school bullying in adolescence and personality traits; a person-centered approach

8/11/2019 School Bullying in Adolescence and Personality Traits; A Person-centered Approach

1/23

http://jiv.sagepub.com/Violence

Journal of Interpersonal

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0886260513505216

2014 29: 736 originally published online 18 November 2013J Interpers Violenceand Petar Colovic

Jasmina Kodzopeljic, SnezanaSmederevac, Dusanka Mitrovic, Bojana DinicPerson-Centered Approach

School Bullying in Adolescence and Personality Traits: A

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

can be found at:Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceAdditional services and information for

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 18, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jan 17, 2014Version of Record>>

at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://www.apsac.org/http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.apsac.org/http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/13/0886260513505216.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/13/0886260513505216.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.refs.htmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.refs.htmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/13/0886260513505216.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/13/0886260513505216.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/13/0886260513505216.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.refs.htmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.apsac.org/http://www.apsac.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736http://jiv.sagepub.com/


2/23

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

2014, Vol. 29(4) 736757

The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0886260513505216

jiv.sagepub.com

Article

School Bullying inAdolescence and

Personality Traits:A Person-CenteredApproach

Jasmina Kodopelji, PhD,1Sneana Smederevac,

PhD,1Duanka Mitrovi, PhD,1Bojana Dini, MSc,1and Petar olovi, PhD1

Abstract

This study examined the differences in personality traits between theclusters reflecting the roles in violent interactions among high school

students. The sample included 397 students (51.1% male) of Serbiannationality from the first to the fourth grades of different high schools. Basedon scores of five dimensions related to peer violence (Physical Aggression,Psychological Aggression, Victimization, Adapted Behavior, and RiskyBehavior), three clusters were extracted: Adapted Adolescents, Victims,and Bullies. These three clusters were compared with respect to lexicalBig Seven personality traits, and the results indicate that the clusters differsignificantly on Aggressiveness, Neuroticism, and Negative Valence. The

Adapted Adolescents have the lowest scores on all three dimensions, whilethe Victims score highest on Neuroticism, and the Bullies on Aggressiveness.The potential importance of certain Extraversion facets for the roles inviolent interaction was discussed.

Keywords

bullying, victimization, peer violence, Big Seven

1University of Novi Sad, Serbia

Corresponding Author:

Bojana Dini, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia.

Email: [email protected]

JIV

29

4

10.1177/0886260513505216Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceKodopelji etal.research-article

2013

at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/


3/23

Kodopeljiet al. 737

Introduction

Bullying has been the subject of researchers interest since the first studies

were conducted in Scandinavian countries in the late 1970s (Olweus, 1978,1993). Although it is very difficult to compare the results of the frequency ofviolent behavior in different cultures and educational systems, the results ofstudies in many countries have suggested that the frequency of violent behav-ior among students had been on the increase (Carney & Merrell, 2001). Inaddition to that, the results of numerous studies have pointed to the negativeand long-term consequences of bullying for all participants (increased depres-siveness, anxiety, social exclusion and withdrawal, reactive aggression, andso on in victims; Craig, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Hourbe, Targuinio,Thuillier, & Hergott, 2006; Nansel et al., 2001; Pepler et al., 2006). Suchresults may be the reason for the unfading interest in the phenomenon of bul-lying in recent decades.

In spite of the notably rising number of studies since the 1970s, disagree-ments among authors regarding the definition of bullying have persistedthroughout this period (Arora, 1996; Griffin & Gross, 2004). However,despite the differences in defining bullying, certain common elements are

present in works of many authors. Price and Dodge (1989) defined bullying

as a type of proactive aggression that can be displayed in the form of direct orrelational aggressive behavior (Connor, 1988). Therefore, many authors per-ceived intentional and repetitive infliction of physical pain and/or intimida-tion not provoked by the victims actions as significant determinants of

bullying (Olweus, 1993, 2010). However, the power imbalance that existsbetween the bully and the victim has also been emphasized (Peterson &Rigby, 1999). To conduct a more comprehensive research of the social cli-mate in schools, some studies shifted their focus from the narrowly defined

bullying phenomenon to more broadly defined concepts of peer and schoolviolence (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Kodopelji, Smederevac, & olovi,2010; Popadi & Plut, 2007; Thomson, Arora, & Sharp, 2002). In addition tothe aforementioned components of bullying, these concepts include individ-ual violent interactions between peers, where an imbalance of power is notnecessarily present. However, disagreements over defining the concept havegained or lost importance depending on the goal of the research. Whereas theway of assessment of violent behavior can affect the estimation of the preva-

lence rate (Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2009; Solberg & Olweus, 2003),its effect on determining predictors has not been confirmed (Cook, Williams,Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010). The results of the meta-analytic study (Cooket al., 2010) showed that the predictors of bullying do not differ from predic-tors of aggressive behavior.



4/23

738 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)

According to the definition, bullying occurs in a social context determinedby the individual characteristics of the participants, as well as by differentcontextual features of the environment (Cook et al., 2010). Bullying appears

to be a group activity in which the parties involved participate differentlyaccording to their personal characteristics (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen,Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999). Roles in violent interactions tend toremain stable not only throughout elementary school (Salmivalli, Lappalainen,& Lagerspetz, 1998) but also as participants transfer to high school (Paul &Cillessen, 2003). Most authors consider three roles in violent interaction:

bully, victim, and bully-victim. Bullies may be considered as children whoshow intentional and repeated aggressive behavior toward other children.

