Programmatic Assessment

JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION

Bullies, Victims, and Bully/Victims: Distinct Groups of At-Risk Youth

Denise L. Haynie Tonja Nansel

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Patricia Eitel

Ogilvy and Mather Aria Davis Crump

University of Maryland, College Park Keith Saylor

Neurosciences, Inc. Kai Yu

Bruce Simons-Morton National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Bullying and victimization are prevalent problems in the area of adolescent peer rela- tionships. Middle school students (N = 4,263) in one Maryland school district completed surveys covering a range of problem behaviors and psychosocial variables. Overall, 30.9% of the students reported being victimized three or more times in the past year and 7.4% reported bullying three or more times over the past year. More than one half of the bullies also reported being victimized. Those bully/victims were found to score less favorably than either bullies or victims on all the measured psychosocial and behavioral variables. Results of a discriminant function analysis demonstrated that a group of psychosocial and behavioral predictors—including problem behaviors, attitudes toward deviance, peer influences, depressive symptoms, school-related functioning, and parenting—formed a linear separation between the comparison group (never bullied or victimized), the victim group, the bully group, and the bully/victim group.

Bullying and victimization among youth have received increased attention in recent years by researchers and educators internationally and in the United

29

This research was supported by a contract from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- ment to Behavior and Health Research, Inc. (Contract No.1-HD-4-3207).

Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 21 No. 1, February 2001 29-49 © 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

States. Whereas adolescent violence usually is defined by measurable events such as assault, theft, and vandalism, a lesser form of violence, bullying, is vastly more prevalent (Batsche & Knoff, 1994). Bullying is a form of peer abuse that includes acts of aggression in which one or more students physi- cally and/or psychologically harass a weaker victim (Batsche & Knoff et al., 1994; Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992; Olweus, 1994).

Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization

The majority of research on bullying and victimization has been con- ducted in European countries. Rates of bullying and victimization have been found to vary from country to country. For example, estimated rates of bully/ victim problems are 15% in Norway (Olweus, 1997), 18% to 20% in England (Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Lowenstein, 1998; Newson & Newson, 1984), and 25% in Australia (Slee, 1994). A World Health Organization (WHO) international survey of adolescent health-related behaviors (King, Wold, Tudor-Smith, & Harel, 1996) found wide variation in rates of bullying and victimization among adolescents in participating countries. The percentage of students who reported taking part in bullying at least once during the cur- rent school term ranged from a low of 13% of girls and 28% of boys in Wales to a high of 67% of girls and 78% of boys in Greenland. The percentage of students who reported having been victims of bullying ranged from a low of 13% of girls and 15% of boys in Sweden to a high of 72% of girls and 77% of boys in Greenland.

Although data from the United States were not included in the 1996 WHO report (King et al., 1996), preliminary analysis of data from the 1997/1998 WHO survey of students in the United States indicated that 19.5% of youth reported bullying others three or more times over the past year, and 8.8% of youth reported bullying others once a week or more. The percentage of those who reported being bullied was similar, with 16.9% reporting being bullied three or more times over the past year and 8.4% reporting being bullied once a week or more (Nansel et al., 2000). Other studies that have addressed only victimization found that an estimated 15% to 20% of youth in the United States reported being victimized (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Kaufman et al., 1998). Rates of victimization reported are dependent on the way in which victimization is defined and measured. For example, Perry, Kusel, and Perry (1988) reported that 10% of boys and girls in the United States, 9 to 12 years of age, are victims of “extreme peer abuse.” Other survey research has indi- cated that 75% of adolescents have been victimized at least once during their school years (Hoover et al., 1992).

30 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Characteristics of Bullies

Adolescents identified as bullies are found to demonstrate poorer psycho- social functioning than do their peers who are not so identified. Bullies have been found to be aggressive, hostile, and domineering toward peers, and to exhibit little anxiety or insecurity (Byrne, 1994; Craig, 1998; Olweus, 1995). Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts, and King (1982) found bullies to be stronger physically than their victims, have positive attitudes toward aggression, neg- ative attitudes toward peers, and to be unpopular, but not as unpopular as their victims. As compared with their nonbullying peers, bullies scored lower on measures of behavior conduct (Austin & Joseph, 1996) and cooperation (Rigby, Cox, & Black, 1997), and scored higher on measures of externalizing behav- ior and hyperactivity (Kumpulainen et al., 1998) and the Eysenck psycho- ticism factor (Slee & Rigby, 1993b). Bullies, according to their self-reports, perceive themselves as impulsive and lacking in self-control (Bjorkqvist, Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982). Considering their higher levels of externalizing behavior and poorer peer relationships, it would be expected that bullies might not function as well in the school environment. In fact, bullies have been found to like school less (Rigby & Slee, 1991) and be less popular with teachers than were nonbullies (Slee & Rigby, 1993a).

