aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies...

22
M ERRILL -P ALMER Q UARTERLY, V OL . 50, N O . 1 17 Laura D. Hanish, Department of Family and Human Development; Nancy G. Guerra, Department of Psychology. This research was supported by grant R18-MH48034 from the National Institute of Mental Health awarded to the second author.We would also like to thank Leonard Eron, David Henry, Rowell Huesmann, and Patrick Tolan for their contributions to this research. Please address correspondence concerning this article to Laura D. Hanish at the Department of Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 872502, Tempe, AZ, USA 85287–2502. E-mail: [email protected]. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, January 2004, Vol 50, No. 1, pp. 17–38. Copyright © 2004 by Wayne State University Press, Detroit MI, 48201. Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies: Developmental Continuity or Developmental Change? Laura D. Hanish, Arizona State University Nancy G. Guerra, University of California, Riverside We evaluated the extent to which aggressive victims show unique developmen- tal pathways that are different from those of passive victims, bullies, and unin- volved children. A total of 1,722 children were followed from 4th grade to 6th grade, and the prevalence and stability of each group were assessed. Aggres- sive victims became less prevalent and passive victims and bullies became more prevalent with age. Although it was common for aggressive victims and bullies to move from one group to the other across time, there was little overlap with the passive victim group. Stability estimates were higher for the bully and aggressive victim groups than for the passive victim group, and patterns of stability were influenced by peer rejection and exposure to violence. Childhood aggression and victimization pose significant develop- mental risks for children. Because of the clear linkages between both aggression and victimization, research and prevention efforts have focused increasingly on how these behaviors develop both indepen- dently and jointly. A number of studies have classified children into groups based on whether children are aggressive only, victimized only, both, or neither. Although these different groups of children have been identified in developmental research, less is known about whether they display distinct developmental trajectories. Indeed, much of the extant research has compared the behavioral patterns that characterize and

Upload: truongdiep

Post on 14-Mar-2018

233 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

ME R R I L L - PA L M E R QU A RT E R LY, VO L . 50, NO. 1

17

Laura D. Hanish, Department of Family and Human Development; Nancy G. Guerra,Department of Psychology.

This research was supported by grant R18-MH48034 from the National Institute ofMental Health awarded to the second author. We would also like to thank Leonard Eron,David Henry, Rowell Huesmann, and Patrick Tolan for their contributions to this research.

Please address correspondence concerning this article to Laura D. Hanish at theDepartment of Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, P.O. Box872502, Tempe, AZ, USA 85287–2502. E-mail: [email protected].

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, January 2004, Vol 50, No. 1, pp. 17–38. Copyright © 2004 byWayne State University Press, Detroit MI, 48201.

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies: Developmental Continuity or Developmental Change?Laura D. Hanish, Arizona State University

Nancy G. Guerra, University of California, Riverside

We evaluated the extent to which aggressive victims show unique developmen-tal pathways that are different from those of passive victims, bullies, and unin-volved children. A total of 1,722 children were followed from 4th grade to 6thgrade, and the prevalence and stability of each group were assessed. Aggres-sive victims became less prevalent and passive victims and bullies became moreprevalent with age. Although it was common for aggressive victims and bulliesto move from one group to the other across time, there was little overlap with thepassive victim group. Stability estimates were higher for the bully and aggressivevictim groups than for the passive victim group, and patterns of stability wereinfluenced by peer rejection and exposure to violence.

Childhood aggression and victimization pose significant develop-mental risks for children. Because of the clear linkages between bothaggression and victimization, research and prevention efforts havefocused increasingly on how these behaviors develop both indepen-dently and jointly. A number of studies have classified children intogroups based on whether children are aggressive only, victimized only,both, or neither. Although these different groups of children have beenidentified in developmental research, less is known about whether theydisplay distinct developmental trajectories. Indeed, much of the extantresearch has compared the behavioral patterns that characterize and

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 17

Derek Day
Muse
Page 2: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

18 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

differentiate these groups of children; issues of developmental changehave received less empirical attention. This is clearly an important issuebecause effective intervention strategies and policies hinge on anunderstanding of the similarities and differences in the developmentaltrajectories of each of these groups.

Understanding distinct trajectories is particularly crucial for chil-dren who are both aggressive and victimized (generally referred to asaggressive victims). These aggressive victims are an intriguing groupbecause they share behavioral characteristics of children who are vic-timized but not aggressive (generally referred to as passive victims) andchildren who are aggressive but not victimized (generally referred to asbullies). Although small in number, these children tend to exhibit themost disturbed functioning when compared to passive victims, bullies,and uninvolved children (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001). Indeed,aggressive victims are more likely to have emotional, behavioral, social,academic, and family problems. Despite these extensive problems, littleis known about how aggressive victims develop over time and theextent to which aggressive victims show unique developmental path-ways that are different from those of passive victims, bullies, and unin-volved children.

To date, longitudinal studies of aggressive victims, passive victims,and bullies are rare. Previous research has often taken one of twoapproaches to sampling—either focusing specifically on a limited agerange (e.g., 5th graders; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999) or collaps-ing across multiple ages (e.g., 8- to 13-year-olds; Bijttebier & Vertom-men, 1998; Mynard & Joseph, 1997). This makes it difficult to test forage-related effects and to compare estimates across developmentalperiods.

The present study was designed to address this research gap byexamining the prevalence and stability over time during the later ele-mentary years of distinct subgroups of children determined by theiraggression and victimization status. Our primary interest was on threedistinct status groups: aggressive victims, who provoke their peers andrespond to threats or attacks with reactive aggression; passive victims,who are weak and submit to aggressors’ demands; and bullies, whoaggress against peers but are rarely attacked in return. Because we wereinterested in comparing these children to those who do not experienceaggression or victimization, we also identified a group of uninvolvedchildren, who are neither aggressive nor victimized, and a group ofaverage children, who could not be classified according to predeter-mined cut scores. Using a longitudinal design, we assessed the preva-lence of each group when children were in 4th grade and again when

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 18

Page 3: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19

they were in 6th grade. In addition to assessing age-related changes inprevalence, we also examined patterns of stability in group member-ship over time as well as social contextual factors that may be impor-tant determinants of this stability.

