.

In summary, research on peer group dynamics and the

social relations of exceptional students comes together to

suggest that students with mild disabilities may be more

likely to be bullies and victims and they may have social

characteristics and peer affiliation patterns that exacerbate

their risk for involvement in bullying. In contrast, aca-

demically gifted students may have social characteristics

and affiliation patterns that protect against bullying and

victimization. Little work, however, has examined the

relationship between educational status (i.e., academically

gifted, general education, mild disabilities) and involve-

ment in bullying, and less has looked at how this may

interact with associations with aggressive and/or popular

peers. Information along these lines may help clarify peer

group dynamics that contribute to bullying and victimiza-

tion in the classroom. Toward this end, we sought to

examine differences among academically gifted students,

students with mild disabilities, and general education stu-

dents on ratings of victimization and bullying in relation to

their peer associations.

138 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

123

Four research questions guided our work. Our first

research question focused on the relationship between peer

nominated social characteristics and involvement in bul-

lying. Are teachers’ and peers’ perceptions of bullying and

victimization related to peer nominations on key social

factors (i.e., aggression, positive behavior, internalizing,

social prominence, social preference)? We hypothesized

that peer nominations of aggression would be positively

related, and social preference negatively related to both

teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying. We fur-

ther hypothesized that victimization would be negatively

related to peer nominated popularity and social preference,

and positively related to internalizing. Our second research

question examined whether peers perceived classmates

differently as a function of their education status. Do

academically gifted students, general education students,

and students with mild disabilities differ in the nominations

they receive from peers? We hypothesized that gifted stu-

dents would be viewed as popular, well-liked, having

positive behavior, and neither aggressive nor high on

internalizing, while students with special needs would be

viewed by peers as aggressive, high on internalizing, and

low on social preference, popularity, and positive behavior.

Our third research question investigated the relationship

between education status and associations with teacher-

rated aggressive and popular peers. Is education status

differentially linked to peer group membership? We

hypothesized that gifted students would be least likely and

students with special needs the most likely to have

aggressive friends. We also hypothesized that gifted stu-

dents would be most likely and students with special needs

least likely to have popular friends. Our fourth research

question explored the combined effect of education status

and group types on involvement in bullying. Is bullying

and victimization for students in different education status

categories moderated by membership in aggressive and

popular peer groups? We hypothesized that students with

special needs who have aggressive but not popular asso-

ciates would have the highest levels of bullying, and gifted

students with popular but not aggressive associates would

have the lowest levels of bullying. We further hypothesized

that students with special needs and neither aggressive nor

popular associates would have the highest victimization

ratings while gifted students with popular and non-

aggressive associates would have the lowest levels of

victimization.

Method

We employed a multi-source survey design that included

teacher- and peer-report measures as well as school record

information. This included peer reports to identify groups

and to examine how bullying and education status relate to

a variety of other behaviors. We relied on teacher reports to

classify the participants’ associates, and used both peer and

teacher reports to examine involvement in bullying.

Finally, we used school record information to determine

the education status of the participants.

Participants

Participants came from eleven elementary schools in two

school districts. Both districts were located in a state in the

Southeastern United States. One district served a small

metropolitan area and the other served a rural county. We

obtained parent consent and student assent for 69% of the

701 students from 35 classrooms across the schools. Class

size ranged from 18 to 27, with an average of 20 students

per classroom. An average of nearly 14 of these 20 students

participated in the present study. The sample consisted of

484 fifth graders (258 girls, 226 boys), including 369

(76.2%; 196 girls and 173 boys) general education stu-

dents, 74 (15.3%; 50 girls and 24 boys) academically gifted

students, and 41 (8.5%; 12 girls and 29 boys) students with

high incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, mild

mental retardation, emotional and behavioral disorders; see

Table 1). While 10–20% of students typically qualify as

having special needs, we examined only those students

with special needs who spent the majority of their day in

Table 1 Sample characteristics by education classification and

gender

Girls Boys Total

Not in special education 196 (53.1%) 173 (46.9%) 369 (76.2%)

Academic gift 51 (68.0%) 24 (32.0%) 75 (15.5%)

Learning disability 3 (20.0%) 12 (80.0%) 15 (3.1%)

Emotional handicap/emotional behavior disability 1 (20.0%) 4 (80.0%) 5 (1.0%)

Mild mental retardation 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.7%) 6 (1.2%)

Speech impairment 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.7%) 6 (1.2%)

Other health impairment 0 (0.0%) 4 (100.0%) 4 (0.8%)

Unspecified special need 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

504 plan 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 3 (0.6%)

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 139

123

general education classrooms. This reduced the number of

children with special needs in the sample to the previously

mentioned 8.5%. These percentages reflect the distribution

of these populations within the school districts where this

research was conducted and were also consistent with state

level rates of having mild special needs and giftedness.

All students who were in the top 15% of their class in

achievement were considered academically gifted by the

schools. Students in the mild disability sample were iden-

tified by local school assessment procedures that reflected

federal definitions and guidelines for learning disabled,

behavioral disordered, health disability, noncategorical

disability, mild mental retardation, and speech disability.

The different definitions are not provided because all stu-

dents with disabilities were collapsed into a single category

(mild disabilities). We did this for three reasons. First,

preliminary analyses indicated a high level of similarity

between the different special education classifications for

teacher-, peer-, and self-assessed characteristics. However,

variability in the sample sizes for different categories,

together with the very small sample size of some catego-

ries, could have led us to misinterpret the results.

Collapsing students into a single mild disabilities category

protected against inaccurate comparisons across disability

areas.

Second, during the current climate of serving and

identifying special education students based on service

needs (e.g., mild and moderate need, high incidence ser-

vice needs) rather than categorical approaches, there is

considerable variability across states in terms of how

categorical classifications are operationalized. By focusing

on students with mild disabilities who were included in

general education classrooms for most of the school day,

we avoid the issue of variability in categorical classifi-

cations. Third, our aim was not to identify characteristics

associated with specific disabilities. Rather, our goal was

to explore the relationship between bullying involvement

and students with disabilities in general. Further, this

approach has been used in other studies of the peer

relations of students with disabilities in general education

classrooms (e.g., Farmer et al. 1999; Sale and Carey

1995; Rodkin et al. 2006).