Victims in general may be defined as targets of bullying, while bully-victimsare both targets of bullying and aggressors (Griffin & Gross, 2004). In themeta-analysis of 153 studies, Cook et al. (2010) gave a short review of themost important predictors of each role in violent interaction. Even thoughsome of the personal and contextual predictors appeared in all three groups(gender, family and home environment, school climate, poor social skills),

bullies were also characterized by a more pronounced externalizing behavior,low school achievement, and negative attitudes and beliefs about others and

themselves. Typical victims showed greater tendency toward internalizedproblems (decrease in self-esteem, increase in anxiety, and depressiveness,etc.) and negative self-related cognitions. In addition to that, they were fre-quently rejected by their peers and socially isolated. Bully-victim groupexhibited a comorbidity of externalized and internalized problems, a negativeimage of oneself and others, as well as poor social competence, while peerrejection was accompanied by succumbing to negative peer influence. Inaddition, some authors single out the role of bystanders or witnesses asimportant group in bullying situations (e.g., Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012; Gini,Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008; Salmivalli, 2010). It may be important tomake a distinction between bystanders and other participants in bullying. The

bystanders do not take active part in violent interactions; however, they canindirectly reinforce the bullies behavior, passively support the victims, or

behave as observers (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjrkqvist, sterman, &Kaukiainen, 1996). Bystanders role in violent interaction is important

because their behavior can contribute to persistence of violent patterns.Temporal stability of the role in violent interaction, among other factors,

was also shown to be affected by personality traits (Olweus, 1993; Salmivalliet al., 1998). Among studies that have investigated relations between person-ality traits and roles in bullying incidents, two approaches are noted: vari-able-centered and person-centered (Grumm & von Collani, 2009). Traditional,variable-centered approach to this problem explored the relationship between

http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/


5/23

Kodopeljiet al. 739

personality traits and aggressive behavior or bullying. The Big Five modelwas used in several studies as the most influential theoretical framework.This model includes five dimensions: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The results of numerous studies indi-cated that Agreeableness had the strongest correlation and emerged as themost important predictor of all roles in violent interactions (Gleason, Jensen-Campbell, & Richardson, 2004; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002; Sharpe &Desai, 2001; Tani, Greenman, Schneider, & Fregoso, 2003; Trebblay &Ewart, 2005). Low Agreeableness was found in both bullies and victims(Tani et al., 2003), and it was also a significant predictor of victimizationincrease over time (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002). Agreeableness also nega-

tively correlated with antisocial behavior and adolescent delinquency(Robins, John, & Caspi, 1994; Van Dam, Janssens, & De Bruyn, 2005). Anumber of factors contributing to social adaptation, such as peer acceptance(Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002), cooperation in group activities (Graziano,Hair, & Finch, 1997), and self-control in interpersonal relations (Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & Hair, 1996), also correlated significantly withAgreeableness. Such behaviors may occur as protective factors in bullyingsituations. Other dimensions, apart from Agreeableness, correlated signifi-

cantly with different roles in violent interactions. Both victims and bulliesscored high on Neuroticism (Maynard & Joseph, 1997; Tani et al., 2003).However, some studies indicated that bullies showed higher positive affectthan other participants in violent interaction (Craig & Pepler, 1997). It wasassumed that hostility and lack of empathy of the bullies may have been theresult of not only low Agreeableness but also of low Conscientiousness. Atthe same time, social exclusion of the victim can stem from low Extraversionand high Neuroticism (Tani et al., 2003). Substantial correlations betweenOpenness and violent behavior have not been found in most studies.

Nonetheless, the results of our research on senior elementary school studentssuggested that higher Openness is a feature of victims (Smederevac &olovi, 2011).

The person-centered approach investigates specific trait configurationsdistinctive for certain groups of individuals belonging to a specific personal-ity type (Grumm & von Collani, 2009). Typology introduced by Block andBlock (1980) has often been used in the search for different outcomes ofspecific personality types. Three personality types, labeled resilient, overcon-

trolled, and undercontrolled, represent unique combinations of traits thathave specific behavioral outcomes. Some of these outcomes are related to

bullying. Thus certain findings showed that overcontrolled individuals, char-acterized by high Neuroticism and low Extraversion, inclined to internalized

problems, while undercontrolled ones, characterized by low Agreeableness



6/23


and Conscientiousness, were more prone to externalized problems (Robins,John, Caspi, & Moffit, 1996; Van Leeuwen, de Fruyt, & Mervielde, 2004).Aggressive behavior as the behavioral outcome of the above-mentioned per-

sonality types has also been the subject of research. A longitudinal study byHart, Hoffman, Edelstein, and Keller (1997) revealed that children who wereidentified as overcontrolled at the age of seven, showed a greater predisposi-tion to withdraw from social interactions in adolescence, as well as a lowerlevel of self-esteem compared with the other two types. The increase ofaggressive behavior during adolescence was noted in children classified asundercontrolled. Considering that the low scores on Agreeableness andConscientiousness in undercontrolled individuals are sometimes accompa-