Prevalence and Stability of Aggressive Victims, PassiveVictims, and Bullies

Previous studies comparing aggressive victims, passive victims, andbullies have typically reported that aggressive victims are rare com-pared to passive victims and bullies. Across American, European, andAustralian studies of children and adolescents, median prevalence esti-mates are approximately 6% (range 0.5% to 29%) for aggressive victims,but approximately 9% (range 1% to 24%) for bullies and 15% (range5% to 40%) for passive victims (see Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001,for a summary of estimates across studies). Some variability exists infindings, however, and this variability is noteworthy in two ways. First,the data just presented suggest that aggressive victims are less preva-lent than passive victims and bullies. This finding has often beenreported in studies of children and adolescents (Boulton & Smith,1994; Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Olweus, 1978; Pellegrini et al., 1999;Schwartz, 2000; Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997). However,some studies have also reported that aggressive victims are more preva-lent than passive victims (Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988) or bullies (Craig,1998; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Wolke et al., 2000) or both (Baldry &Farrington, 1998). Second, the range of estimates varies widely, withsome studies reporting low prevalence estimates for all categories (e.g.,O’Moore & Hillery, 1989) and others reporting high estimates (e.g.,Baldry & Farrington, 1998). Although this variability may reflect anumber of factors, including differences in sample characteristics (e.g.,child gender, location), diversity of measurement techniques (e.g., self-report, peer nomination), and the extent to which classification criteriaare stringent (e.g., aggression or victimization occur “at least once aweek”; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989) or relaxed (e.g., aggression or victim-ization occur “at least once or twice”; Baldry & Farrington, 1998), thedegree to which developmental differences contribute to this variabilityis unknown.

One aim of the present research was to examine the extent towhich age differences contribute to variations in subgroup prevalenceestimates. Some recent studies suggest that such an analysis is neces-sary. Specifically, research has demonstrated correlations between vic-timization and the constructs that characterize both aggressive victims(i.e., externalizing behaviors) and passive victims (i.e., internalizing

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 19

Page 4: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

20 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

behaviors; Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Hodges, Malone, &Perry, 1997; Schwartz, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates,1998), but there also seem to be developmental variations in the rela-tions between victimization and these variables, with externalizingcharacteristics like aggressive behavior being more strongly correlatedwith victimization for younger children and internalizing characteristicslike withdrawal being more strongly correlated with victimization forolder children (Hanish & Guerra, 2000b; Boivin, Hymel, & Hodges,2001). Following this research, in the present study we tested thehypothesis that aggressive victims would be more prevalent (in relationto bullies, passive victims, uninvolved children, and average children)among 4th graders than among 6th graders.

A second aim of this study was to assess the stability of group clas-sifications. Such an assessment has been absent from most previousresearch comparing aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies dueto a reliance on correlational rather than longitudinal designs. As aresult, many questions are unanswered about the extent to which mem-bership in the aggressive victim group is static over time. One hypothe-sis is that group classifications are fairly homogeneous, such that chil-dren in the aggressive victim, passive victim, and bully groups arequalitatively different from one another and, therefore, do not crossgroup boundaries over time. Certainly, research that has identified con-sistent group differences in functioning for aggressive victims, passivevictims, and bullies would suggest this is likely (Schwartz et al., 2001).Moreover, research showing that aggression is reasonably stable, evenfrom a young age, and that victimization becomes more stable as chil-dren get older also supports this hypothesis (Hanish & Guerra, 2000a;Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984).

An alternate hypothesis is that the differences between aggressivevictim, passive victim, and bully groups are differences in degree ratherthan in kind—that is, perhaps the boundaries between groups are dif-fuse, such that, for example, passive victims may become increasinglyaggressive over time in an attempt to defend themselves from repeatedvictimization, or aggressive victims may become increasingly with-drawn and submissive in the face of persistent attacks. Evidence tosupport such a hypothesis comes from research that has demonstratedthat children who are victimized by peers, especially those who arerepeatedly victimized, are at risk for becoming increasingly aggressiveas well as increasingly depressed and anxious over time (e.g., Hanish &Guerra, 2002; Hodges & Perry, 1999; Schwartz et al., 1998). Thus, inthis study, we examined the stability of aggressive victim, passive vic-

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 20

Page 5: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 21

tim, bully, and uninvolved group classifications between 4th and 6thgrades.

To further assess group stability, we were also interested in differ-entiating children who remain in the same group from those whodesist, moving out of the aggressive victim, passive victim, or bullygroups. Children who follow developmental pathways marked by per-sistent maladjustment tend to experience more life difficulties thanthose whose developmental pathways are marked by temporary peri-ods of maladjustment (Sroufe, Egeland, & Kreutzer, 1990). Thoughmany aspects of children’s lives may be associated with chronic mem-bership in aggressive victim, passive victim, or bully groups, thoseaspects that reflect the quality of their social experiences are likely tobe particularly important. In fact, current formulations of peer victim-ization highlight the value of considering the degree to which the socialcontext is safe and secure versus stressful and dangerous (Salmivalli,2001). Thus, in differentiating stable group members from temporarygroup members, we focused on two social context factors—peer rejec-tion and exposure to violence—that reflect how stressful children’ssocial lives are.

Peer groups are central contexts for the occurrence of aggressionand victimization; peers are present in most victimizing encounters andplay a crucial role in either reinforcing or inhibiting an attack (Salmi-valli, 2001). Moreover, one of the most influential peer group forces ispeer rejection. Rejection is a social stressor that has repeatedly beenassociated with both aggressive behavior and victimization by peers,making its role as a correlate of both variables clear (e.g., French, 1988;Hanish & Guerra, 2000b; Hodges et al., 1997). Less is known, however,about whether and how rejection differentiates stable aggressive vic-tims, passive victims, and bullies from their respective desisting coun-terparts.

Exposure to violence also creates a stressful social context that canimpede children’s feelings of safety and security, serving as a backdropfor aggressive and victimizing interactions among peers. Indeed, expo-sure to community violence has previously been linked with elevatedrates of externalizing behaviors as well as with elevated rates of peervictimization (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Schwartz & Proctor,2000), although its relation to stable versus transient membership inaggressive victim, passive victim, and bully groups has yet to beexplored. Thus, we examined the relation between exposure to violenceand stable group membership. We hypothesized that peer rejection andexposure to community violence would differentiate children who

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 21

Page 6: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

22 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

experience chronic patterns of involvement in peer victimization fromthose whose involvement in victimizing interactions is less persistentover time.