Because we focused on the social relations of students

with disabilities in inclusive settings, we recruited only

those students who spent more than 50% of the school day

in general education classrooms to participate. Therefore,

all participants, regardless of education status, were

included in general education classrooms for all or most of

the school day, and all classroom assessments refer to

inclusive rooms. Fifty-five percent (267/483) of our par-

ticipants were Caucasian, 41% (198/483) were African

American, 1% (3/483) were Latino(a), and 3% (15/483)

were of another ethnicity.

Ethnicity and special education status were related

(v(6,n=483) 2 = 17.74, p \ .01). Among Caucasians, 70.4%

(188/267) were in general education, 8.2% (22/267) had

special needs, and 21.3% (57/267) were academically gif-

ted. Eighty-three percent (165/198) African Americans

were in general education, 8.6% (17/198) had special

needs, and 8.1% (16/198) were academically gifted. All

three Latino/a students were in general education. Finally,

80.0% (12/15) of individuals from other ethnicities were in

general education, 13.3% (2/15) had special needs, and

6.7% (1/15) were academically gifted.

Procedures

We used group administration procedures when collecting

the survey data. Before the administration of the survey, we

assured participants their answers would be kept confi-

dential, asked them to protect the confidentiality of their

responses, and told them that they could stop participating

at any time. We consulted teachers prior to administration

about typical accommodations needed by students for

exams, and made parallel accommodations where needed.

During the survey, one administrator read the instructions

and questions aloud, while additional administrators pro-

vided mobile monitoring and assistance as needed.

Teachers also completed rating forms on each participant

during the group administration. Non-participants were

told by their teachers to work on class assignments during

the data collection.

For all peer nomination measures, the probe focused on

the classroom level (i.e., participants were told that they

could only nominate peers in their classroom). We did this

because the sample was in elementary school and there was

minimal interaction among students in different classes. All

peer nominations were made from free recall (i.e., we did

not provide class rosters).

Measures

Social Cognitive Maps (SCM)

For this measure, participants were asked ‘‘Are there some

kids in your class who hang around together a lot? Who are

they?’’ Following the procedures developed by Cairns and

colleagues (e.g., Cairns et al. 1985), participants were

instructed to list, from free recall, as many groups as they

could think of in their class. In addition, they were asked to

circle the individual or individuals who were the leaders of

each group, if the group had a leader.

To identify distinct groups within the classroom social

network, we analyzed the SCM data following the proce-

dures outlined by Cairns and colleagues (Cairns and Cairns

1994; Cairns et al. 1995a). SCM procedures have been

140 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

123

used extensively in research on school social networks in a

variety of populations including a mixed-race urban and

rural sample (Cairns et al. 1988), a mixed-race suburban

sample (Rodkin et al. 2000), inner-city African Americans

(Estell et al. 2002; Xie et al. 1999), Chinese students

(Leung 1996), and students with special needs (Farmer and

Hollowell, 1994). Three week test-retest reliability coeffi-

cients indicate high short-term stability of children’s peer

groups (i.e., 90% of groups maintain a majority of their

members over this period; Cairns et al. 1995a). Further, the

results of SCM analyses match observed affiliations

(Cairns and Cairns 1994; Cairns et al. 1985).

We identified a total of 45 primarily-male groups with a

range of 2–9 members, and 29 male isolates. The mean

group size for boys was 6.26. A total of 61 female groups

were identified with a range of 2–9 members, and there

were 14 female isolates. The mean group size for girls was

5.23. These means and ranges are consistent with those of

other studies of late elementary and middle school peer

groups (Bagwell et al. 2000; Cairns et al. 1988; Farmer

and Hollowell 1994; Xie et al. 1999).

Teacher Ratings of Social Adaptation

Teachers rated participants on a number of items relating to

social adaptation. These items were displayed in Likert-

type seven-point formats. The present study utilized three

of these items: ‘‘bullied by peers,’’ ‘‘bullies peers,’’

‘‘manipulates friendships.’’ The two items relating to bul-

lying (as aggressor or target) were used as dependent

variables, and the ‘‘manipulates friendships’’ was included

in the ICS-T factor analysis (described below) as a measure

of relational aggression.

ICS-T

Teachers rated participants on the Interpersonal Compe-

tence Scale—Teacher (ICS-T; Cairns et al. 1995b), an 18-

item instrument which asks teachers to rate children on a

variety of characteristics relating to aggressiveness, popu-

larity, and academic competence. The items are displayed

in Likert-type, seven-point scales. These scales are

anchored by frequency (i.e., often vs. never fights, argues,

etc.) or degree (very popular vs. not popular; has lots of

friends vs. has very few friends). These 18 items load onto

six sub-scales, though for the present study, only an

aggression factor (‘‘argues,’’ ‘‘gets in trouble,’’ and

‘‘fights’’ from the ICS-T, with ‘‘manipulates friendships’’

from the teacher ratings described above added; a = .84) and the popularity factor (‘‘popular with boys,’’ ‘‘popular

with girls,’’ ‘‘has lots of friends,’’ a = .81) were examined. Past research has shown that 3-week test-retest reliability

coefficients are moderately high (i.e., .80–.92), median

test-retest r across the factors are .81 for girls and .87 for

boys, and 1-year coefficients are moderately strong (i.e.,

.40–.50; Cairns et al. 1995b). ICS-T has been shown to

have convergent validity with direct observations, grades,

school discipline reports, and peer nominations, and pre-

dictive validity for early school dropout, teen parenthood,

and criminal arrest in early adulthood, (Cairns and Cairns

1994; Cairns et al. 1995b). This measure has also been

used extensively in past work on issues pertaining to

popularity and aggression (Cairns et al. 1988; Estell et al.

2002, 2007; Farmer and Rodkin 1996; Rodkin et al. 2000).

Peer Social Preference

Participants were asked to nominate up to three classmates

from a list of participants they liked the most and up to

three they liked the least, and social preference was cal-

culated following the criteria described in Asher and Coie

(1990). Specifically, each participant’s number of nomi-

nations for being most liked and least liked were

standardized within class, and social preference score was

calculated by subtracting their liked-least z-score from

their liked-most z-score.