nied by moderate and high Neuroticism (Herzberg & Roth, 2006), it is appar-ent that there is a high level of compliance between the results ofvariable-centered and person-centered approach to personal characteristics of

bullies. The resilient type is characterized by high social competence andemotional stability (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999). In terms of five-factormodel, resilient persons are characterized by moderate Extraversion,Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness, and low Neuroticism (VanLeeuwen et al., 2004). Therefore, it is less likely that the Resilients will tend

to participate regularly in violent interactions.Besides the studies that investigated relations between personality typesand violent behavior, attempts have been made to extract types of adolescents

based on self- or peer-reported measures of bullying and/or victimization(Espelage & Holt, 2001; Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010). The resultssuggest that there are three subtypes of bullies in both boys and girls (Peeterset al., 2010), while five clusters are extracted when both measures of bullyingand victimization are taken into account (Espelage & Holt, 2001).

Studies concerning personality traits of bullies and victims have, up tonow, used the Big Five model framework, regardless of the approach applied.Some traits not included in this model can potentially be significant indescribing children displaying violent behavior and children enduring vio-lence. Taking that into consideration, a questionnaire aimed at assessingseven personality dimensions is applied in this study. The questionnaire BigFive Plus Two (BF+2; Smederevac, Mitrovi, & olovi, 2010) was devel-oped on the basis of lexical studies of personality descriptors in the Serbianlanguage. It contains scales for the assessment of Neuroticism, Extraversion,

Aggressiveness, Conscientiousness, Openness, Positive Valence, andNegative Valence. The latter two dimensions are referred to by the commonterm evaluative dimensions, because they comprise indicators of positiveand negative self-evaluation. Previous studies have pointed to low self-esteem as one of the important characteristics of victimized children (Carney



7/23

Kodopeljiet al. 741

& Merrell, 2001). Therefore, evaluative dimensions, which contain markersof self-esteem, may play an important role in the personality description of

both bullies and victims. Victims could achieve significantly lower scores on

Positive Valence than other children, and possibly higher scores on NegativeValence, considering the findings pointing to their proneness to depression(Carney & Merrell, 2001). Some thus far findings have spoken in favor ofincreased Neuroticism and Openness in victims (Smederevac & olovi,2011); therefore, such results can be expected in this study. As research on asample of children aged 11 to 15 indicated elevated scores on Positive and

Negative Valence in children who show violent behavior (Mitrovi,Kodopelji, & olovi, 2011), similar results can be expected in high school

students. Apart from this, Aggressiveness and Neuroticism may be signifi-cant for the description of both groups of participants in violent interactions.This study is based on a somewhat broader definition of bullying which

includes Olweus criteria (Olweus, 2010), as well as incidental cases of non-repetitive bullying not necessarily including power imbalance. The studyuses person-centered approach, which has been previously used in studiesregarding adolescents violent behavior (Peeters et al., 2010). However, itappears that person-centered studies of self-reported violence in adolescents

(Espelage & Holt, 2001; Peeters et al., 2010) are much less frequent thanperson-oriented studies that are primarily based on personality traits(Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Robins et al., 1996; Scholte, van Lieshout, deWit, & van Aken, 2005; Van Leeuwen et al., 2004), particularly in older ado-lescents. This study attempts to examine whether self-reported tendencies to

participate in violent interactions may serve as a basis for plausible typologyof adolescents, and if so, whether adolescents in such clusters differ withregard to personality traits. By using violent behavior as a framework forcluster extraction, this study aims to contribute to a better understanding ofdifferent roles in violent interactions among adolescents. At the same time,

by using BF+2, this study takes into consideration both descriptive and eval-uative personality dimensions, the latter being neglected in studies of adoles-cents violent behavior so far.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The study was conducted in 2011. The sample comprised 203 (51.1%) maleand 194 (48.9%) female first- to fourth-grade high school students fromSerbia. The participants were White and of Serbian nationality. The averageage of the participants was 16.68 (SD = 1.15, range = 15-19). Informed



8/23


consent was obtained prior to administration of the questionnaires. Participantswere told that the study was investigating the frequency of violence in the highschool population. In addition, participants were informed that their participa-

tion was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any timewithout penalty. No participants declined to participate in the study.

Measures

Peer Violence Questionnaire (PVQ). The PVQ (Maksimovi, Rakovi,Jovanovi, & olovi, 2008) was developed to measure the tendency towarddifferent forms of violent behavior. Apart from behavioral indicators of peer

violence in the more narrow sense, PVQ includes indicators of some forms ofrisky behavior which could be related to violent behavior and bullying. PVQcontains five facets: Physical Violence, which assesses a variety of physicalforms of violence from direct physical violence toward peers to incitement of

physical violence (e.g., I often take a part in fights); Psychological Vio-lence, which measures psychological forms of violence such as gossip, mock,disregard, and so on (e.g., I gossip with my friends about people who deserveit); Victimization, which measures the exposure to different forms of vio-

lence (e.g., Other students often push me); Adapted Behavior, which mea-sures behavior such as protecting peers, exemplary behavior, and so on (e.g.,Even when I mess up, I try to set things right.); and Risky Behavior, whichassesses behavior such as substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, theft, andso on (e.g., I tried marijuana). The questionnaire contains 59 binary items(Yes/No), of which seven are fillers (e.g., I have many hobbies). Fillers areincluded in the questionnaire to obscure the purpose of the scale.