This research builds on earlier studies that examined developmen-tal changes in children’s experiences with peer victimization in generalby specifically comparing aggressive victim, passive victim, and bullysubgroups as they develop over time (Hanish & Guerra, 2000a, 2002).The hypotheses were tested with a sample of African American,Latino, and White elementary school–aged children from urban, low-income neighborhoods. Both boys and girls participated in the study,and we tested for gender differences in prevalence and stability. Weused a longitudinal design in which we followed a grade-based cohortof late (4th-grade) elementary school–aged boys and girls for 2 years.

Methods

Participants

Participants were drawn from the Metropolitan Area Child Study(MACS; Guerra, Eron, Huesmann, Tolan, & Van Acker, 1997). TheMACS is a longitudinal, quasi-experimental field study focusing on theassessment and prevention of aggression that has spanned 8 years andincluded eight birth cohorts (1981–1988) of children. Because a pri-mary purpose for the study was to evaluate aggression at earlier andlater developmental periods, most children completed initial assess-ments in Grade 1 or Grade 4. Follow-up assessments were adminis-tered 2 years later. This study was conducted in lower-income neigh-borhoods of two Midwestern cities, which were chosen to represent the“inner-city” and “other urban-poor” conditions defined by Wilson(1987). The proportion of families below the 1990 federal poverty levelin the schools ranged from 2% to 85.4%. The average was 24%.

Sample recruitment procedures, which involved obtaining permis-sion from schools and parents, are detailed in Guerra et al. (1997). Theoverall parent permission rate for this sample was 86.6%. The samplefor the present study included all children (N = 1,722) who participatedin the 4th-grade assessment (regardless of birth cohort). Approxi-mately half of the children were boys (49% were boys and 51% weregirls). The ethnic distribution was 40% Hispanic, 38% African Ameri-can, 18% Caucasian, and the remaining 4% were of another ethnicity.At the 6th-grade assessment, the sample consisted of 1,156 (67%) chil-dren who had previously participated in the 4th-grade assessment.Boys (50%) and girls (50%) were equally likely to be followed up, andthere were no significant differences in either Time 1 victimization or

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 22

Page 7: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 23

Time 1 aggression for those who did not participate in assessment atTime 2. In addition, the 6th-grade sample also consisted of an addi-tional 411 children who did not receive the 4th-grade assessment (thesechildren had received initial assessments in Grades 1, 2, or 3 instead).These 411 children were included in all nonlongitudinal analyses.

Procedures

Data were collected during the spring of each academic year. Peer-nominated measures of aggression and victimization were used to iden-tify aggressive victim, passive victim, bully, uninvolved, and averagesubgroups, and self-reported violence exposure and peer-nominatedrejection were also assessed. Measures used in the present study wereembedded within a larger assessment protocol that was group-adminis-tered in the classroom. All self- and peer-report items were read aloudby an interviewer during administration, and at least one other inter-viewer was present to help monitor the assessment and provide assis-tance. In classrooms with Spanish-speaking children, bilingual mea-sures that had been back translated were used, and children werepermitted to choose the language of testing.

Measures

Peer sociometric ratings. Victimization, aggression, and rejection wereassessed with peer sociometric techniques using the method described byEron, Walder, and Lefkowitz (1971). Recent research has demonstratedthat peer nominations are reliable and valid measures of these con-structs in middle childhood–aged samples (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000). Each child received a bookletcontaining randomized lists (separated by gender) of the names of allthe children in the class. The children were asked to mark all peers’names that were applicable to the corresponding question. The measureconsisted of 25 items, 10 of which assessed aggression (e.g., “Who startsa fight over nothing?”; Eron et al., 1971; Huesmann, Lagerspetz, &Eron, 1984), and two of which assessed victimization (e.g., “Who are thechildren who get picked on by other kids?”; drawn from Perry et al.,1988). In addition, two items assessed rejection (e.g., “Who are the chil-dren that you really don’t like?”). The remaining items on the measureassessed constructs that are not relevant to the present study.

We calculated scores on each scale within-classroom by dividingthe number of times a child was nominated by the number of total pos-sible nominations. Thus, scores on each scale could range from 0 (notnominated) to 1 (nominated by everyone). These scales have demon-

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 23

Page 8: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

24 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

strated good reliability and validity in earlier studies (Huesmann,Eron, Guerra, & Crawshaw, 1994). In the present sample, reliabilityestimates ranged from .82 (victimization) to .97 (aggression).

Self reports. We assessed exposure to violence using the six-itemExposure to Violence subscale of the Stress Index, a self-report mea-sure of family and community stress (Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994).This measure taps the extent to which a child has been exposed to vio-lence during the previous year (a sample item was “Have you seen any-one beaten, shot, or really hurt by someone?”). Questions wereanswered as either no (0) or yes (1), and responses to scale items wereaveraged together. The internal consistency estimate for this subscale isalpha = .61, and earlier research has demonstrated validity for thismeasure (Attar et al., 1994).

Results

Analyses addressed three sets of research questions. We first exam-ined developmental differences in the prevalence of aggressive victims,passive victims, and bullies among 4th and 6th graders. Next, weassessed the 2-year stability of each of these group classifications. Gen-der differences in prevalence and stability were also assessed. Finally,we examined the extent to which peer rejection and exposure to com-munity violence differentiated stable and desisting group patterns.