Peer Interpersonal Assessments

We used peer interpersonal assessments to determine

classmates’ perceptions of peers’ social and behavioral

characteristics. Students were asked to nominate, from free

recall, up to three classmates who best fit descriptors for

several items. They were told during the testing procedures

that they could nominate the same person for more than

one item, they did not need to fill all three blanks if they

did not know three people who fit an item, they could

bypass an item if they felt that they did not know anyone at

all who fit that particular item, and that they could nomi-

nate themselves. For analyses using these items, however,

all self-nominations were removed from consideration,

making these peer-nominations exclusively.

Past studies using these measures have indicated 3-week

test-retest reliability with individual items ranged from .72

to .93. These items are identical with or similar to peer

assessments used by other investigators (e.g., Coie et al.

1982; Masten et al. 1985), and past work has found strong

evidence of reliability and validity in diverse samples (Coie

et al. 1982; Masten et al.1985). We divided the total num-

ber of nominations participants received for each peer

assessment item by the total number of possible nominators

(i.e., all participants in the class). Because the denominator

was the total number of participants in each class, the

resulting proportions were in many cases quite small. In

order to make mean differences clearer, we linearly trans-

formed these proportions by multiplying them by 1,000.

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 141

123

We ran a principal components analysis with a Varimax

rotation on 12 items (‘‘bully’’ and ‘‘picked on’’ were

excluded from the factor analysis and instead used as

dependent variables). Four factors had eigenvalues in excess

of 1.0, and a scree plot indicated that a four-factor solution

provided the best fit to the data, as there was a major change

in slope between the fourth and fifth factors. This four-

component solution accounted for 75.6% of the variance in

the items. As seen in the rotated loading matrix in Table 2,

all items loaded on their corresponding component in excess

of .74, and no item cross-loaded on another component

greater than .31. The resulting factors were aggression

(Cronbach’s a = .87; consists of ‘‘disruptive,’’ ‘‘starts fights,’’ ‘‘gets in trouble,’’ and ‘‘starts rumors’’), positive

behavior (a = .85; consists of ‘‘cooperative,’’ ‘‘good stu- dent,’’ and ‘‘friendly’’), social promience (a = .76; consists of ‘‘athletic,’’ ‘‘cool,’’ and ‘‘popular’’), and internalizing

(a = .66; consists of ‘‘acts shy’’ and ‘‘sad’’).

Peer-group Types

We classified the peer groups identified by the SCM

analysis according to the aggression and popularity level of

their constituent members. Consistent with past work

examining peer-group characteristics (Farmer et al. 2002),

we calculated within-sex and -class z-scores for the ICS-T

aggression and popularity factors. We classified a partici-

pant as popular or aggressive if their z-score was greater

than or equal to ?.50. This resulted in 32.2% (146/454) of

participants being identified as popular and 31.0% (140/

452) as aggressive.

Peer-group types were a function of the proportion and

number of aggressive and popular members in the group.

For the example of aggression, we classified a participant

as having aggressive associates if at least 50% of their

SCM-derived peer group members were classified as

aggressive or, in larger groups, if they had at least three

aggressive associates. We used identical criteria to classify

groups by the proportion and/or number of popular

members.

Results

We present out results in four major sections, corre-

sponding to our four research questions. The first section

uses correlation analyses to examine how peer-nominated

interpersonal characteristics relate to bullying and victim-

ization. The second section uses ANOVAs to examine the

relationship between educational status and peer-nomi-

nated characteristics. The third section uses v2 analyses to investigate the relationship between education status and

aggressive and popular groups. The fourth and final section

employs MANOVAs with follow-up ANOVAs and Tu-

key’s tests to explore the combined effect of education

status and group types on bullying and victimization.

Peer Behavioral Nominations and Bullying and

Victimization

We calculated correlations within classrooms and then

combined them for the following analyses. Due to the

number of correlations run, we only considered those sig-

nificant at less than the .0025 level (.05/20) as significant.

Teacher ratings of ‘‘bullies’’ were positively related to peer

nominated aggression (r(454) = .50, p \ .001) and promi- nence (r(454) = .21, p \ .001) factors, negatively related to the peer nominated positive behavior factor (r(454) = -.17,

p \ .001) and social preference (r(451) = -.28, p \ .001), and unrelated to the peer nominated internalizing factor

(r(454) = -.01, p = .86). Peer nominations for ‘‘bully’’

were positively related to the peer aggression factor

(r(480) = .89, p \ .001) and the prominence factor (r(480) = .40, p \ .001), negatively related to social pref- erence (r(477) = -.24, p \ .001), and unrelated to the peer positive behavior (r(480) = -.08, p = .08) and internaliz-

ing (r(480) = .08, p = .10) factors.

Teacher ratings of ‘‘bullied’’ were negatively related to

social preference (r(452) = -.17, p \ .001), but unrelated to aggression (r(455) = .06, p = .19), internalizing

(r(455) = .28, p = .05), positive behavior (r(455) = -.13,

p = .01), or prominence (r(455) = -.11, p = .05). Peer

nominations of ‘‘picked on’’ were positively related to

aggression (r(480) = .29, p \ .001) and internalizing

Table 2 Peer nomination loadings for varimax-rotated component matrix

Component

Aggression Positive

behav.

Social

prom.

Internalizing

Disruptive .90 -.04 -.02 -.02

Starts fights .86 -.06 .24 .06

Gets in

trouble

.82 -.11 .14 .02

Starts rumors .76 .07 .25 -.04

Cooperative -.06 .88 .25 .12

Good student .01 .85 .12 -.01

Friendly -.09 .86 .11 .17

Athletic .26 -.00 .74 .06

Cool .25 .24 .83 -.10

Popular .02 .31 .78 -.06

Acts shy -.07 .21 .02 .84

Sad .08 .01 -.07 .86

Note: all loadings in excess of .4 are bolded

142 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

123

(r(480) = .81, p \ .001), negatively related to social pref- erence (r(477) = -.37, p \ .001), and unrelated to positive behavior (r(480) = .04, p = .44) or prominence (r(480) =

-.03, p = .55).