Higher scores on all the scales in PVQ indicate increased tendency to dis-play certain patterns of behavior labeled by the scale name, while lowerscores indicate decreased proneness to these behaviors. The descriptives andreliabilities of scales are shown in Table 1.

BF+2. The BF+2 (Smederevac et al., 2010) is a 184-item measure of sevenlexical personality dimensions in the Serbian language. The psycho-lexicalstudy, on which the BF+2 is based, was conducted according to Tellegen andWallers non-restrictive criteria (Waller, 1999), which suggest that any per-sonality descriptor can be included in the descriptor list. The items were

designed as simple statements in accordance with dictionary definitions, withthe 5-point Likert response format ranging from very false for me to verytrue for me. The instrument measures 7 higher order and 18 lower order

personality dimensions. Seven higher order scales were Neuroticism, Extra-version, Conscientiousness, Aggressiveness, Openness, Positive Valence,



9/23

Kodopeljiet al. 743

and Negative Valence. The Neuroticism scale refers to the tendency to expe-rience negative emotions and contains three facets: Anxiety, Depression, and

Negative Affect. The Extraversion scale mostly includes indicators of

Table 1. Number of Items, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for Scalesof PVQ and BF+2.

n M SD

PVQ

Physical violence 15 11.91 2.87 .80

Risky behavior 10 6.59 1.92 .64

Victimization 9 7.81 1.30 .60

Adapted behavior 10 2.20 1.46 .63

Psychological violence 8 5.89 1.59 .56

BF+2

Anxiety 13 34.83 9.01 .80

Depression 10 20.85 7.02 .79

Negative affect 12 33.02 9.27 .82

Warmth 8 32.80 3.92 .60

Positive affect 8 33.89 3.81 .65

Sociability 8 31.54 4.75 .65

Self-discipline 8 24.98 6.85 .72

Persistence 11 41.80 6.33 .73

Cautiousness 9 31.35 5.25 .59

Anger 9 26.03 7.57 .80 Disagreeableness 11 27.53 6.90 .68

Tough-mindedness 10 32.66 6.80 .71

Intellect 13 46.84 8.25 .77

Novelty seeking 7 27.36 4.18 .52

Superiority 14 43.31 10.15 .83

Positive self-concept 11 41.65 6.05 .76

Manipulative style 12 25.64 8.23 .82

Negative self-concept 10 17.29 5.03 .68

Neuroticism 35 88.75 21.75 .91 Extraversion 24 98.22 9.89 .79

Conscientiousness 28 98.09 14.78 .84

Aggressiveness 30 86.20 16.50 .84

Openness 20 74.19 10.35 .77

Positive valence 25 84.97 14.80 .88

Negative valence 22 42.92 11.34 .83

Note.PVQ = Peer Violence Questionnaire; BF+2 = Big Five Plus Two.



10/23


sociability and positive emotionality and contains the following facets:Warmth, Positive Affect, and Sociability. The Conscientiousness scaleincludes indicators of persistence and responsible attitude toward obligations

and consists of the facets named Self-discipline, Persistence, and Cautious-ness. The Aggressiveness scale, for the most part, includes indicators of thedisplay of aggressive impulses and aggressive reactions, and comprises threefacets: Anger, Disagreeableness, and Tough-mindedness. The Openness scalerefers to a variety of interests and proneness to novelties, and contains twofacets: Intellect and Novelty Seeking. The Positive Valence includes two fac-ets: Superiority and Positive Self-Concept. The Negative Valence scale con-sists of two facets: Manipulative Style and Negative Self-Concept. The

descriptives and reliabilities of scales are shown in Table 1.

Data Analysis

To determine types of violent and risky behavior, two-step cluster analysis(with log-likelihood as distance measure) was conducted based on the PVQscores. Three-, four-, and five-cluster solutions were compared according totheir silhouette widths. Silhouette width (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2005) was

used as a measure of cluster validity. The silhouette is a graphical representa-tion of cluster cohesion or separation. Values of silhouette width span from1 to 1. Larger values indicate better clustering, and thus they are preferred(Brock, Pihur, Datta, & Datta, 2008; Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2005).

Results

Descriptives and Reliability

The descriptives and reliabilities for PVQ and BF+2 scales are shown inTable 1. Reliabilities of scales were acceptable to good, except forPsychological Violence, Novelity Seeking, and Cautiousness. Students gen-erally scored higher on Physical Violence, Victimization, and PsychologicalViolence, and lower on Adapted Behavior.