In addition to the concurrent poorer functioning, long-term negative con- sequences have been documented for bullies. Bullies are at increased risk of becoming involved in delinquency, crime, and alcohol abuse (Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Magnusson, Stattin, & Duner, 1983). Bullies identified by 8 years of age are six times more likely to be convicted of crimes as young adults and are five times more likely to have serious criminal records by the age of 30 (Olweus, 1993). In the short term, bullying might allow children to achieve their immediate goals without learning socially acceptable ways to negotiate with others, resulting in persistent maladaptive social patterns.

Characteristics of Victims

Victims also exhibit poorer social functioning. They tend to be more depressed, anxious, and insecure than other students; show lower levels of self-esteem; and usually are cautious, sensitive, and quiet (Craig, 1998; Olweus, 1995; Rigby & Slee, 1991). Compared with nonvictimized peers, victims have been found to be more withdrawn, depressed, worried, and fear- ful of new situations (Byrne, 1994) and to score higher on internalizing behavior and psychosomatic symptoms (Kumpulainen et al., 1998) and the Eysenck introversion factor (Slee & Rigby, 1993b). Victimized students report feeling more lonely and less happy at school and having fewer good

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 31

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

friends (Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1993; Slee, 1995; Slee & Rigby, 1993a) than other students have reported. Evidence has indicated that victims, particularly girls, are concerned about being avoided socially or evaluated negatively by their peers (Slee, 1995). Although victims respond in various ways to bullying (Perry et al., 1988), avoidance/escape behaviors, such as not going to school, refusing to go certain places, and running away from home are common; suicide attempts might occur in extreme cases (Batsche et al., 1994).

The consequences for victimization also appear to persist into adulthood. In a longitudinal study, Olweus (1993) found that as young adults, former victims of bullying had more symptoms of depression and lower self-esteem than did their nonvictimized peers.

Characteristics of Bully/Victims

Few studies have addressed the characteristics of adolescents who both bully and have been victimized. Like bullies, bully/victims demonstrate higher levels of verbal and physical aggression than do comparison children (Craig, 1998). Compared with nonbullying youth and even to those who bully only, bully/victims were found to score higher on measures of externalizing behav- ior and hyperactivity (Kumpulainen et al., 1998) and depressive symptoms, and to score lower on measures of scholastic competence, social acceptance, behavior conduct, and global self-worth (Austin & Joseph, 1996).

Correlates of Bullying and Victimization

Given the prevalence of bullying and victimization and the seriousness of the consequences for those involved, a better understanding of modifiable factors associated with bullying and victimization is needed. In some previ- ous literature, bullying has been viewed as a subset of violent or aggressive behaviors (Batsche et al., 1994; Furlong & Morrison, 1994). Because adoles- cent problem behaviors, such as violence, substance use, and delinquent behavior are believed to co-occur (Donovan, Jessor, & Costa, 1988) and share common mediators (Ellickson, Saner, & McGuigan, 1997; Simons-Morton, Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1998) variables associated with other common problem behaviors could be related to bullying as well. Those might include parent and school influences on behavior (Simons-Morton et al., 1999).

Parenting practices. As noted previously, psychological and psychosocial correlates of bullying and victimization have been studied. Few studies, how- ever, have been used for examination of the associations among perceived

32 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

parenting practices, bullying, and victimization. The findings that have been reported with regard to bullying have been consistent and can be interpreted within a framework of contrasting parenting styles and their effects on ado- lescent development. Olweus (1980) found bullying to be related to three par- ent characteristics: (a) a negative emotional attitude such as lack of warmth and involvement, (b) permissiveness toward aggressive childhood behavior, and (c) the use of power-assertive parenting methods like physical punish- ment. Similarly, Loeber and Dishion (1984) reported that parents who used inconsistent, highly aversive discipline techniques and physical punishment were more likely to have an aggressive child. Bowers, Smith, and Binney (1994) found that bullies reported more troubled relationships with parents, and perceived their parents to be low in monitoring and warmth and high in either over-protection or neglect. Overall, those studies have indicated that parenting practices might be associated with bullying. In the literature on parenting style, power assertive parenting practices and a lack of warmth such as those described in association with bullying (Olweus, 1993) are char- acteristic of an authoritarian parenting style (Baumrind, 1991b) and described in association with less than optimal adolescent outcomes. In contrast, an authoritative parenting style, in which parents practice consistent, democratic discipline, vigilant monitoring, and high levels of warmth and support, has been associated with more optimal adolescent outcomes (Baumrind, 1991a; Smetana, 1995; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). Less is known about the associations between parenting practices and victim- ization. Those associations merit further study.

School environment. The Olweus research on the prevention of bullying in school also has demonstrated the importance of the social environment in the reduction of bullying and victimization. Characteristics of the school envi- ronment thought to be important to reduce bullying include (a) warmth, posi- tive interest, and involvement from adults; (b) firm limits to unacceptable behavior; (c) monitoring and surveillance of students; and (d) nonhostile, nonphysical consequences for behavioral infractions (Olweus, 1992, 1994).

The current study extends the existing literature on bullying and victim- ization by addressing the co-occurrence of bullying and victimization and identifying a range of psychosocial variables associated with bullying and victimization. It was hypothesized that adolescents who report both having bullied and having been victimized would constitute a unique group (bully/ victims), and differ significantly from those who bullied only or were victim- ized only. Furthermore, bully/victims’ scores on psychosocial, parent, and

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 33

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

school measures were expected to be significantly less optimal than for those adolescents who bully only or are victimized only.

METHOD

Participants

A survey was administered in all seven middle schools (grades 6, 7, and 8) in one suburban Maryland school district as the baseline measurement for the evaluation of a prevention program that targeted multiple problem behaviors. Due to their limited ability to read, 417 special education students were con- sidered ineligible to participate in the survey. Of the 4,668 students eligible to participate in the survey, the parents of 302 students refused to allow their children to participate and 103 students were absent on both the initial and make-up dates for the survey. Thus, 4,263 (91.3%) of the eligible students completed the survey. The sample was composed of 49.1% boys and 50.9% girls; data on gender were missing on 39 (0.9%) students. The ethnic compo- sition of the sample was 68.6% White students, 24.0% Black students, and 7.4% students of other race/ethnic categories (1.7% Hispanic students, 2.4% American Indian students, 2.0% Asian/Pacific Islander students, 0.5% multi- racial students, 0.6% other); data on race were missing on 95 (2.2%) students.

Procedures

Students in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades were asked for assent to participate; passive consent procedures were used to obtain parental consent (Severson & Biglan, 1989). Letters were issued to parents that described the purpose of the survey as a way to learn more about the behavior and attitudes of students so as to develop more effective programs to help them through middle school. Parents were informed that some potentially sensitive infor- mation was collected on the survey. Students were given the same informa- tion as part of the written and oral instructions for the survey.

Students completed questionnaires during a 90-minute administrative period in their home-base classroom. A makeup assessment was scheduled the fol- lowing week for students who were absent on the day of assessment. The sur- vey was administered in each classroom by two trained proctors. Study inves- tigators and project staff served as trainers and team leaders, each supervising several pairs of proctors. Proctors were trained for 4 hours on the data collec- tion protocol developed for this study. Teachers remained in the classroom to

34 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

supervise student discipline but otherwise were uninvolved in the survey pro- cedures. To ensure confidentiality, students first completed and turned in a cover page that included their name, survey identification number, birth date, and home-base classroom teacher’s name. Students’ names were not on the questionnaires. The study was reviewed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Institutional Review Board and authorized by representatives of the school district.

Measures

The questionnaire was designed to assess behaviors and attitudes targeted by the intervention program. During the school year prior to implementation of this study, a small pilot study was conducted (N = 130, sixth-grade stu- dents) to ascertain the readability of items and internal consistency of scales. The survey used in the current study consisted of 116 items to assess student background; psychosocial, school, and parent variables; as well as involve- ment in problem behaviors, a subset of which included questions about bully- ing and victimization. Scale descriptions and the internal consistency coeffi- cients (alpha) are provided.

Bullying. Bullying was assessed by asking “How many times in the last year have you bullied or picked on someone younger, smaller, or weaker (not including your brothers and sisters)?” Response categories were 0 = 0, 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.

Victimization (alpha = .84). Victimization during the past year was assessed by asking students how many times did someone . . . (a) “take something from you by using force or by threatening to hurt you?” (b) “make you do some- thing you really did not want to do?” (c) “threaten to hurt you physically but not actually hurt you?” and (d) “actually hurt you physically?” Response cat- egories were 0 = 0, 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times. Respondents were asked to report the occurrence of victimization at school and away from school separately, which produced an eight-item scale.

Problem behaviors (alpha = .79). Participation in seven problem behav- iors in the past 12 months was assessed. Items included physical fighting, weapon carrying, theft, damage to property, cigarette use, alcohol use, and illicit drug use. An example item is “How many times have you smoked a cig- arette, even a puff, in the last 12 months?” Response categories were 0 = 0, 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 35

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Behavioral misconduct (alpha = .75). Four items assessed the past 12- month frequency of less severe problem behavior, including lying to parents, staying out late at night, going someplace dangerous, and cutting school. An example item is “How many times in the last year have you cut or skipped a day of school without permission?” Response categories were 0 = 0, 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.

Self-control (alpha = .85). Self-control was assessed using a subscale from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Weinberger, 1991). Seven items assess the respondent’s tendency to maintain appropriate self-control in areas including losing his or her temper, “getting even,” getting “carried away,” and “losing control.” An example of an item included in this scale is “I lose my temper and ‘let people have it’ when I am angry.” Response choices were 0 = never, 1 = some of the time, 2 = most of the time, and 3 = always.

Deviant peer influences (alpha =.86). Respondents were asked “How many of your five closest friends do the following things?” and were pre- sented with a list of seven problem behaviors: fighting, bullying, damaging property, lying to parents, being disrespectful to teachers, smoking ciga- rettes, and drinking alcohol.

Deviance acceptance (alpha = .87). Respondents were asked if it was acceptable (0 = no, 1 = yes, and 2 = maybe) for youth to participate in each of eight problem behaviors, including smoking, drinking, using illicit drugs, bullying, cheating, lying to parents, disrupting class, and going to dangerous places. An example is “Do you think it is okay for kids your age to smoke cigarettes?”

Social competence (alpha = .78). Nine items were developed for this research to assess social competence. Those items measured competencies to be addressed in the planned prevention program including communication, conflict resolution, resisting peer pressure, and problem solving in social sit- uations. For example, one item asked “Compared with other kids, resisting dares from other kids is (much harder to much easier).” Response choices were 1 = much harder, 2 = a little harder , 3 = a little easier, or 4 = much easier.

School adjustment (alpha = .87). This 11-item scale assessed the stu- dent’s adjustment in the activities of school, such as doing well on school- work, getting along with classmates, following rules, doing homework, and so forth. Students rated how well the item described them on a 4-point scale: 1 = really true, 2 = sort of true, 3 = sort of false, and 4 = really false.

36 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

School bonding (alpha = .79). These six items assessed aspects of school bonding including desire to do well at school, being happy at school, and tak- ing school seriously. For example, one item states “I want to do well at this school.” Items were rated 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree.

Depressive symptoms (alpha = .81). Depressive symptoms were assessed using a subscale from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Weinberger, 1991). Those six items assess the respondent’s level of depressive symptoms through items such as “I feel so down and unhappy that nothing makes me feel much better,” and “I get into such a bad mood that I feel like just sitting around and doing nothing.” Response categories were 0 = never, 1 = some of the time, 2 = most of the time, or 3 = always.

Parental involvement (alpha = .81). Six items, adapted from a study by Hetherington et al. (1992), were used to assess the extent to which the respon- dent’s parents were perceived to know (1 = know almost nothing, 2 = know a little, 3 = know a lot) about their friends, activities, health, school life, and academic performance. For example, one item states “My parents/guardians know about my activities (for example, sports, clubs, hobbies).”

Parental support (alpha = .86). A five-item measure of parental support was adapted from a study by Robin and Foster (1989). Students agreed or dis- agreed with items that stated they have a parent who gives them attention, gives them help, praises them for doing something well, is easy to talk to, and enjoys doing things with them. For example, one item states “I have a parent who gives me a lot of care and attention.” Items were rated on a 4-point scale, 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree.

Analysis

Students were classified as comparisons, victims, bullies, or bully/victims based on their self-reports of bullying and victimization in the past 12 months. Those classified as comparisons (n = 1,879) reported never having been vic- timized or having bullied. Victims (n = 1,098) reported having been victim- ized three or more times and having never or rarely bullied. Bullies (n = 142) reported bullying three or more times and never or rarely having been victim- ized. Bully/victims (n = 159) reported both having bullied and having been victimized three or more times. Students who reported infrequent incidents

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 37

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

of bullying and/or victimization (n = 788) and students who were missing either the bullying item or victimization scale (n = 197) were not included in the analyses. Although that classification of students eliminated a large num- ber of students, it was designed to focus the analysis on those students who had bullied or been victimized most frequently.

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted as preliminary bivariate analyses using the four-group classification—comparisons, victims, bullies, and bully/victims. Next, the degree to which membership in the comparison, victim, bully, or bully/victim group was predicted from the psychosocial, school, and parenting variables was determined using discriminant function analysis. Discriminant function analysis is used to predict group member- ship, the dependent variable, from a set of independent variables. It can be used for two or more nominal groups, in this way offering greater flexibility than logistic regression. A discriminant function is a linear combination of the independent variables that maximizes separation among the groups. The number of possible functions is one less than the number of groups, as differ- ent combinations of the predictor scores can be useful in differentiating the groups. The correlation between each independent variable and the functions indicates its relative importance to the prediction.

RESULTS

Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization

Overall, 978 (24.1%) students reported bullying someone at least once during the past year, with 677 (16.7%) bullying one or two times and 301 (7.4%) bullying three or more times. A total of 1,815 (44.6%) of students reported being victimized at least once during the past year, including 558 (13.7%) who reported being victimized once or twice and 1,257 (30.9%) who reported being victimized three or more times. The prevalence of bullying and victimization in the past year, stratified by gender and grade, is presented in Table 1.

Ever bullying someone was associated with ever being victimized (χ2 = 125.13, p = .001). Shown in Table 2 is the cross tabulation of the prevalence of bullying by victimization. Among the 301 students who reported bullying three or more times over the past year, 159 (53%) also reported being victim- ized three or more times. Among the 1,257 frequently victimized students, however, 805 (64%) reported never bullying.

38 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Group Differences on Psychosocial and Behavioral Variables

A series of ANOVAs for each psychosocial and behavioral variable by group (comparison, victim, bully, and bully/victim) demonstrated a consis-

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 39

TABLE 1: Prevalence of Bullying and Being Victimized by Gender and Grade

Never 1 to 2 Times 3 or More Times

n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage

Bullying Overall 3,190 75.95 702 16.71 308 7.34 Gender

Male 1,521 73.58 387 18.72 159 7.69 Female 1,669 78.25 315 14.77 149 6.99

Grade Sixth 1,135 83.33 151 11.09 76 5.58 Seventh 1,067 75.73 246 17.46 96 6.82 Eighth 988 69.14 305 21.34 136 9.52

Victimization Overall 2,261 55.35 559 13.68 1,265 30.97 Gender

Male 1,021 50.73 261 13.08 722 36.19 Female 1,249 59.76 298 14.26 543 25.98

Grade Sixth 822 62.18 160 12.10 340 25.72 Seventh 711 51.82 209 15.23 452 32.94 Eighth 728 52.34 190 13.66 473 34.00

NOTE: 63 were missing data on bullying; 178 were missing data on victimization.

TABLE 2: Co-occurrence of Bullying and Victimization in the Past Year

Bullying

Never 1 to 2 Times 3 or More Times

Victimization n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage

Never 1,879a 46.21 268 6.59 104b 2.56 1 to 2 times 404 9.90 116 2.85 38b 0.93 3 or more times 805c 19.80 293c 7.21 159d 3.91

NOTE: 197 were missing data on either bullying or victimization. a. Comparison group b. Bully group c. Victim group d. Bully/victim group

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

tent pattern of group differences. For every variable except depressive symp- toms, the mean of the comparison group reflected a more favorable score, fol- lowed by the victim group, then the bully group, and then the bully/victim group. For depressive symptoms, the bully group had fewer symptoms than did the victim group. All ANOVAs had an F significant at the p ≤ .001 level and Newman-Keuls tests revealed that the differences between every group were significant. The strength of the association was greatest between group membership and the measures of problem behavior. The strength of associa- tion was lowest between group membership and the parenting measures. A summary of those findings is presented in Table 3.

Predictors of Bullying and Victimization

A direct discriminant function analysis was performed using the set of psychosocial and behavioral variables, as well as gender and grade, as predic- tors of membership in the four groups—comparison, victim, bully, and bully/ victim. Three discriminant functions were calculated. The first function accounted for 88.7% of variance and had a canonical correlation of .534. The second function accounted for 9.6% of variance and had a canonical correla- tion of .203. The third function accounted for only 1.7% of the variance, with

40 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

TABLE 3: Analyses of Variance for the Psychosocial and Parenting and School Variables

Group Mean

Variable Comparison Victim Bully Bully/Victim η 2a Fb

Problem behaviors 1.05 2.89 4.16 5.89 .22 267.75 Behavioral misconduct 0.65 1.85 2.72 3.69 .21 261.42 Self-control 16.92 14.06 11.79 10.83 .17 209.77 Deviant peer influences 3.44 6.75 11.48 12.70 .14 167.70 Deviance acceptance 0.77 2.00 4.23 4.86 .15 176.32 Social competence 24.19 21.83 19.95 18.61 .10 112.52 School adjustment 36.59 33.29 32.20 29.84 .10 107.36 School bonding 17.47 16.21 15.19 14.50 .09 106.28 Depressive symptoms 3.40 5.61 5.52 6.77 .12 137.67 Parental involvement 16.47 15.62 14.76 14.58 .06 55.81 Parental support 17.85 16.55 15.77 15.38 .07 76.93

a. η 2 = proportion of the variance in the dependent measure associated with the levels of bully/victim (SSeffect/SStotal). b. Overall Fs and group mean differences are significant at p ≤ .001.

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

a canonical correlation of .086; therefore, the results reported will be limited to the first two functions. By plotting the group centroids (the distance on the function the predicted mean for each group is from the overall mean) it is pos- sible to depict the extent to which each function separates the groups. As seen in Figure 1, the first function discriminates between all four groups, that is, the group centroids are similarly distant from each other on the horizontal axis. This indicates that all four groups are distinguishable using the predic- tor variables loading on the first function. The second function increases the separation between the two bullying groups from the two nonbullying groups beyond what is captured by the first function alone. The group centroids for the two bullying groups are more distant on the vertical axis from the compar- ison and victim groups. This indicates those variables that load on the second function—deviance acceptance, depressive symptoms, gender, and deviant peer influences—distinguish the bully and bully/victim categories from the comparison and victim categories.

The loading matrix of correlations between predictors and discriminant functions is given in Table 4. The magnitude of the correlation can be inter- preted as the degree to which each predictor contributes to the accuracy with which the function differentiates the groups. The single best predictor of group membership was involvement in problem behaviors (both major and minor).

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 41

Figure 1: Plot of group centroids on the functions resulting from the discriminant function analysis depicting the distance between the group means.

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Self-control, deviance acceptance, and deviant peer influences were strong predictors, followed by depressive symptoms and school-related variables. Parenting variables also loaded significantly as predictors. Gender and grade contributed the least to the prediction.

The accuracy of the classification coefficients from the discriminant func- tion was assessed by comparing the classifications of students using the coef- ficients with the original classifications based on student self-reports. The classification function coefficients correctly classified 65.5% of the cases, compared with 44.8% that would have been classified correctly based on chance alone. The classification results most accurately distinguished the comparisons from the other three groups, and second most accurately sepa- rated the bully/victim group from the other groups (see Table 5).

To determine whether there were any notable differences in the relations between variables for girls and for boys in this study, separate discriminant analyses using the same set of predictor variables were run for both genders. Although the model was somewhat more predictive for girls than for boys (Wilks’s lambda of Function 1 = .740 for boys and .621 for girls), the patterns of relations of the predictor variables to groups’ membership were highly similar.

DISCUSSION

The prevalence of bullying reported by this sample of middle-school stu- dents (7.4% reported bullying three or more times over the past year) is less than would have been anticipated based on the estimate of bullying preva- lence in the United States from the 1997/1998 WHO data (Nansel, 2000). However, prevalence data regarding bullying in the United States is minimal at this time, so it is difficult to make an estimate based on the research pub- lished to date. In addition, the current study might underestimate the preva- lence of bullying, as it is based on self-report of a single item, which asks stu- dents to label their behavior as bullying. Therefore, it is likely that those persons who did report bullying three or more times over the past year bullied frequently. The prevalence of being victimized three or more times over the past year was 31% and is within the broad range documented in previous studies (Batsche & Knoff et al., 1994; Hoover et al., 1992). The measure of victimization used in the current study included victimization from bullying as well as other types of victimization and is not limited to peer-to-peer inci- dents. As such, it was expected that the prevalence of victimization would be greater than the prevalence of bullying. As expected, bullying and victimiza- tion both were more prevalent among boys than among girls, and were found

42 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

to increase with grade. These findings are consistent with the literature that has shown an increase during early adolescence of a variety of problem behav- ior (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1996). The great variability in physical development, social skills, and self-control among young adolescents (Csikszentmihalyi & Larsen, 1984; Petersen, Leffert, & Hurrelmann, 1993;

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 43

TABLE 4: Discriminant Function Analyses: Correlations Between Predictor Variables and Functions

Variable Function 1 Function 2

Problem behaviors .812 .135 Behavioral misconduct .803 .127 Self-control –.717 –.066 Deviant peer influences .630 .376 Deviance acceptance .633 .529 Social competence –.526 –.085 School adjustment –.514 .126 School bonding –.510 –.086 Depressive symptoms .564 –.451 Parental involvement –.367 –.095 Parental support –.433 .048 Gender –.160 .407 Grade .207 –.030

Percentage variance 88.7 9.6 Canonical correlation .534 .203 Wilks’s lambda .68 .952 Chi-square 1,167.9 150.59 df 39 24

NOTE: Overall Fs and group mean differences are significant at p ≤ .001.

TABLE 5: Accuracy of Classification of Students Into Groups by the Discriminant Functions

Predicted Group

Original Group Comparison Victim Bully Bully/Victim Total a

Comparison 1,559 166 8 17 1,750 Victim 563 378 22 60 1,023 Bully 59 36 14 19 128 Bully/victim 31 65 4 40 140

a. Totals reflect participants missing data on one or more of the scales included in the analyses.

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Steinberg, 1987) might account for the intensity of these problems during this developmental period.

The results of the current study provide evidence that bullying and victim- ization should not be thought of as opposing behaviors. More than one half of the bullies reported being victims as well. As hypothesized, students who re- ported both bullying and victimization were found to be a distinct group from those who either bullied only or were victimized only. Bullies showed less optimal psychosocial functioning than did victims, and the bully/victim groups’ scores indicated poorer functioning than did bullies. In addition, bullying and victimization both were associated with involvement in other problem behav- iors such as drinking, smoking, theft, damage to property, and violations of parents’ rules. This covariation concurs with the literature on problem behav- iors in which the co-occurrence of differing problem behaviors is reported consistently (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Ellickson et al., 1997; Escobedo, Reddy, & Durant, 1997; Farrell, Danish, & Howard, 1992; Irwin, Igra, Eyre, & Millstein, 1997; Newcomb & McGee, 1989; Zhang, Wieczorek, & Wlete, 1997). More important, students who bully and/ or are victimized appear to have characteristics similar to those associated with other problem behaviors, such as friendships with deviant peers, lack of self-control, and low social competence (Simons-Morton et al., 1999). The variables with the strongest associations in the analyses reported here indi- cate potential common mediators among problem behaviors to examine in future, longitudinal research.

The finding that students who reported both bullying and victimization showed the least optimal psychosocial functioning is of particular interest. Those youth apparently represent a particularly high-risk group, character- ized by higher rates of problem behavior and depressive symptoms, lower self-control and social competence, and poorer school functioning. They are involved in a more deviant peer group and might be less able to form positive friendships with peers; if so, they might be at greater risk for antisocial behav- ior into adulthood as well.

The results of the discriminant analysis indicated that involvement in problem behaviors had the strongest association with group membership (comparison, victim, bully, bully/victim). Likewise, deviant peer influences and deviance acceptance were associated. Self-control was associated highly with group membership, which is consistent with previous work that has indicated bullies are impulsive (Olweus, 1995) and report less self-control (Bjorkqvist et al., 1982). The relations between depressive symptoms and group membership plausibly could be a result of involvement in negative peer relationships, although causality cannot be ascertained with these data. Not surprisingly, victims and bullies also reported scores that indicated less

44 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

social competence. The social competence measure included items focused on communication, problem solving, resistance to peer pressure, and conflict resolution. This finding is consistent with other reported research findings that indicate that students who reported they engaged in more bullying behavior also reported less confidence in, and fewer intentions to use, nonvi- olent solutions to conflicts (Bosworth et al., 1999).

The finding that school adjustment and bonding were predictive of group membership indicates that the problems bully/victims experience extends to other areas of functioning as well. Student adjustment and bonding to school are associated with school performance (Simons-Morton et al., 1998) and might have implications for future educational and career opportunities.

Parenting variables also were predictive of group membership. The asso- ciations reported here between perceived parenting practices and bullying are supported by previous research (Bowers et al., 1994; Loeber & Dishion, 1984; Olweus, 1980). Although the parenting variables were associated more moderately than the other variables discussed, it is possible that parenting has direct and indirect effects on bullying and victimization. That is, parenting is likely associated with variables such as social competence, school func- tioning, and peer choices, all of which are related also to bullying and victimization.

Deviant peer influences, deviance acceptance, and gender were correlated significantly and positively with the second function, which distinguished between bullies (bully and bully/victim groups) and nonbullies (comparison and victim groups). These associations possibly indicate that among youth that bully, aggression is an acceptable behavior common among their friend- ship group. Such norms might be amendable to intervention. Depressive symptoms were correlated negatively and significantly with the second func- tion, adding to the distinction between bullies and nonbullies. This is consis- tent with other research that also has shown bullies tend to report externalizing behaviors and victims tend to report internalizing behaviors (Kumpulainen et al., 1998).

Some of the literature on bullying and victimization has revealed differ- ences between girls and boys (Ekblad & Olweus, 1986; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, 1980; Olweus, 1983, 1994). However, the findings from the current study indicate that, as measured in this research, the relations between the predictor variables and bullying and victimization were quite similar for girls and for boys. It still is likely that bullying might take differing forms for boys and for girls (i.e., some forms of bullying are more prevalent for boys, whereas other forms of bullying are more prevalent for girls). In spite of those differences, bullying and victimization are associated with involvement in

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 45

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

other problem behaviors, lack of self-control, poorer social competence, in- creased depressive symptoms, poorer school functioning, and parenting practices perceived as less authoritative, for boys and girls both.

Findings from this study might inform the development of preventive interventions that target bullying and victimization. Many of the variables found to be predictive of group membership, such as deviance acceptance, self-control, social competence, and perceptions of parenting, potentially are amenable to intervention. Predictors important to bullying and victimization also might be important in other problem behaviors. Therefore, bullying and victimization are prevalent and measurable outcome variables potentially useful for studies designed to examine the effects of social skill or other inter- vention programs that target multiple problem behaviors.

Although this study provides a valuable addition to the current literature on bullying and victimization, a number of limitations must be recognized. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, directions of the relations be- tween the variables measured cannot be determined. The study of bully/victims as a unique group would benefit from longitudinal research in which the eti- ology of becoming both a victim and a bully could be ascertained. The cur- rent study addressed variables associated with bullying and victimization as assessed through self-identification. Findings should be cross-validated using other measures of bullying and victimization. Furthermore, the measure of bullying in this study might have tapped a particular type of bullying, specifi- cally aggression, and not other behaviors, such as teasing or exclusion, which are not associated as commonly with the word bully. There are potential dif- ferences in prominent types of bullying done by girls or by boys (e.g., physi- cal aggression as compared with relational aggression) (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Rys & Bear, 1997) that could not be addressed here and should be studied further.

Few studies of youth in the United States have examined factors related to bullying and victimization. This is one of the first studies in which bully/ victim has been identified as a distinct and potentially important classifica- tion. The present findings serve to increase understanding of problematic behaviors among youth, to guide additional research on the determinants of bullying and victimization, and to identify factors potentially amenable to change that could inform the development of intervention efforts.

REFERENCES

Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. Brit- ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456.

46 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-174.

Baumrind, D. (1991a). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Baumrind, D. (1991b). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York: Garland.

Bjorkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: Their ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 307-313.

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 341-362.

Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87.

Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 215-232.

Byrne, B. J. (1994). Bullies and victims in a school setting with reference to some Dublin schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 15, 574-586.

Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123-130.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337-347.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teen- age years. New York: Basic Books.

Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 890-904.

Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1988). Syndrome of problem behavior in adolescence: A replication. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 726-765.

Ekblad, S., & Olweus, D. (1986). Applicability of Olweus’ aggression inventory in a sample of Chinese primary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 315-325.

Ellickson, P., Saner, H., & McGuigan, K. A. (1997). Profiles of violent youth: Substance use and other concurrent problems. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 985-991.

Escobedo, L. G., Reddy, M., & Durant, R. H. (1997). Relationship between cigarette smoking and health risk and problem behaviors among us adolescents. Archives of Pediatric and Ado- lescent Medicine, 151, 66-71.

Farrell, A. D., Danish, S. J., & Howard, C. W. (1992). Relationship between drug use and other problem behaviors in urban adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 705-712.

Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, G. M. (1994). Introduction to miniseries: School violence and safety in perspective. School Psychology Review, 23, 139-150.

Hetherington, E. M., Clingempeel, W. G., Anderson, E. R., Deal, J. E., Stanley-Hagan, M., Hollier, E. A., & Linder, M. S. (1992). Coping with marital transition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2-3, Serial No. 227).

Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern U.S.A. School Psychology International, 13, 5-16.

Irwin, C. E., Igra, V., Eyre, S., & Millstein, S. (1997). Risk-taking behavior in adolescents: The paradigm. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 817, 1-35.

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 47

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1996). National survey results on drug use from the monitoring and future study, 1975-1995. Vol. 1 Secondary School Students DHHS Publication No. (NIH, NIDA) 96-4139. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Chandler, S. P., Chapman, K. A., Rand, C. D., & Ringel, M. R. (1998). Indicators of school crime and safety (NCES 98-251/NCJ-172215). Washington, DC: Gov- ernment Printing Office, U.S. Departments of Education of Education and Justice.

King, A., Wold, B., Tudor-Smith, C., & Harel, Y. (1996). The health of youth: A cross-national survey (World Health Organization regional publications, European Series No. 69). Canada: World Health Organization.

Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S. L., Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., & Puura, K. (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symp- toms among elementary school-age children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 705-717.

Lagerspetz, K. M., Bjorkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 45-52.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who fight at home and school: Family conditions influ- encing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 759-768.

Lowenstein, L. F. (1998). The intensive treatment of bullies and victims of bullying in a thera- peutic community and school. Education Today, 44, 62-68.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stan- ford University Press.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, N. J. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and reprise. Child Development, 51, 964-980.

Magnusson, D., Stattin, H., & Duner, A. (1983). Aggression and criminality in a longitudinal perspective. In S. A. Mednick (Ed.), Prospective studies of crime and delinquency (pp. 277-301). The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Nijhoff.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Ruan, W. J., Scheidt, P., Simons-Morton, B., & Pilla, R. (2000). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjust- ment. Unpublished manuscript.

Newcomb, M. D., & McGee, L. (1989). Adolescent alcohol use and other delinquent behaviors: A one-year longitudinal analysis controlling for sensation seeking. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 345-369.

Newson, J., & Newson, E. (1984). Parents’ perspectives on children’s behavior at school. In N. Rude & H. Galt (Eds.), Disruptive behaviour in schools (pp. 99-116). New York: Wiley.

Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adoles- cent boys: A causal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644-660.

Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span (pp. 100-125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention pro- gram. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171-1190.

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 196-200.

Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems at school: Knowledge base and an effective interven- tion program. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 170-190.

48 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psy- chology, 24, 807-814.

Petersen, A. C., Leffert, N., & Hurrelmann, K. (1993). Adolescence and schooling in Germany and the United States: A comparison of peers socialization to adulthood. Teachers College Record, 94, 611-628.

Rigby, K., Cox, I., & Black, G. (1997). Cooperativeness and bully/victim problems among Aus- tralian school children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 357-368.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33-42.

Robin, A. L., & Foster, S. L. (1989). Questionnaire and observational assessment. In Negotiating parent-adolescent conflict: A behavioral-family systems approach (pp. 77-89). New York: Guilford.

Rys, G. S., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer relations: Gender and develop- mental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 87-106.

Severson, H., & Biglan, A. (1989). Rationale for the use of passive consent in smoking preven- tion research: Politics, policy and pragmatics. Preventive Medicine, 18, 267-279.

Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., & Saylor, K. E. (1998). Student-school bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health Education Research, 14, 99-107.

Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., Saylor, K. E., Eitel, P., & Yu, K. (1999). Psychosocial, school, and parent factors associated with recent smoking among early ado- lescent boys and girls. Preventive Medicine, 28, 138-148.

Slee, P. T. (1994). Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer victim- ization. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25, 97-107.

Slee, P. T. (1995). Bullying in the playground: The impact of inter-personal violence on Austra- lian children’s perceptions of their play environment. Children’s Environments, 12, 320-327.

Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993a). Australian school children’s self appraisal of interpersonal rela- tions: The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 23, 273-282.

Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993b). The relationship of Eysenck’s personality factors and self-esteem to bully-victim behaviour in Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371-373.

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adoles- cence. Child Development, 66, 299-316.

Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antiso- cial peer pressure. Child Development, 58, 269-275.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over- time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authori- tarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.

Weinberger, D. A. (1991). Social-emotional adjustment in older children and adults: Psycho- metric properties of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Case Western Reserve University.

Zhang, L., Wieczorek, W. F., & Wlete, J. W. (1997). The nexus between alcohol and violent crime. Alcohol Clinical Experimental Research, 21, 1264-1271.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Denise L. Haynie, National Institutes of Health, NICHD, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 4A01, Rockville, MD 20852; e-mail: [email protected].

Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 49

at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19, 2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from