These results indicate that both teachers and students

viewed bullying as related to aggression and social prom-

inence, but also associated with being disliked (i.e., low

social preference). Teachers also saw bullying as related to

low levels of prosocial behaviors. Both students and

teachers viewed being the target of bullying as related to

being disliked, and students further saw it as related to

being aggressive and high in internalizing behavior.

Education Status and Peer Behavioral Nominations

Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the

peer-nomination factors and social preference by educa-

tional classification. Education status was not related to

either the social prominence (F(2,477) = 1.04, p = .35;

gp 2 = .004) or aggression (F(2,477) = 0.79, p = .45;

gp 2 = .003) factors. It was related to peer-nominated pro-

social behavior (F(2,477) = 7.13, p \ .001; gp 2 = .029),

internalizing (F(2,477) = 8.43, p \ .001; gp 2 = .034), and

social preference (F(2,474) = 4.61, p \ .01; gp 2 = .019).

Post-hoc Tukey’s tests indicated that academically gifted

students had more positive behavior nominations than

general education students or students with mild disabili-

ties. Students with mild disabilities had higher internalizing

nominations than general education or academically gifted

students. Finally, academically gifted students had signifi-

cantly higher social preference scores than students with

mild disabilities.

Education Status, Behavioral Classification, and Peer

Associates

Education status was not significantly related to the tea-

cher-rated aggressive classification (v(2,n=452) 2 = 4.51,

p = .11). For students in general education, 32.7% (111/

339) were rated by teachers as aggressive. This compared

to 35.0% (14/40) of students with mild disabilities and

20.5% (15/73) of academically gifted students. Education

status was also not related to teacher-rated popularity status

(v(2,n=454) 2 = 4.00, p = .14). Among children in general

education, 30.6% (104/340) were classified as popular, as

were 27.5% (11/40) of those with mild disabilities and

41.8% (31/74) of academically gifted participants.

Our analyses for peer associations suggested that there

were differences in peer group affiliations as a function of

education status. The effect for aggressive associates was

not significant (v(2,n=465) 2 = 5.30, p = .07). The differences

for education status were pronounced for popular associ-

ates (v(2,n=465) 2 = 39.37, p \ .001). A lower proportion (57/

350, or 16.3%) of participants in general education had

popular associates than expected by chance (Fisher’s Exact

Probability \ .001), and a higher proportion (36/74, or 48.6%) of academically gifted students had popular asso-

ciates (Fisher’s Exact Probability \ .001). The proportion of students with mild disabilities (6/41, or 14.6%) was not

significantly different from chance (Fisher’s Exact

Probability = .19).

These results show that students in general education,

those who are gifted, and those who have mild disabilities

were all equally likely to be considered aggressive or

popular, and are equally likely to have aggressive associ-

ates. Gifted students were, however, more likely to have

popular associates.

Bullying and Victimization by Education Status and

Group Types

Bullying by Education Status and Group Types

To examine the potential interaction of groups and edu-

cation classifications on bullying, we ran a MANOVA with

education classification, popular associates, and aggressive

associates as independent variables and peer-nominations

and teacher-ratings of being a bully as the dependent

variables. The MANOVA indicated that there were main

effects of education status (Wilks’ K = 0.93,

Table 3 Peer-nominated characteristics by education status

Variable Education status

General education Mild disabilities Academically gifted

M SD M SD M SD

Social prominence 82.06 94.43 89.45 143.21 100.00 92.77

Aggression 56.73 102.65 76.34 137.69 51.27 85.08

Positive behavior 92.75A 107.29 70.39A 96.28 141.07B 136.23

Internalizing 52.64A 73.32 96.87B 121.03 34.89A 62.22

Social preference 0.11AB 1.45 -0.31A 1.61 0.56B 1.69

Different superscripts indicate significant differences (p \ .01)

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 143

123

F(4,884) = 8.55, p \ .001; gp 2 = .053), aggressive-associ-

ates (Wilks’ K = 0.93, F(2,442) = 16.93, p \ .001; gp

2 = .071), popular-associates (Wilks’ K = 0.96, F(2,442) = 9.57, p \ .001; gp

2 = .041), education status by

aggressive associates (Wilks’ K = 0.95, F(4,884) = 5.57, p \ .001; gp

2 = .048), education status by popular associ-

ates (Wilks’ K = 0.94, F(4,884) = 6.42, p \ .001; gp

2 = .043), and the three-way interaction of education

status by aggressive associates by popular associates

(Wilks’ K = 0.94, F(2,442) = 14.59, p \ .001; gp 2 = .062).

To probe these multivariate effects, we ran follow-up

ANOVAs for each dependent. For teacher ratings of

‘‘bullies’’ we found main effects for education status

(F(2,443) = 4.79, p \ .01; gp 2 = .021), and aggressive

associates (F(1,443) = 9.05, p \ .01; gp 2 = .020), but no

main effect of popular associates (F(1,443) = 1.49, p = .22;

gp 2 = .003), and no two-way interactive effects of educa-

tion status by either aggressive associates (F(2,443) = 0.12,

p = .88; gp 2 = .001) or popular associates (F(2,443) = 3.01,

p = .05; gp 2 = .013), and no three-way interaction of edu-

cation status by aggressive group by popularity group

(F(1,443) = 0.35, p = .55; gp 2 = .001).

Post-hoc tests indicated that the main effect of education

status was due to students with mild disabilities (M = 4.16,

SE = 0.54) having significantly higher teacher ratings of

being bullies than those in general education (M = 3.15,

SE = 0.17) who in turn had higher ratings of being bullies

than academically gifted students (M = 2.14, SE = 0.26).

The main effect of aggressive associates was due to those

with aggressive associates (M = 4.21, SE = 0.43) having

higher ratings for being bullies than those without

aggressive associates (M = 2.43, SE = 0.17).

In summary, teacher ratings of bullying were highest

among students with mild disabilities and lowest among

gifted students. Further, all students with aggressive asso-

ciates had higher teacher ratings of bullying.

For peer-nominations of ‘‘bully’’ there were main effects

for education status (F(1,443) = 11.59, p \ .001; gp 2 = .050),

aggressive associates (F(1,443) = 33.53, p \ .001; gp 2 =.