Cluster Analysis

To identify clusters based on the PVQ scores, a two-step cluster analysis wasperformed. The silhouette width was the most favorable for the three-clustersolution. One-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) revealed significant dif-ferences at thep< .01 between groups on all PVQ scores: Physical Violence,F(2, 373) = 145.95; Psychological Violence,F(2, 373) = 33.54; Victimization,



11/23

Kodopeljiet al. 745

F(2, 373) = 98.13; Adapted Behavior,F(2, 373) = 82.63; and Risky Behavior,F(2, 373) = 139.13. Scheffe post hoc tests showed that only the differencesbetween the first and the second subgroup on Risky Behavior (p= .94) andbetween the first and the third subgroup on Adapted Behavior (p= .57) arenot statistically significant. Classification results from the discriminant anal-ysis showed that 97.2% of cases for the first subgroup are classified correctly,

100% for the second, and 94.5% for the third subgroup.Figure 1 shows the mean standardized scores for the three-cluster solu-tion. The first cluster comprised the majority of the sample (n= 250, 66.5%).This cluster was described by relatively low scores on each of the PVQ fac-ets, except for the Adapted Behavior, so the cluster was named Adapted. Theadolescents belonging to this cluster scored the lowest on Physical andPsychological Violence and Victimization, while on Adapted Behavior theyscored same as the members of the third cluster but significantly higher thanthe adolescents from the second cluster. Their scores on Risky Behavior were

the same as those achieved by the members of the second cluster but signifi-cantly lower than in the third cluster. The Adapted cluster comprised 103

boys (41.2%) and 147 girls (58.8%), average age of 16.62 (SD= 1.14). Thesecond cluster comprised 53 participants (14.1% of the whole sample), 27

Figure 1. Mean standardized scores for Peer Violence Questionnaire scales in thethree-cluster solution.



12/23


boys, and average age of students in this cluster was 16.92 (SD= 1.12). Thiscluster was described by relatively high scores on Victimization and lowscores on Adaptive and Risky Behavior, so it was named Victims. The Victims

cluster had the highest scores on Victimization and the lowest scores onAdapted Behavior, as well as the lowest scores on Risky Behavior along withthe Adapted cluster, while scores on Physical and Psychological Violencewere moderate compared with other clusters. The third cluster comprised 73

participants (19.4%), with relatively high scores on Physical Violence andRisky Behavior, and low on Victimization, so this cluster was named Bullies.The Bullies cluster had the highest scores on Physical and PsychologicalViolence and Risky Behavior, moderate scores on Victimization, and nearly

the same scores on Adapted behavior as the Adapted cluster but higher thanthe Victims cluster. Boys were the majority of the Bullies cluster (n= 58,79.5%), and the average age of students in this cluster was 16.74 (SD= 1.21).

Results of a Profile (3) Gender (2) chi-square test indicated that thenumbers of male and female students in clusters were significantly different,2(2) = 33.09,p< .001. Inspection of crosstabulation suggested that the maindifference concerned the group of Bullies, which included mostly male

participants.

Clusters and Personality Traits

UnivariateFtests were performed on all BF+2 variables with the three clus-ters as the grouping factor, followed by Scheffe post hoc tests (see Table 2).

F tests yielded significant univariate effects of group membership onalmost all personality variables (Table 2). Results indicated that the Victimshad the highest scores on all facets of Neuroticism, and the Bullies had thehighest scores on all facets of Aggressiveness and on Manipulative Stylefacet of Negative Valence. The Adapted and the Bullies differed significantlyon Conscientiousness. However, at the facet level, the only difference was onSelf-Discipline between the Adapted and the others, with the Adapted scor-ing higher. The Bullies scored higher than adapted on Superiority (PositiveValences facet). The Adapted scored higher than the Victims on Warmth(Extraversions facet). The Bullies scored higher on the Sociability than theVictims. The Intellect (facet of Openness) also discriminated between theVictims and the Bullies, with the latter scoring lower. Eta-squared effect sizes

were moderate for domains of Negative Valence, Aggressiveness, andNeuroticism, as well as for Manipulative Style, Negative Self-Concept,Depression, and Anger facets. For the remaining personality variables, effectsizes were small.



13/23

Kodopeljiet al. 747

Discussion

The first aim of this study was to identify distinct groups of adolescents whodiffer according to the participants roles in violent interaction. Three clusterswith the following features were identified: (1) cluster of adapted adolescentswho showed lower tendency to participate in violent interaction than other

participants; (2) cluster of adolescents who were most often victims in violentinteraction; and (3) cluster of adolescents who showed violent behaviortoward others.

The cluster named the Adapted was the most numerous (66.5% of sample)and included adolescents who scored lower than others not only onPhysical Violence, Risky Behavior, and Psychological Violence but also onVictimization. On the other hand, these participants scored highest on Adapted

Table 2. Means, Standard deviations, and Post Hoc Tests for BF+2 Variables bythe Three-Cluster Classification.

1-Adapted 2-Victims 3-Bullies

Scheffe PostHocF(2, 372) 2 M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

Anxiety 7.16** .04 33.90 (8.98) 38.96 (9.06) 35.01 (8.33) 2 > 1 and 3

Depression 37.43*** .17 18.95 (5.89) 26.70 (7.82) 23.12 (7.05) 2 > 3 > 1

Negative affect 19.86*** .10 31.22 (8.73) 39.32 (8.75) 34.62 (9.24) 2 > 3 > 1

Warmth 3.86* .02 33.18 (3.67) 31.75 (4.33) 32.25 (4.29) 1 > 2

Positive affect 2.51 .01 34.20 (3.49) 33.34 (4.46) 33.22 (4.26)

Sociability 6.01** .03 31.43 (4.71) 30.08 (5.68) 32.96 (3.68) 3 > 2

Self-discipline 14.10*** .07 26.27 (6.74) 22.36 (6.27) 22.48 (6.45) 1 > 2 and 3

Persistence 1.81 .01 42.24 (6.45) 40.94 (6.97) 40.90 (5.26)

Cautiousness 2.51 .01 31.58 (5.04) 31.91 (5.61) 30.14 (5.56)

Anger 36.04*** .16 24.03 (7.07) 27.68 (6.93) 31.68 (6.54) 3 > 2 > 1

Disagreeableness 10.52*** .05 26.82 (6.44) 26.45 (7.10) 30.79 (7.42) 3 > 1 and 2

Tough-mindedness 18.77*** .09 31.34 (6.63) 33.51 (6.02) 36.56 (6.38) 3 > 1 and 2

Intellect 3.81* .02 46.98 (8.30) 48.94 (8.75) 44.89 (7.39) 2 > 3

Novelty seeking 2.03 .01 27.07 (4.20) 27.62 (4.45) 28.15 (3.82)

Superiority 3.32* .02 42.53 (10.07) 43.34 (10.94) 45.99 (9.51) 3 > 1

Positive self-concept 0.57 .00 41.57 (6.00) 41.17 (6.58) 42.28 (5.87)

Manipulative style 39.29*** .17 23.31 (7.19) 28.19 (7.17) 31.74 (8.68) 3 > 2 > 1

Negative self-concept 50.57*** .21 15.64 (3.86) 20.21 (5.85) 20.79 (5.26) 2 and 3 > 1

Neuroticism 24.77*** .12 84.07 (20.05) 104.98 (21.86) 93.07 (20.96) 2 > 3 > 1Extraversion 3.02* .02 98.81 (9.44) 95.17 (11.52) 98.42 (9.85) 1 > 2

Conscientiousness 7.29** .04 100.08 (14.80) 95.21 (15.60) 93.31 (12.70) 1 > 3

Aggressiveness 34.77*** .16 82.19 (15.35) 87.64 (14.27) 99.06 (15.23) 3 > 1

Openness 1.82 .01 74.04 (10.51) 76.54 (10.94) 73.04 (9.19)

Positive valence 2.32 .01 84.10 (14.75) 84.51 (15.85) 88.32 (13.89)

Negative valence 63.62** .26 38.96 (9.32) 48.40 (10.23) 52.53 (11.12) 2 and 3 > 1

Note.All post hoc results presented in this table are significant at p< .05. BF+2 = Big Five Plus Two.

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/


14/23


Behavior, which implies a negative attitude toward violence. Adapted adoles-cents are more emotionally stable than the other two groups, which is sup-

ported by the findings regarding Neuroticism domain and facets. Higher

emotional stability is an important basis for resilience and adaptive strategiesfor facing potentially threatening stimuli from the environment (Robins et al.,1996). Although the Adapted had the highest overall Extraversion score, theydid not differ from other groups regarding Positive Affect and Sociability.Thus, it appears that these differences are not predominantly temperament-

based. Rather, the Adapted express most prominently those aspects of extro-verted behavior connected to the intensity of interest in others, social skills,and socialization, which is reflected in higher score on the Warmth facet. The

Adapted, compared with the other groups, scored lower on Negative Valence,which includes Negative Self-Concept and Manipulative Style. This suggestsa lower tendency toward manipulative behavior and negative self-evaluation.In addition to that, Aggressiveness scores show that the Adapted are less proneto anger and that they are less stubborn and tough-minded than the Bullies.Self-discipline of the Adapted is high. This most likely contributes to successin carrying out various obligations. Such success, in turn, increases self-esteem and maintains emotional stability. However, the finding that they score

lower on Superiority than the Bullies indicates that their self-esteem has soundemotional and cognitive bases. These results correspond to the findings refer-ring to the features of adapted individuals (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999).Domain and facet configuration in the Adapted cluster, obtained in ourresearch, corresponds with the prototypical features of the resilient type (Hartet al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996).

The cluster Victims (14.1% of the sample) included adolescents scoringextremely high on Victimization, with lower scores on Risky Behavior andAdapted Behavior. However, their proneness to physical and psychologicalviolence is more prominent than in the cluster Adapted. This finding points toa possibility that the cluster Victims also partly incorporates the adolescentswho are simultaneously in both the position of a victim and a bully, or theadolescents who react to the exposure to violence using non-adaptive strate-gies. Therefore, although bully-victims were not identified as a separate clus-ter, they are most probably included in the cluster of Victims. The scores onthe personality dimensions of the BF+2 questionnaire support this. TheVictims scored highest on Neuroticism and lowest on Extraversion, whereas

their scores on Aggressiveness, Conscientiousness, and Negative Valence arebetween the Adapted and the Bullies. The Victims pronounced reactivity tounpleasant stimuli from the environment, reflected in higher scores on allaspects of Neuroticism (Robins et al., 1994), may partially be a consequenceof their frequent exposure to bullying. Moreover, it may be a trigger for



15/23

Kodopeljiet al. 749

Bullies for whom they may represent an easy target. This result correspondsto the findings regarding personality traits of Victims (Maynard & Joseph,1997; Tani et al., 2003). The tendency toward introvert behavioral patterns

(lower Warmth and Sociability scores) probably points to a temperamentalpredisposition for fewer social contacts (Robins et al., 1994), which impliesfewer potential protectors. The results of several studies maintained that thenumber of social contacts was a protective factor for exposure to violence(Carney & Merrell, 2001; Dini, Kodopelji, & olovi, 2010; Kodopelji,Smederevac, & Dini, 2010). Bullies scored significantly higher than Adaptedon the Aggressiveness, while there was no significant difference between theBullies and the Victims. However, the Victims scored higher than the Adapted

and lower than the Bullies on the Anger facet, but they did not differ signifi-cantly from the Adapted regarding the scores on Disagreeableness andTough-Mindedness. In this context, Anger for Victims can represent the reac-tion to the inability to establish an adequate social position. In addition,

Negative Valence scores suggest that the Victims show a higher tendency tomanipulative behavior than the Adapted. This is in accordance with the clus-ters structure, which suggests Victims more pronounced tendency toward

psychological violence compared with the Adapted group. It is likely that the

Victims manifest their aggressive impulses indirectly, avoiding direct con-frontations with the others. Although Victims scored similarly to Bullies onNegative Self-Concept, it can be assumed that the quality and the content ofthis aspect of self-evaluation are considerably different in those two groups,according to the differences in other personality traitsnamely, negativeself-evaluation may represent a consequence of perceiving oneself as a per-son less worthy and less capable, which could be the property of the Victims(Cook et al., 2010). On the other hand, the Bullies probably are highly awareof, or even emphasize, their own negative features, as they want to be feared

by others. Therefore, these socially inappropriate traits have an importantrole in their social positioning. However, regardless of the hypothesizedsource of negative self-evaluation in Victims and Bullies, the meta-analysis

by Cook et al. (2010) has shown that negative self-related cognition is a com-mon feature of the victims and bullies that can result in acquiring different

positions in violent interactions.The cluster Bullies (19.4% of sample) included adolescents scoring high

on Physical Violence, Risky Behavior, and Psychological Violence, and low

on Adapted Behavior and Victimization. External validation showed thatthese adolescents scored the highest on Aggressiveness and Negative Valenceand the lowest on Conscientiousness. While having similar scores to the clus-ter Adapted on Extraversion, their scores on Neuroticism were lower than inthe cluster Victims but higher than in the cluster Adapted. Although Bullies



16/23


scored lower than the Victims on Anxiety, and did not differ significantlyfrom the Adapted in this aspect, they did differ from the Adapted in the mani-festation of Negative Affect and Depression. High scores on Sociability and,

in general, Extraversion most likely contribute to the fact that Bullies react tothe increase of emotional tension with the overt aggression aimed at other

people. Anger, Disagreeableness, and Tough-Mindedness were most pro-nounced in the Bullies group, which indicates an adopted pattern of socialinteractions aimed at gaining and maintaining the position of power.Extremely high self-evaluation reflected in higher scores on Superiority, sup-

ported by manipulative behavioral patterns and negative self-assessment,also contributes to this. It has already been mentioned that Negative Self-

Concept in this context probably refers to the need to make an impression ofa strong and dangerous person. This study confirms the findings of manyprevious studies that have suggested that dimensions Agreeableness (whichsignificantly corresponds to dimension Aggressiveness in the BF+2 question-naire) and Neuroticism are closely related to different positions and outcomesin violent interaction (Gleason et al., 2004; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002;Tani et al., 2003). In addition to that, this study points more clearly to theimportance of evaluative dimensions in the configuration of the traits of bul-

lies and victims.Openness did not discriminate between the groups. This dimension refersto the need for stimulation, which, at the adolescent age, probably has only aminor (if any) impact on violent interaction.

The distribution of the gender within clusters has shown that boys werepredominant in cluster named Bullies and girls in Adapted cluster, and thatthere were similar percentage of boys and girls in cluster named Victims,which is in line with the main results regarding gender differences in bullying(Felix & Green, 2010). However, the main indicators of violence in thisresearch included forms of overt violent behavior, which are more typical forviolent behavior among boys. Girls are more frequently involved in types ofviolent interaction that include different forms of relational aggression (Crick& Grotpeter, 1996). Such findings are congruent with assumptions that gen-der differences are shaped by social roles (Eagly & Wood, 1991), suggestingthat overt violent behavior is an acceptable feature of males rather thanfemales.

The results of this study indicate the role of certain temperamental traits

in the development and manifestation of specific maladaptive pattern ofsocial interactions (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002; Tani et al., 2003). In thiscontext, the role of Sociability could be important. The lower Sociability inthe Victims group contributes to withdrawal and the development of thesubmissive attitude, whereas the high Sociability in the Bullies group



17/23

Kodopeljiet al. 751

contributes to the development of the dominant attitude. Considering thatthese positions in social interactions are compatible, it is unlikely that aspontaneous change of these dysfunctional patterns of communication will

take place. Thus, different programs of acquiring social skills are an ade-quate approach to changing such patterns. Furthermore, the results point todifferent manifestations of aggressive tendencies with Bullies and Victims.Bullies are more prone to direct attacks, whereas Victims are inclined toindirect forms of aggression. The significance of self-evaluation in thiscontext is reflected in the importance of negative self-perception that con-tributes to behavioral inhibition with the Victims, while with Bullies it canencourage aggressive tendencies provoking the feeling of awe in persons

they interact with.In general, results of this study confirm the assumption that violent behav-ior can be a basis for plausible typology of adolescents. This typology iscongruent with the dominant approach in research of personality, which pro-

poses three main personality types, named resilient, overcontrolled, andundercontrolled (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999). The Adapted cluster, whichwas extracted in this study, has shown the features usually associated withresilient type. Bullies are similar to the undercontrolled, while Victims have

shown some of the features of the overcontrolled. In addition to that, thestructure of clusters bears similarities to usual roles in violent interaction,a.k.a. victims, bullies, and bystanders. Although there is no evidence that

bystanders fit into Adapted cluster, the possibility that adapted adolescentsmay take the role of bystanders cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Adaptedmay also contribute to the circumstances in which violent behavior is exhib-ited. However, typical bystanders behavior is not included in the measuresthat were applied in this study. Therefore, all conclusions regarding bystand-ers role may be treated as hypothetical.

The results of this research emphasize the general importance of person-centered approach, but also point to its relevance for violence studies. Theresults confirm that distinctive clusters can be extracted that are related to theroles in violent interaction and that such clusters differ substantially withregard to personality traits. Therefore, in personality assessment, it may be ofcrucial importance to consider not only separate dimensions but also theirconfiguration. This way, a more thorough understanding of specific roles inviolent interaction can be ensured.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article.



18/23


Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partially supported by the

Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia (Grants ON179006) andby the Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development.

References

Arora, C. M. J. (1996). Defining bullying: Towards a clearer general understandingand more effective intervention strategies. School Psychology International, 17,317-329.

Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled, and

undercontrolled personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictivepower, and the trait-type issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 815-832.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neigh-borhood, family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in theorganization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.),Minnesota symposium of child

psychology(Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Brock, G. N., Pihur, V., Datta, S., & Datta, S. (2008). clValid, an R package for clus-

ter validation.Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1-22.Carney, A., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in school: Perspective on understand-ing and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International,22, 364-382.

Connor, D. F. (1988). Overt categorical aggression in referred children and ado-lescents.Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 67,66-73.

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N., & Kim, T. (2009). Variability in the preva-lence of bullying and victimization: A cross-national and methodological analy-

sis. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The internationalhandbook of school bullying(pp. 347-362). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N., Kim, T., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of

bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic inves-tigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83.

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

Differences, 24, 123-130.Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in

the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41-60.Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Childrens treatment by peers: Victims ofrelational and overt aggression.Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.



19/23

Kodopeljiet al. 753

Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Dothese criteria conform to teenagers perception of bullying? A role-based analy-sis.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1889-1910.

Dini, B., Kodopelji, J., & olovi, P. (2010, November). Korelati psiholokogi fizikog nasilja kod srednjokolaca[Correlates of psychological and physicalviolence in high school students]. Poster presented at III Znastveno-nauni skup,Psihosocijalni aspekti nasilja u suvremenom drutvu izazov obitelji, koli izajednici, Osijek, Croatia.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: Ameta-analytic perspective.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306-315.

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early ado-lescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional

Abuse, 2(2/3), 123-142.Felix, D. E., & Green, J. G. (2010). Popular girls and brawny boys: The role of genderin bullying and victimization experiences. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (Eds.),Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspec-tive(pp. 173-185). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008).The role of bystanders in stu-dents perception of bullying and sense of safety.Journal of School Psychology,46, 617-638.

Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Richardson, D. (2004). Agreeableness as a

predictor of aggression in adolescence.Aggressive Behavior, 30, 43-61.Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Competitiveness mediates the linkbetween personality and group performance.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 73, 1394-1408.

Griffin, R. D., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findingsand future direction for research.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379-400.

Grumm, M., & von Collani, G. (2009). Personality types and self-reported aggres-siveness.Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 845-850.

Hart, D., Hoffman, V., Edelstein, W., & Keller, M. (1997). The relation of childhood

personality types to adolescent behavior and development: A longitudinal studyof Iceland children.Developmental Psychology, 33, 195-205.Herzberg, P. Y., & Roth, M. (2006). Beyond resilients, undercontrollers, and overcon-

trollers? A new perspective on personality prototype research.European Journalof Personality, 20, 5-28.

Hourbe, B., Targuinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E. (2006). Bullying among studentsand its consequences on health.European Journal of Psychology of Education,21, 183-208.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Adams, R., Perry, D. G., Workman, K. A., Furdella, J. Q.,

& Egan, S. K. (2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in earlyadolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression.Journal of Research inPersonality, 36, 224-251.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Personality and rela-tionships as moderators of interpersonal conflict in adolescence.Merrill-PalmerQuarterly, 42, 148-164.



20/23


Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2005).Finding groups in data. An introduction tocluster analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Kodopelji, J., Smederevac, S., & olovi, P. (2010). Razlike u uestalosti i oblic-

ima nasilnog ponaanja izmeu uenika osnovnih i srednjih kola [Frequency andmanifestations of bullying: Differences between primary and secondary schoolstudents].Primenjena psihologija, 3, 289-305.

Kodopelji, J., Smederevac, S., & Dini, B. (2010, November).Prediktori uestalostivrnjakog nasilja u srednjoj koli[Predictors of peer violence frequency in highschool]. Poster presented at III Znastveno-nauni skup, Psihosocijalni aspektinasilja u suvremenom drutvu izazov obitelji, koli i zajednici, Osijek, Croatia.

Maksimovi, J., