The Dyadic Nature of Bullying and Victimization: Testing a Dual‐Perspective Theory
- 3 November 2007
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Child Development
- Vol. 78 (6) , 1843-1854
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x
Abstract
For this study, information onWho Bullies Whowas collected from 54 school classes with 918 children (Mage = 11) and 13,606 dyadic relations. Bullying and victimization were viewed separately from the point of view of the bully and the victim. The two perspectives were highly complementary. The probability of a bully–victim relationship was higher if the bully was more dominant than the victim, and if the victim was more vulnerable than the bully and more rejected by the class. In a bully–victim dyad, boys were more often the bullies. There was no finding of sex effect for victimization. Liking reduced and disliking increased the probability of a bully–victim relationship.Keywords
This publication has 61 references indexed in Scilit:
- Social Information Processing and Coping Strategies of Shy/Withdrawn and Aggressive Children: Does Friendship Matter?Child Development, 2006
- The Multilevel p2 ModelMethodology, 2006
- Evaluation of non-response bias in mental health determinants and outcomes in a large sample of pre-adolescentsEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 2005
- Status As a Valued ResourceSocial Psychology Quarterly, 2004
- Prosocial and Coercive Configurations of Resource Control in Early Adolescence: A Case for the Well-Adapted MachiavellianMerrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2003
- The social relations model for family data: A multilevel approachPersonal Relationships, 1999
- Observations of Bullying in the ClassroomThe Journal of Educational Research, 1998
- Aggressors and Their Victims: Toward a Contextual Framework for Understanding Children′s Aggressor-Victim RelationshipsDevelopmental Review, 1995
- Children's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status.Psychological Bulletin, 1993
- Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives.Psychological Review, 1975