070), and popular associates (F(1,443) = 18.74, p \ .001; gp

2 = .041). There were also two-way interactions of edu-

cation status by aggressive associates (F(2,443) = 8.96,

p \ .001; gp 2 = .039) and popular associates (F(2,443) =

9.48, p \ .001; gp 2 = .041). Finally, the three-way interac-

tion of education status by aggressive group by popularity

group was significant (F(1,443) = 21.42, p \ .001; gp 2 =

.046).

Post-hoc tests indicated that the main effect of education

status was due to individuals with mild disabilities

(M = 200.97, SE = 29.51) having more peer nominations

for bullying than students in general education

(M = 56.64, SE = 9.25) or academically gifted students

(M = 50.89, SE = 14.17). The main effect of aggressive

associates was due to those with aggressive associates

(M = 190.19, SE = 23.65) having more nominations for

bullying than those without aggressive associates

(M = 38.69, SE = 9.33). Similarly, the main effect of

popular associates was due to those with popular associates

(M = 162.74, SE = 22.89) having more nominations for

bullying than those without popular associates (M = 61.57,

SE = 10.56).

Figures 1 and 2 show the two-way interactions of edu-

cation status by aggressive associates and education status

by popular associates, respectively. Post-hoc tests indicate

that students with mild disabilities and aggressive associ-

ates had more peer nominations of being bullies than all

other cells. Individuals in general education and aggressive

associates had significantly more peer nominations for

being bullies than all those without aggressive associates.

Finally, academically gifted students with aggressive

associates had more peer nominations for bullying than

academically gifted students and general education stu-

dents without aggressive associates.

Post-hoc tests for the education status by popular asso-

ciates interaction indicated that students with mild

disabilities and popular associates had more peer nomina-

tions for being bullies than all others. Students with mild

disabilities without popular associates had significantly

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Agg. Assoc. Not Agg. Assoc.

P ee

r "B

ul ly

" N

om in

at io

ns General Education Students

Students With Mild Disabilities

Academically Gifted StudentsD

C BC ABA A

Fig. 1 Peer nominations of ‘‘bully’’ by education status and

aggressive affiliations

144 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

123

more peer nominations for being bullies than those in

general education with popular associates and academi-

cally gifted students with popular associates.

Figure 3 shows the three-way interaction of education

status by aggressive associates by popular associates. Post-

hoc tests indicated that individuals with mild disabilities

who had aggressive and popular associates had more peer

nominations for bullying than all others. On the other end

of the spectrum, individuals in general education with

neither aggressive nor popular associates had the lowest

number of nominations. These individuals significantly

differed from all participants with aggressive associates as

well as students with mild disabilities with neither

aggressive nor popular associates.

In summary, peer nominations for bullying were highest

among students with mild disabilities, students with

aggressive associates, and students with popular associates.

But these relationships were more complicated. While

having aggressive associates was related to higher nomi-

nations for bullying for all groups, the effect was especially

evident among students with mild disabilities, and much

less marked in gifted students. A more pronounced dif-

ference occured with popular associates. While having

popular associates was related to higher nominations for

bullying in students with mild disabilities, popular

associations related to fewer nominations for bullying in

gifted and general education students. Finally, these vary-

ing types of associations exacerbated each others’ effects:

students with mild disabilities who belonged to groups of

both aggressive and popular peers had extremely high

numbers of peer nominations for bullying.

Victimization by Education Status and Group Types

We ran parallel analyses to those for bullying for victim-

ization, with the inclusion of isolates as a third group type.

We ran a MANOVA with education classification, popular

associates, and aggressive associates as independent vari-

ables and peer-nominations of being picked on and teacher-

ratings of being bullied as the dependent variables. This

MANOVA indicated that there was a main effect of edu-

cation status (Wilks’ K = 0.95, F(4,886) = 5.92, p \ .001; gp

2 = .037), aggressive associates (Wilks’ K = 0.97, F(2,443) = 4.66, p \ .01; gp

2 = .020) and popular associates

(Wilks’ K = 0.96, F(2,443) = 4.68, p \ .01; gp 2 = .021).

There were no interactive effects for education status by

either aggressive associates (Wilks’ K = 1.00, F(4,880) = 0.59, p = .67; gp

2 = .005) or popular associates (Wilks’

K = 0.98, F(4,880) = 0.31, p = .87; gp 2 = .002), and no

significant three-way interaction of education status by

0 Pop. Assoc.

P ee

r "B

ul ly

" N

om in

at io

ns

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Not Pop. Assoc.

General Education Students

Students With Mild Disabilities

Academically Gifted Students

AB

C

A AB B AB

Fig. 2 Peer nominations of ‘‘bully’’ by education status and

popular affiliations

Not Agg. & Pop Assoc. Not Agg. & Not Pop Assoc.

General Education Students

Students With Mild Disabilities

Academically Gifted Students

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Agg. & Pop. Assoc. Agg. & Not Pop. Assoc.

P ee

r "B

ul ly

" N

om in

at io

ns

ABCBCDAABABAB CD

EE

F

DE

Fig. 3 Peer-nominations of ‘‘bully’’ by education status,

aggressive and popular

affiliations

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 145

123

aggressive associates by popular associates (Wilks’

K = 1.00, F(2,440) = 0.89, p = .41; gp 2 = .004).

We probed these effects with follow-up ANOVAs for

each dependent variable. For teacher ratings of ‘‘bullied’’

there was a main effect of education status (F(2,441) = 7.62,

p \ .001; gp 2 = .033), aggressive associates (F(1,441) =

4.09, p \ .05; gp 2 = .019), and popular associates

(F(1,441) = 5.55, p \ .01; gp 2 = .022). There were no

interactive effects for education status by either aggressive

associates (F(2,441) = 1.04, p = .35; gp 2 = .005) or popular

associates (F(2,441) = 0.45, p = .64; gp 2 = .002), and no

significant three-way interaction of education status by

aggressive associates by popular associates (F(1,441) =

1.78, p = .18; gp 2 = .004). Post-hoc tests indicated that the

main effect of education status was due to significant dif-

ferences among all three groups of students: those with

mild disabilities (M = 3.10, SE = 0.29) had the highest

ratings for being bullied, followed by those in general

education (M = 2.44 SE = 0.08), while academically gif-

ted participants were the lowest (M = 1.34, SE = 0.07).

The main effect of aggressive associates was due to isolates

(M = 3.37, SE = 0.32) having higher ratings of being

bullied than participants with (M = 2.47, SE = 0.14) or

without (M = 2.15, SE = 0.08) aggressive associates.

Finally, the main effect of popular associates was due to

isolates (M = 3.37, SE = 0.32) having higher ratings of

being bullied than those without popular associates

(M = 2.35, SE = 0.08) and those with popular associates

(M = 1.77, SE = 0.12). Students without popular associ-

ates had significantly higher ratings of being bullied than

those with popular associates.

In summary, teachers rated students with mild disabili-

ties as highest in being bullied, and gifted students lowest.

Further, while isolates had high ratings for being bullied,

those with popular associates had very low ratings for

being bullied.

For peer nominations of ‘‘picked on’’ there were sig-

nificant main effects of aggressive associates (F(1,441) =

5.33, p \ .01; gp 2 = .023), and popular associates

(F(1,441) = 5.47, p \ .01; gp 2 = .022). The main effects of

education status (F(2,441) = 2.17, p = .12; gp 2 = .010) was

non-significant. The interactions of education status by

aggressive associates (F(2,441 = 0.22, p = .80; gp 2 = .001),

education status by popular associates (F(2,441 = 0.17,

p = .84; gp 2 = .001), and education status by aggressive

associates by popular associates (F(1,441 = 0.04, p = .84;

gp 2 = .000) were also all non-significant. Post-hoc tests

indicated that the main effect of aggressive associates was

due to isolates (M = 181.04, SE = 41.59) having higher

numbers of nominations for being picked on than those

with (M = 75.92, SE = 12.91) or without (M = 59.68,

SE = 6.87) aggressive associates. Similarly, the main

effect of popular associates was due to isolates

(M = 181.04, SE = 41.59) having higher numbers of

nominations for being picked on than those with

(M = 47.41, SE = 9.67) or without (M = 67.99,

SE = 7.34) popular associates. In short, isolates had high

numbers of peer nominations for being bullied.

Discussion

The social dynamics of bullying and victimization involves

the interplay between the interpersonal characteristics of

individual students and the characteristics of the peer

groups in which they are embedded (Rodkin and Hodges

2003; Salmivalli et al. 1997). Consistent with prior

research with late elementary students (e.g., Adler and

Adler 1995; Hodges and Perry 1999; Pellegrini et al.

1999), our results indicate that bullying was positively

associated with peer nominated aggression and—more

modestly—social prominence, and negatively related to

peer social preference and peer nominations of positive

behavior. Victimization was positively related to peer

nominations for internalizing and modestly related to

aggressive behavior (positively) and social preference

(negatively). Further, while the effect sizes were small,

students who associated with aggressive peers and students

who associated with popular peers were more likely to be

identified as bullies. Students who were isolated were more

likely to be bullied than students were in non-popular

groups, who, in turn, were more likely to be bullied than

peers who were in popular groups.

Our findings help extend current viewpoints by showing

that academically gifted students, general education stu-

dents, and students with mild disabilities are differentially

involved in bullying. Further, such involvement is moder-

ated in part by their peer group membership. In our sample

of 5th graders, students with mild disabilities were more

likely to be viewed by peers as being bullies than

were academically gifted and general education students.

Teachers also perceived students with mild disabilities as

being more likely to be bullies and victims of bullying than

were general education students. General education stu-

dents were, in turn, more likely to be rated by teachers as

bullies and as being bullied than were academically gifted

students. In addition, students with mild disabilities who

associated with aggressive and popular peers were more

likely to be bullies than all other students. In contrast,

general education students who were not in popular or

aggressive groups were least likely to be nominated by

peers as bullies.

The importance of our findings comes into focus when

considered in light of ethnographic research on social

dynamics and survey research on social networks and

bullying participant roles. Ethnographic studies (e.g., Adler

146 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

123

and Adler 1995; Evans and Eder 1993) describe early

adolescent social dynamics as being a process where stu-

dents are constantly vying for social positions and for

social identities that protect against being victimized and

excluded by others. In such a context, students who are

social isolates are particularly vulnerable to being targeted

by bullies. Students who are themselves socially vulnerable

(e.g., students with mild disabilities) are likely to seek out

the approval of popular peers and to bully others as a way

to promote their own social positions. Further, by targeting

peers who are vulnerable, bullies appear to use aggressive

strategies as a way to consolidate the support of others in

their peer group (Salmivalli et al. 1997). In contrast, stu-

dents in middle-level peer groups (e.g., groups that are not

prominent or peripheral in the social structure) are more

focused on school activities than their social prominence

and are less likely to be involved in bullying (Adler and

Adler 1996).

When examined from this backdrop, our results have

important implications for understanding bullying and

victimization in late elementary classrooms. As students

jockey for position in their classroom social network, they

may seek to reduce their own social vulnerability by bul-

lying others and by associating with popular and aggressive

peers. Because they are socially vulnerable (Frederickson

and Furnham 2004; Gresham and MacMillan 1997; Sale

and Carey 1995), students with mild disabilities may be

susceptible to being bullied and may compensate by bul-

lying others and by affiliating with peers who support this

behavior. On the other hand, academically gifted students

tend to be fairly well accepted in late elementary school

(Austin and Draper 1981; Schneider et al. 1989) and may

focus more on academics than social prominence. There-

fore, while they tend to be socially prominent and associate

with peers who teachers view as being popular, academi-

cally gifted students do not appear to be vulnerable to being

bullied and seem to be relatively less likely to be involved

in bullying. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that general

education students who are not in popular or aggressive

groups—i.e., those who are not supported in aggression by

aggressive peers and are not fighting to maintain a prom-

inent position in the social hierarchy—may be the least

likely to be involved in bullying.

Our study has important implications for the develop-

ment of bullying prevention programs and for the inclusion

of students with exceptionalities in general education

classrooms. First, there is a need for teachers to be aware

that membership in both aggressive peer groups and pop-

ular peer groups may place students at risk for bullying

others. Teachers may then be able to utilize seating charts

and group activities to encourage such students to form

associations with prosocial peers. Second, there is a need

for anti-bullying efforts that focus specifically on the social

risks of students with mild disabilities. Such students are

susceptible to both bullying and being victimized and may

also develop peer affiliations that further support their risk

for involvement in bullying. Current efforts in these areas

may need to be modified to account for individual needs.

Third, there is a need to develop inclusion strategies that

are responsive to the differential social needs and risks of

students with exceptionalities and that focus on creating

classroom social contexts that reduce bullying by enhanc-

ing the social opportunities and social positions of all

students.

While our findings are compelling, our study has several

limitations that must be considered. First, it should be

noted that despite their significance, the effect sizes for all

the relationships discussed above are small—ranging from

.02 to .07. These effect sizes may be due in part to the

complexity of the models being fitted—inclusion of three

main effects in addition to two-two-way and one-three-way

interactions greatly reduces the variability that any one

component of the model can explain. Beyond that, how-

ever, this speaks to the complexity of the processes leading

to bullying and victimization: while exceptionalities and

peer relations are important, many other factors are at

work. This leads directly to the second major limitation.

There are a number of variables that could be confounds

that we could not include in the study. Family structure and

socio-economic status, for example, tend to be related to

the need for special education services and academic

giftedness, and also have demonstrated relationships with

social outcomes. These variables could be driving many of

the relationships we found and may be contributing to the

variance unexplained by the our model.

A third key limitation was that the sample only included

fifth grade students. While this was consistent with our goal

of focusing on classroom social dynamics during late ele-

mentary school and the emerging transition to early

adolescence, it is not appropriate to generalize our findings

to early elementary school or to middle school. Additional

research is needed that addresses our aims in samples of

both younger and older students. Fourth, the sample of

students with disabilities was small and students with dif-

ferent types of mild disabilities were aggregated together.

Although our sample was small in statistical terms, it is

fairly large relative to many studies that focus on the social

relations of students with mild disabilities. Because of

issues of critical mass (i.e., only a few students with mild

disabilities per classroom), it was necessary to have very

large samples to study this population. This made it nec-

essary to collapse students with different high incidence

disabilities into a single category. While this is not an

appropriate practice when the aim is to generate knowledge

about a particular disability category, it does demonstrate

the need to include a focus on students with disabilities in

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 147

123

bullying and victimization research (which was one of our

key aims). There is clearly a significant need for large scale

studies that have sufficiently large samples of students with

different disabilities.

Finally, our investigation did not examine gender dif-

ferences. It is likely that boys and girls are involved in

bullying and victimization in different ways. Girls are more

likely to be involved with relational forms of bullying and

aggression while boys tend toward physical forms of

harassment (Crick et al. 1996). These forms of aggression

have differential relationships with both social skills

(Farmer 2000) and social functioning with peers (Cillessen

and Mayeux 2004).This is especially important in light of

the higher incidence of mild disabilities among boys and

the higher rate of giftedness among girls. The relationships

between exceptionalities, bullying, and popularity may be

in many ways driven by these gender differences. Unfor-

tunately, it was not possible to examine gender differences

among students with exceptionalities because of our small

sample sizes. As a result, our measures also collapsed

across forms of aggression (i.e., included both physical and

relational aggression). While the resulting measures of

internal consistency were adequate, there may be differ-

ential relationships between exceptionalities, social

functioning, and different forms of aggression. Research

with larger samples is needed to explore gender differences

across different special education categories as well as

within general education populations. Such work with

larger samples may be able to disentangle the effects of

exceptionalities on bullying and social functioning behav-

ior from those associated with gender and forms of

aggression.

In conclusion, our study indicates that students with

mild disabilities, academically gifted students, and general

education students are differentially at-risk for involvement

in bullying and victimization. Further, membership in both

aggressive and popular peer groups supports bullying,

while membership in popular groups appears to protect

against victimization. While our work has several limita-

tions, it does provide clear evidence to suggest a need for

research that focuses more specifically on exceptional

populations in bullying research. In addition, the finding

that membership in popular peer groups may support bul-

lying but protect against victimization is highly

provocative and warrants more intensive examination.

Finally, our results suggest there is a need to carefully

consider and explore the social vulnerability and bullying

involvement of students with exceptionalities in the

development of anti-bullying interventions. While there is

currently a strong focus on inclusion and on the use of peer

support strategies (i.e., cooperative learning, peer tutoring)

to address the instructional needs of students with mild

disabilities in general education classrooms, our findings

suggest that some pairings of students may be advanta-

geous while others may be highly detrimental. There is a

critical need to scientifically generate new information in

this area that can ultimately be used to help guide peer

support practices and anti-bullying efforts.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by grants H325C020106 and H324C040230 from the Office of Special Edu-

cation Programs of the Department of Education to Thomas W.

Farmer (Principal Investigator). The views expressed in this article

are ours and do not represent the granting agency.

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion

in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145– 162.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1996). Preadolescent clique stratification

and the hierarchy of identity. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 111–142. Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Patterns of close relation-

ships and socioemotional and academic adjustment among

school-age children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabil- ities Research and Practice, 19, 12–19.

Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the

classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–99. Austin, A. B., & Draper, D. C. (1981). Peer relationships of

the academically gifted: A review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 129–133.

Bagwell, C. L., Coie, J. D., Terry, R. A., & Lochman, J. E. (2000).

Peer clique participation and social status in preadolescence.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 280–305. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of

youth in our time. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. J., & Gariépy,

J.-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer

support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823.

Cairns, R. B., Leung, M.-C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995a).

Friendships and social networks in childhood and adolescence:

Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Development, 66, 1330–1345.

Cairns, R. B., Leung, M.-C., Gest, S. D., & Cairns, B. D. (1995b). A

brief method for assessing social development: Structure,

reliability, stability, and developmental validity of the Interper-

sonal Competence Scale. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 33, 725–736.

Cairns, R. B., Perrin, J. E., & Cairns, B. D. (1985). Social structure ad

social cognition in early adolescence: Affiliative patterns.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 339–355. Cillessen, A. N. H., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From Censure to

reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association

between aggression and social status. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 75, 147–163.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and

types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.

Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences

in children’s normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt

thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 1003– 1014.

148 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

123

Estell, D. B., Cairns, R. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2002).

Aggression in inner-city early elementary classrooms: Individual

and peer group configurations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 52–76.

Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2007). Bullies and

victims in rural African American youth: Individual character-

istics and social network placement. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 145–159.

Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., & Rodkin, P. C.

(2003). Heterogeneity in the relationship between popularity and

aggression: Individual, group, and classroom influences. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.), S. C. Peck, & R. W. Roeser (Vol. Eds.),

New directions for child and adolescent development: Vol. 101. Person-centered approaches to studying human development in context (pp. 75–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., Farmer, T. W., &

Rodkin, P. C. (2008). Peer groups, popularity, and social

preference: Trajectories of social functioning among students

with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 5–14.

Evans, C., & Eder, D. (1993). ‘No exit’: Processes of social isolation

in the middle school. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 139–170.

Farmer, T. W. (2000). The social dynamics of aggressive and

disruptive behavior in school: Implications for behavioral

consultation. Journal of Education and Behavioral Consultation, 21, 194–208.

Farmer, T. W., & Farmer, E. M. Z. (1996). Social relationships of

students with exceptionalities in mainstream classrooms: Social

networks and homophily. Exceptional Children, 62, 431–450. Farmer, T. W., & Hollowell, J. H. (1994). Social networks in

mainstream classrooms: Social affiliations and behavioral char-

acteristics of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 143–155.

Farmer, T. W., Leung, M.-C., Pearl, R., Rodkin, P. C., Cadwallader,

T. W., & Van Acker, R. (2002). Deviant or diverse groups? The

peer affiliations of aggressive elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 611–620.

Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial

correlates of classroom social positions: The social network

centrality perspective. Social Development, 5, 174–188. Farmer, T. W., Rodkin, P. C., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. M. (1999).

Teacher-assessed behavioral configurations, peer assessments,

and self-concepts of elementary students with mild disabilities.

Journal of Special Education, 33, 66–80. Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2006). Friendship as a moderator of the

relationship between social skills problems and peer victimiza-

tion. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 110–121. Frederickson, N. L., & Furnham, A. F. (2004). Peer-assessed

behavioural characteristics and sociometric rejection: Differ-

ences between pupils who have moderate learning difficulties

and their mainstream peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 391–410.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A.

(2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic per-

formance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031.

Gresham, F. M., & MacMillan, D. L. (1997). Social competence and

affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities.

Review of Educational Research, 67, 377–415. Guralnick, M. J., & Groom, J. M. (1987). The peer relations of mildly

delayed and nonhandicapped preschool children in mainstrea-

med playgroups. Child Development, 58, 1556–1572. Guralnick, M. J., Hammond, M. A., Connor, R. T., & Neville, B.

(2006). Stability, change, and correlates of the peer relationships

of young children with mild developmental delays. Child Development, 77, 312–324.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of

patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Develop- ment and Psychopathology, 14, 69–89.

Hawkins, D. L., & Pepler, D. J. (2001). Naturalistic observations

of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999).

The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle

of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94–101. Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal

antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685.

Janke, R. W., & Lee, K. (1991). Social skills ratings of exceptional

students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 54–66. Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M.,

Vauras, M., Maki, H., et al. (2002). Learning difficulties, social

intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim

problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269–278. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and

learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 226–237.

Leung, M.-C. (1996). Social networks and self enhancement in

Chinese children: A comparison of self reports and peer reports

of group membership. Social Development, 2, 146–157. Luftig, R. L., & Nichols, M. L. (1990). Assessing the social status of

gifted students by their age peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 111–115.

Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A revised class

play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology, 21, 523–533.

Moon, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Social/emotional issues, underachieve- ment, and counseling of gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Nazuboka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Sociometric status and social

behavior of children with and without learning difficulties.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disci- plines, 34, 1435–1448.

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in

bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437–452.

Pearl, R., Farmer, T. W., Van Acker, R., Rodkin, P., Bost, K. K., Coe,

M., et al. (1998). The social integration of students with mild

disabilities in general education classrooms: Peer group mem-

bership and peer-assessed social behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 167–185.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review of

and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 165–176.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of

bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition

from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 699–725.

Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies,

victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group

affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216–224.

Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims,

perpetrators, prevalences and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148–168.

Preuss, L. J., & Dubow, E. F. (2004). A comparison between

intellectually gifted and typical children in their coping

responses to a school and a peer stressor. Roeper Review, 26, 105–111.

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 149

123

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Van Acker, R., Pearl, R., Thompson, J.

H., & Fedora, P. (2006). Who do students with mild disabilities

nominate as cool in inclusive general education classrooms?

Journal of School Psychology, 44, 67–84. Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. M. (2000).

Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial config-

urations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14–24. Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2003). Bullies and victims in the

peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school

professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384–400. Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and

relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental

differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Develop- mental Psychology, 40, 378–387.

Sale, P., & Carey, D. M. (1995). The sociometric status of students

with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6–19.

Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1997). Peer

networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305–312.

Schneider, B., & Daniels, T. (1992). Peer acceptance and social play

of gifted kindergarten children. Exceptionality, 3, 17–29. Schneider, B. H., Clegg, M. R., Byrne, B. M., Ledingham, J. E., &

Crombie, G. (1989). Social relations of gifted children as a

function of age and school program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 48–56.

Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s

peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181–192.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005).

Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic

functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425–435. Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P.

(2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing

victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565–581.

Svetaz, M. V., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Adolescents with

learning disabilities: Risk and protective factors associated with

emotional well-being: Findings from the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 340–348.

Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer

victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates:

Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76, 1072–1091.

Vaughn, S., Hogan, A., Kouzekanani, K., & Shapiro, S. (1990). Peer

acceptance, self-perceptions, and social skills of learning

disabled students prior to identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 101–106.

Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H.,

& Feil, E. G. (1998). First step to success: An early intervention

approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, 66–80.

Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1999). Social networks and

configurations in inner-city schools: Aggression, popularity, and

implications for students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 147–155.

150 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

123