Classification of Children

Children were classified into groups by first dividing aggression andvictimization scores in Grades 4 and 6 at .5 SD above and below themean. The decision to use this classification criterion reflected severalconsiderations. First, a comparison of the classification criteria used inearlier studies that have relied on similar methodologies to measure vic-timization and aggression revealed that most prior studies have usedmoderately stringent criteria, ranging from �.5 SD to �1 SD, to clas-sify children with elevated scores as high on either aggression or victim-ization. At the same time, these studies have relied on more lenient cri-teria, generally ranging from the mean to �.8 SD, to classify children aslow on either aggression or victimization (e.g., Craig, 1998; Pellegrini etal., 1999; Perry et al., 1988; Schwartz, 2000; Schwartz et al., 1997).Thus, to provide a rigorous estimate of both high and low victim groupsthat was also comparable with prior research, a classification criterionof .5 SD above and below the mean was used. Consequently, for eachgrade, children whose victimization and aggression scores were bothabove �.5 SD were classified as aggressive victims, children whose vic-

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 24

Page 9: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 25

timization score was above �.5 SD and whose aggression score wasbelow –.5 SD were classified as passive victims, and children whose vic-timization score was below –.5 SD and whose aggression score wasabove �.5 SD were classified as bullies. In addition, children with scoresbelow –.5 SD on both variables were classified as uninvolved. Childrenwho could not be classified into any of these groups were labeled asaverage.

Prevalence

We correlated aggression and victimization scores at Grades 4 and6 to assess developmental differences in the relation between these twovariables. Aggression and victimization were moderately correlated for4th graders, r(1,722) = .42; p � .001, and weakly correlated for 6thgraders, r(1,567) = .17; p � .001. Similar findings were obtained withchi-square analyses assessing the relation between dichotomized vic-timization (i.e., victim vs. nonvictim) and aggression (i.e., aggressive vs.nonaggressive) variables. Examination of standardized residuals indi-cated that, at both grade levels, uninvolved children and aggressive vic-tims were more common than passive victims and bullies. However,this finding was stronger for 4th graders than for 6th graders. At Grade4, �2(1, N = 1,088) = 214.19; p � .001; � = .44; and standardized resid-uals were 8.3 for the aggressive victim group, 6.3 for the uninvolvedgroup, –7.5 for the passive victim group, and –7.0 for the bully group.At Grade 6, the relation was weaker, though still statistically signifi-cant, �2(1, N = 1028) = 52.44; p � .001; � = .23, and standardizedresiduals were 4.3 for the aggressive victim group, 2.9 for the unin-volved group, –3.9 for the passive victim group, and –3.2 for the bullygroup. Thus, aggressive behavior and victimization by peers seemed tobe more differentiated for 6th graders than they were for 4th graders.

The implication of this finding is that the relative prevalence ofaggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies changed with age acrossthe late elementary school years. As shown in Table 1T, when childrenwere in the 4th grade, aggressive victims were more common thaneither passive victims or bullies; by 6th grade, however, the prevalenceof aggressive victims had declined whereas the prevalence of both pas-sive victims and bullies rose. Moreover, at both grade levels, the major-ity of children were either uninvolved or average.

Analyses by gender qualified and explained these patterns.Although correlations between victimization and aggression were con-sistent across gender, r(846) = .40 for 4th-grade boys; r(875) = .43 for4th-grade girls; r(792) = .14 for 6th-grade boys; r(774) = .16 for 6th-grade girls, suggesting that the overall pattern of relations between vic-

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 25

Page 10: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

26 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

Table

1.

Prev

alen

ce E

stim

ates

for E

ach

Gro

up b

y G

rade

Gra

de 4

Gra

de 6

Gro

upO

vera

llBo

ysG

irls

Ove

rall

Boys

Girl

sA

ggre

ssiv

e vi

ctim

321

(18.

6%)

204

(24.

1%)

117

(13.

4%)

216

(13.

8%)

151

(19.

1%)

64(8

.3%

)

Pass

ive

vict

im13

0(7

.5%

)48

(5.7

%)

82

(9.4

%)

149

(9.5

%)

80(1

0.1%

)69

(8.9

%)

Bully

168

(9.8

%)

106

(12.

5%)

62

(7.1

%)

237

(15.

1%)

125

(15.

8%)

112

(14.

5%)

Uni

nvol

ved

469

(27.

2%)

170

(20.

1%)

299

(34.

2%)

426

(27.

2%)

155

(19.

6%)

271

(35.

0%)

Ave

rage

634

(36.

8%)

318

(37.

6%)

315

(36.

0%)

539

(34.

4%)

281

(35.

5%)

258

(33.

3%)

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 26

Page 11: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 27

timization and aggression did not vary by gender, there were significantgender differences in prevalence rates for aggressive victims, passivevictims, bullies, and uninvolved children over time, �2(4, N = 1,721) =79.03; p � .001; and �2(4, N = 1,566) = 69.10; p � .001, for 4th and6th graders, respectively. As illustrated in Table 1, uninvolved chil-dren (at Grades 4 and 6) and passive victims (at Grade 4) were signif-icantly more likely to be girls, and aggressive victims (at Grades 4and 6) and bullies (at Grade 4) were significantly more likely to beboys. Furthermore, among both boys and girls, the prevalence ofaggressive victims declined and the prevalence of bullies increasedover time. However, developmental patterns for passive victims var-ied across gender—that is, there was little change in the prevalence ofpassive victims for girls, but for boys, passive victims became morecommon with age.

Stability

Group membership was moderately stable between Grades 4 and 6,�2(16, N = 1156) = 287.77; p � .001; Cramér’s statistic = .25. Althoughmany children remained in the same group over time, just as many ormore moved from one group to another over the 2-year follow-upperiod. Moreover, some groups were more stable over time than others.Panel A of Table 2Tshows the percentage of children classified in eachgroup at Grade 6, conditional upon Grade 4 classifications. The high-lighted values indicate stable group membership. Overall, the most sta-ble classifications were the uninvolved, average, and bully classifica-tions. More than 40% of those initially identified as members of one ofthese groups were still members of the same group 2 years later. In com-parison, one fourth of passive victims and one-third of aggressive vic-tims remained in the same group between Grades 4 and 6. It is alsonotable that there was a great deal of overlap between the uninvolvedand average groups; most uninvolved 4th graders who changed groupsbecame average 6th graders, and most average 4th graders who changedgroups became uninvolved 6th graders. In addition, it was also commonfor bully, aggressive victim, and passive victim 4th graders to be classi-fied in the average group (as well as the uninvolved group for passive vic-tims) in the 6th grade. In contrast, there was little overlap between bully,aggressive victim, and passive victim groups, with one exception—theboundaries between aggressive victim and bully groups were relativelydiffuse—that is, approximately 18% of 4th-grade aggressive victimsbecame bullies in 6th grade, and nearly 14% of 4th-grade bulliesbecame aggressive victims in 6th grade.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 27

Page 12: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

28 Merrill-Palmer QuarterlyTa

ble

2.

Num

ber a

nd P

erce

ntag

e of

Chi

ldre

n in

Eac

h G

roup

at G

rade

6C

ondi

tiona

l Upo

n G

roup

Cla

ssifi

catio

n at

Gra

de 4

: Ove

rall

and

By G

ende

r

A. F

ull s

ampl

e

Gra

de 6

Gra

de 4

Uni

nvol

ved

Ave

rage

Bully

Pass

. vic

t.A

gg. v

ict.

Uni

nvol

ved

145

(46.3

%)

104

(33.

2%)

26(8

.3%

)29

(9.3

%)

9(2

.9%

)

Ave

rage

90(2

1.5%

)179

(42.8

%)

61(1

4.6%

)39

(9.3

%)

49(1

1.7%

)

Bully

17(1

3.8%

)36

(29.

3%)

51

(41.5

%)

2(1

.6%

)17

(13.

8%)

Pass

. vic

t.30

(31.

6%)

26(2

7.4%

)6

(6.3

%)

23

(24.2

%)

10(1

0.5%

)

Agg

. vic

t.23

(11.

1%)

68(3

2.9%

)38

(18.

4%)

8(3

.9%

)70

(33.8

%)

B. B

oys

Uni

nvol

ved

53

(43.4

%)

47(3

8.5%

)11

(9.0

%)

8(6

.6%

)3

(3.1

%)

Ave

rage

30(1

4.2%

)88

(41.5

%)

35(1

6.5%

)26

(12.

3%)

33(1

5.6%

)

Bully

11(1

4.7%

)19

(25.

3%)

30

(40.0

%)

1(1

.3%

)14

(18.

7%)

Pass

. vic

t.8

(20.

5%)

11(2

8.2%

)3

(7.7

%)

10

(25

.6%

)7

(17.

9%)

Agg

. vic

t.8

(5.8

%)

49(3

5.8%

)23

(16.

8%)

6(4

.4%

)5

1(3

7.2

%)

C. G

irls

Uni

nvol

ved

92

(48.2

%)

57(2

9.8%

)15

(7.9

%)

21(1

1.0%

)6

(3.1

%)

Ave

rage

60(2

9.1%

)91

(44.1

%)

26(1

2.6%

)13

(6.3

%)

16(7

.8%

)

Bully

6(1

2.5%

)17

(35.

4%)

21

(43.8

%)

1(2

.1%

)3

(6.3

%)

Pass

. vic

t.22

(39.

3%)

15(2

6.8%

)3

(5.4

%)

13

(23.2

%)

3(5

.4%

)

Agg

. vic

t.15

(21.

4%)

19(2

7.1%

)15

(21.

4%)

2(2

.9%

)19

(27.1

%)

Not

e:H

ighl

ight

ed v

alue

s re

pres

ent s

tabl

e gr

oup

mem

bers

hip.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 28

Page 13: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 29

Breaking these findings down by gender suggested that the aggres-sive victim group was more stable for boys than for girls (see Table 2).Among boys, over one-third of the 4th-grade aggressive victims werestill classified as aggressive victims 2 years later, but among girls, onlyabout one-fourth were classified as aggressive victims at both timepoints. Moreover, gender differences in the estimates showing patternsof movement into the aggressive victim and the uninvolved groups aug-ment interpretation of these findings. For boys, movement into theaggressive victim group between 4th and 6th grades was moderatelylikely; nearly one-fifth of the Grade 4 bullies, passive victims, and aver-age children became aggressive victims by Grade 6. In contrast, rela-tively few bully, passive victim, and average girls became aggressive vic-tims 2 years later. Instead, girls tended to move out of the other groups(particularly the passive victim and aggressive victim groups) and intothe uninvolved group between Grades 4 and 6. Approximately 40% ofthe passive victim girls (compared to 20% of the passive victim boys)and over 20% of the aggressive victim girls (compared to nearly 6% ofthe aggressive victim boys) became uninvolved as 6th graders.

Differentiation of Stable and Desisting Groups

The purpose of these analyses was to assess the relations betweenpeer rejection and group stability and violence exposure and group sta-bility. These analyses were designed to compare children who exhibitedthe same pattern at Times 1 and 2 with those who exhibited a desistingpattern. Desisters were defined as those children who moved into eitherthe uninvolved or the average groups between Times 1 and 2 (e.g., stableaggressive victims were compared with children classified as aggressivevictims at Time 1 and as either uninvolved or average at Time 2; similaranalyses evaluated passive victims and bullies). Using independent sam-ple’s t tests to compare the stable and desisting groups, we found that sta-ble aggressive victims had higher peer rejection scores at Times 1 and 2than did desisting aggressive victims (see Table 3T). Stable bullies also hadhigher peer rejection scores than did desisting bullies, but this effect wasfound only at Time 2, and there was no significant difference between thetwo groups at Time 1. The opposite finding was obtained for passive vic-tims; stable passive victims had higher peer rejection scores than diddesisting passive victims at Time 1 only. Assessment of group differenceson violence exposure revealed that stable bullies were more likely to beexposed to violence at Time 2 than were desisting bullies.1

1 Analyses by gender suggested similar patterns of effects for boys and girls. Due to reducedpower when the sample was divided by gender, however, not all tests reached statistical significance.In instances in which an analysis did not reach significance, means were in the predicted direction.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 29

Page 14: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

30 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

Table 3. T Tests for Stable and Desisting Groups on Time 1 and Time 2Peer Rejection and Exposure to Violence

M (SD) Stable M (SD) Desisting df t group group

A. Aggressive victimsT1 Peer rej. 100 3.57*** .58 (.17) .45 (.17)

T1 Exp. viol. 92 –0.37 .29 (.28) .31 (.27)

T2 Peer rej. 143 8.78*** .53 (.19) .26 (.17)

T2 Exp. viol. 147 0.07 .30 (.24) .29 (.27)

B. BulliesT1 Peer rej. 56 0.67 .36 (.16) .34 (.12)

T1 Exp. viol. 66 –0.88 .34 (.24) .40 (.28)

T2 Peer rej. 92 2.77** .31 (.14) .23 (.16)

T2 Exp. viol. 91 2.06* .34 (.25) .24 (.23)

C. Passive victimsT1 Peer rej. 38 3.50*** .42 (.12) .28 (.11)

T1 Exp. viol. 40 0.01 .21 (.19) .21 (.20)

T2 Peer rej. 71 1.69 .29 (.14) .21 (.18)

T2 Exp. viol. 68 –1.14 .15 (.18) .21 (.21)

* p � .05. ** p � .01. *** p � .001.

In addition, due to the modest degree of overlap between theaggressive victims and bullies, we also conducted t tests on peer rejec-tion and exposure to violence to compare stable aggressive victims withaggressive victims who later became bullies and to compare stable bul-lies with bullies who later became aggressive victims. These analysesrevealed some interesting differences between stable aggressive victimsand the aggressive victims turned bullies: Stable aggressive victims hadsignificantly higher rejection scores at Times 1 (M = .58, SD = .17) and2 (M = .53, SD = .19) along with significantly lower exposure to vio-lence scores at Time 1 (M = .29, SD = .28) than did aggressive victimswho became bullies (Ms = .43, .26, and .46 and SDs = .17, .13, and .31for Time 1 rejection, Time 2 rejection, and Time 1 violence exposure,respectively), ts(63, 95, and 60) = 3.45, 7.57, and –2.17, ps � .001, .001,and .05, respectively. In comparison, there were no significant differ-ences on peer rejection or violence exposure at either time point for sta-ble bullies and bullies turned aggressive victims.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 30

Page 15: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 31

Discussion

The findings extend earlier research on aggressive victim, passivevictim, and bully subgroups by demonstrating developmental changesin prevalence rates and differential 2-year stability estimates for each ofthe subgroups. For some children, being an aggressive victim; a bully;or, to a lesser extent, a passive victim reflected a chronic pattern of hos-tile peer interactions. For others, however, membership in one of thesegroups was a transient state that changed over time. Comparing devel-opmental trajectories for these children provides insights into the simi-larities and differences among aggressive victim, passive victim, andbully groups. The findings are discussed from a person-oriented per-spective so as to highlight variations among bully, aggressive victim,and passive victim subgroups.

Bullies

Bullies became increasingly prevalent with age, representing 9.8%of the student population in 4th grade and 15.1% in 6th grade.Increases in the relative proportion of bullies were seen for both boysand girls. These results can be compared with those reported byOlweus (1994), who found that the percentage of boys (but not girls)stating that they bullied others increased at a fairly steady rate betweenGrades 2 and 9. It also parallels the findings of delinquency studies,which consistently demonstrate a rise in delinquency beginning in earlyadolescence (Caspi & Moffitt, 1995). This result may reflect previousfindings that have suggested an imbalance of power in relationshipsthat characterize bullies and victims. As children get older, they maybecome more capable of bullying due to physical or cognitive develop-ments that increase their power relative to younger or weaker children(Hodges & Perry, 1999; Olweus, 1978). Indeed, as the proportion ofbullies increased, so did the proportion of passive victims, at leastamong boys, suggesting a symbiotic relationship between these twogroups.

This developmental change in the prevalence of bullies can be fur-ther understood by considering patterns of stability. Approximately40% of 4th-grade bullies continued to be bullies in 6th grade. This find-ing was consistent for both boys and girls. Moreover, an additional13.8% of 4th-grade bullies became aggressive victims in 6th grade. Thisfinding validates research that has demonstrated high rates of stabilityfor aggressive behavior (Huesmann et al., 1984).

Despite our finding of a relatively high rate of stability for thisgroup, some children who were classified as bullies in the 4th grade

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 31

Page 16: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

32 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

desisted and were classified as uninvolved or average in the 6th grade.Analyses assessing the relations between the stable and desisting bullypatterns and peer rejection and exposure to violence help to clarify thefindings. Notably, experiences with peer rejection and violence expo-sure in Grade 4 were unrelated to the stability of the bully group, butstable bullies were more likely than desisting bullies to be rejected bypeers and exposed to violence in Grade 6, suggesting that the stablebullies have more lasting social risks than do desisting bullies.Research findings have indicated that some aggressive children arewell liked by peers and integrated into the peer group, whereas othersare actively disliked and isolated (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & VanAcker, 2000). The desisting bullies, in contrast to the stable bullies,seem more likely to be members of the former group than the latter.Furthermore, stable bullies’ higher rates of exposure to violence in the6th grade may portend further involvement in aggressive behaviors asthese children get older.

Aggressive Victims

Aggressive victims represented 18.6% of the 4th graders and 13.8%of the 6th graders, with boys more likely than girls to be aggressive vic-tims. This decline in prevalence rates from Grade 4 to Grade 6 reflectsour finding that aggressive behavior and victimization became moredifferentiated as children got older. Similar findings have also beenreported in the literature (Boivin et al., 2001).

One of the most interesting findings of this study was that being anaggressive victim was only modestly stable over time. Being repeatedlyclassified as an aggressive victim was associated with relatively high ratesof peer rejection in Grades 4 and 6, and peer rejection differentiatedaggressive victims who desisted (i.e., became uninvolved or average) as wellas those who became bullies. The stable aggressive victim group is particu-larly concerning because aggressive victims are at heightened risk (com-pared to bullies, passive victims, and uninvolved children) for negativedevelopmental outcomes in multiple domains of adjustment (Schwartz etal., 2001). Thus, for those children who chronically occupy this social posi-tion, development may be seriously compromised.

It is important to note, however, that many aggressive victimschanged classifications over the follow-up period. Most aggressive vic-tims who changed classifications desisted, becoming uninvolved or aver-age by the 6th grade. Thus, for these children, status as an aggressive vic-tim was a temporary experience. Nearly 20%, however, became bullies.As Perry, Perry, and Kennedy (1992) noted, aggressive victims tend touse ineffectual aggression, which is an emotionally charged and under-

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 32

Page 17: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 33

controlled form of aggression that typically ends unsuccessfully, whereasbullies use their aggression more effectively. Thus, perhaps these childrenbecame more skilled as aggressors as they got older, accounting for thedecrease in aggressive victims and the increase in bullies between Grades4 and 6. This finding also suggests some fluidity between these two sub-types characterized by high levels of aggression and that aggressiveyouth may shift between aggressive victim and bully categories over time.

Passive Victims

Passive victims were relatively uncommon in this sample compared tothe bully, aggressive victim, and uninvolved groups. When children were inthe 4th grade, passive victims constituted 7.5% of the student population,with more girls than boys being classified in this group. They were some-what more common in the 6th grade, due primarily to an increase in pas-sive victims among boys, although passive victims still only accounted for9.5% of the sample. This is an intriguing finding given that most previousresearch has suggested that passive victims are more prevalent than bulliesand aggressive victims (Schwartz et al., 2001). This result may be explainedby methodological differences across studies. In the present study, the pas-sive victim group was defined as those children with high scores (above�.5 SD) on victimization and low scores (below –.5 SD) on aggression.The criterion used to identify those children who were low on aggressionwas more rigorous in the present study than in previous studies. Indeed,previous research has used more relaxed criteria to identify nonaggressive(i.e., passive) children, such as scores on aggression that range from themean to �.8 SD above the mean (Craig, 1998; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Perryet al., 1988; Schwartz, 2000; Schwartz et al., 1997). Thus, some previousresearch has included youngsters in the passive victim group who exhibitmoderate and even moderately high levels of aggression, as well as low lev-els of aggression. This practice may inflate prevalence estimates for thissubgroup compared to what was found in the present research. For exam-ple, in the present sample, when more relaxed criteria were used to identifythe low aggressive children, the number of 4th-grade passive victimsincreased from 130 to 206 (12%; using the mean on aggression as the cut-off score) to 340 (20%; using �.8 SD on aggression as the cutoff score).

Interestingly, stability rates for the passive victims were the lowestcompared to all other groups. Only about one-fourth of passive victimsremained in this category over the 2-year follow-up period. In fact,passive victims were more likely to be classified in either the uninvolvedor average groups as 6th graders than they were to be classified as pas-sive victims. Moreover, relatively few passive victims moved into theaggressive victim group, suggesting that the passive victims and aggres-

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 33

Page 18: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

34 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

sive victims were fairly distinct and overlapped little. Thus, these twotypes of victims seem to be well differentiated. Being rejected by peersin the 4th grade differentiated stable passive victims from desisting pas-sive victims. However, there was no relation with 6th-grade rejectionscores. Thus, perhaps stable passive victims acquire a reputation as vic-tims that continues to exist, even when they no longer experience ele-vated rejection rates. As such, they may occupy relatively low levels inthe social dominance hierarchy and therefore are readily attacked bypeers (see Hawker & Boulton, 2001, for theorizing about the role of thedominance hierarchy in peer victimization).

Implications of the Findings

This study documented gender differences and age-related changesin the prevalence and stability of distinct subgroups of children whoare involved in bullying interactions. It also demonstrated that peerrejection and, to a lesser extent, exposure to violence were related tothe chronicity of children’s status as aggressive victims, passive victims,or bullies. Although many questions remain to be addressed, this studyprovides implications for intervention. First, interventions that targetyoung children, when aggression and victimization are less stable andmore modifiable, seem to be warranted. In particular, such interven-tions should focus on preventing the establishment of stable aggressivevictim, passive victim, and bully patterns, although this may be easierto do for passive victims than for bullies and aggressive victims.

In addition, interventions may need to contain components that aresensitive to subgroup differences. For instance, interventions would bewise to specifically address the needs of aggressive victims as distinctfrom those of passive victims. These two groups of victimized youthappear to be fairly unique, showing different developmental trajectoriesas well as different patterns of functioning. Thus, their intervention needsare also likely to be unique. Similarly, aggressive victims and bullies mayalso have different intervention needs. Although some overlap existedbetween these two types of aggressive children, the overlap was not com-plete, with aggressive victims experiencing more persistent rejection fromthe peer group and bullies experiencing more violence exposure.

Concluding Comments

Although we examined developmental changes in group classifica-tions, we did so with a sample that was limited in age to the late ele-mentary school years. Extending these findings to younger childrenand adolescents is necessary to demonstrate the extent to which theprevalence and stability patterns obtained with this sample generalize

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 34

Page 19: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 35

across ages; there is reason to believe that the patterns may be specificto children’s developmental stage. For instance, among preschoolersand kindergartners, externalizing characteristics are very highly relatedto victimization but internalizing characteristics are only minimallyrelated to victimization (Hanish et al., in press). Thus, the prevalencerates for aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies may be differ-ent among very young children. In support of this supposition,Alsaker and Valkanover (2001) have reported relatively high preva-lence rates for aggressive victims and relatively low prevalence rates forpassive victims in their study of kindergartners. Furthermore, victim-ization becomes more stable with age, but aggression is fairly stableeven from an early age (Hanish & Guerra, 2000a; Huesmann et al.,1984). Thus, compared to the stability rates reported here, stabilityrates for the passive victim and aggressive victim groups may be evenlower for younger children and even higher for adolescents.

In summary, this study suggested that there were developmentalchanges as well as developmental consistencies in the expression ofaggressive victim, passive victim, and bully behavior patterns duringthe mid- to late elementary school years. Findings highlight the valueof taking a person-oriented approach and differentiating these threegroups, given that each group followed a different developmental tra-jectory. It will be important for future research to extend these meth-odologies to follow aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies asthey develop from an early age into adolescence.

ReferencesALSAKER, F. D., & VALKANOVER, S. (2001). Early diagnosis and preven-

tion of victimization in kindergarten. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victim-ized (pp. 175–195). New York: Guilford Press.

ATTAR, B. K., GUERRA, N. G., & TOLAN, P. H. (1994). Neighborhooddisadvantage, stressful life events, and adjustment in urban elementary-school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 391–400.

BALDRY, A. C., & FARRINGTON, D. P. (1998). Parenting influences on bul-lying and victimization. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 237–254.

BIJTTEBIER, P., & VERTOMMEN, H. (1998). Coping with peer argumentsin school-age children with bully/victim problems. British Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 68, 387–394.

BOIVIN, M., HYMEL, S., & BUKOWSKI, W. M. (1995). The roles of socialwithdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneli-ness and depressed mood in children. Development and Psychopathology,7, 765–785.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 35

Page 20: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

36 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

BOIVIN, M., HYMEL, S., & HODGES, E. V. E. (2001). Toward a processview of peer rejection and harassment. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victim-ized (pp. 265–289). New York: Guilford Press.

BOULTON, M. J., & SMITH, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions, andpeer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315–329.

CASPI, A., & MOFFITT, T. E. (1995). The continuity of maladaptive behav-ior: From description to understanding in the study of antisocial behav-ior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology.Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 472–511). New York: Wiley.

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

ERON, L. D., WALDER, L. O., & LEFKOWITZ, M. M. (1971). Learning ofaggression in children. Boston: Little Brown.

FRENCH, D. C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer rejected boys: Aggressive andnonaggressive subtypes. Child Development, 59, 976–985.

GORMAN-SMITH, D., & TOLAN, P. H. (1998). The role of exposure tocommunity violence and developmental problems among inner cityyouth. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 101–116.

GUERRA, N. G., ERON, L. D., HUESMANN, L. R., TOLAN, P., & VANACKER, R. (1997). A cognitive-ecological approach to the preventionand mitigation of violence and aggression in inner-city youth. In D. P. Fry& K. Bjorkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variations in conflict resolution: Alterna-tives to violence (pp. 199–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

HANISH, L. D., EISENBERG, N., FABES, R. A., SPINRAD, T. L. RYAN,P., & SCHMIDT, S. (in press). The expression and regulation of negativeemotions: Risk factors for young children’s peer victimization. Develop-ment and Psychopathology.

HANISH, L. D., & GUERRA, N. G. (2000a). The roles of ethnicity andschool context in predicting children’s victimization by peers. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 28, 201–223.

HANISH, L. D., & GUERRA, N. G. (2000b). Predictors of peer victimiza-tion among urban youth. Social Development, 9, 521–543.

HANISH L. D., & GUERRA, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of pat-terns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psy-chopathology, 14, 69–89.

HAWKER, D. S. J., & BOULTON, M. J. (2001). Subtypes of peer harassmentand their correlates: A social dominance perspective. In J. Juvonen & S.Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable andvictimized (pp. 378–397). New York: Guilford Press.

HODGES, E. V. E., MALONE, M. J., & PERRY, D. G. (1997). Individualrisk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in thepeer group. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1032–1039.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 36

Page 21: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 37

HODGES, E. V. E., & PERRY, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonalantecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685.

HUESMANN, L. R., ERON, L. D., GUERRA, N. G., & CRAWSHAW, V.(1994). A teacher version of the peer-nomination inventory. PsychologicalAssessment, 6, 329–336.

HUESMANN, L. R., ERON, L. D., LEFKOWITZ, M. M., & WALDER,L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Develop-mental Psychology, 20, 1120–1134.

HUESMANN, L. R., LAGERSPETZ, K., & ERON, L. D. (1984). Interven-ing variables in the TV violence-aggression relation: Evidence from twocountries. Developmental Psychology, 20, 746–775.

KUMPULAINEN, K., RASANEN, E., HENTTONEN, I., ALMQVIST, F.,KRESANOV, K., LINNA, S.-L., MOILANEN, I., PIHA, J., PUURA,K., & TAMMINEN, T. (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptomsamong elementary school-age children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22,705–717.

LADD, G. W., & KOCHENDERFER-LADD, B. (2000). Identifying victimsof peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment,prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psy-chological Assessment, 14, 74–76.

MYNARD, H., & JOSEPH, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their associ-ation with Eysenck’s personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year-olds. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 67, 51–54.

OLWEUS, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys.Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

OLWEUS, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effectsof a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 35, 1171–1190.

O’MOORE, A. M., & HILLERY, B. (1989). Bullying in Dublin schools. TheIrish Journal of Psychology, 10, 426–441.

PELLEGRINI, A. D., & BARTINI, M. (2000). An empirical comparison ofmethods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings.Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 360–366.

PELLEGRINI, A. D., BARTINI, M., & BROOKS, F. (1999). School bul-lies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliationand victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 91, 216–224.

PERRY, D. G., KUSEL, S. J., & PERRY, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggres-sion. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807–814.

PERRY, D. G., PERRY, L. C., & KENNEDY, E. (1992). Conflict and thedevelopment of antisocial behavior. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup(Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 301–329). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 37

Page 22: Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies ...ace.ucr.edu/people/nancy_guerra/nancy_pdfs/aggressive victims... · Aggressive Victims, Passive Victims, and Bullies 19 they were

38 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

RODKIN, P. C., FARMER, T. W., PEARL, R., & VAN ACKER, R. (2000).Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations.Developmental Psychology, 36, 14–24.

SALMIVALLI, C. (2001). Group view on victimization: Empirical findingsand their implications. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassmentin school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 398–419). NewYork: Guilford Press.

SCHWARTZ, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peergroups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181–192.

SCHWARTZ, D., DODGE, K. A., PETTIT, G. P., & BATES, J. E. (1997).The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Develop-ment, 68, 665–675.

SCHWARTZ, D., MCFADYEN-KETCHUM, S. A., DODGE, K. A., PET-TIT, G. S., & BATES, J. E. (1998). Peer group victimization as a predictorof children’s behavior problems at home and in school. Development andPsychopathology, 10, 87–99.

SCHWARTZ, D., & PROCTOR, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposureand children’s social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediatingroles of emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 68, 670–683.

SCHWARTZ, D., PROCTOR, L. J., & CHIEN, D. H. (2001). The aggressivevictim of bullying: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathwayto victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harass-ment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147–174).New York: Guilford Press.

SROUFE, L. A., EGELAND, B., & KREUTZER, T. (1990). The fate of earlyexperience following developmental change: Longitudinal approaches toindividual adaptation in childhood. Child Development, 61, 1363–1373.

WILSON, W. K. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass,and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

WOLKE, D., WOODS, S., BLOOMFIELD, L., & KARSTADT, L. (2000).The association between direct and relational bullying and behaviourproblems among primary school children. Journal of Child Psychology,41, 989–1002.

MPQ_50-1_02_Hani_asnIII 12/15/03 11:10 Page 38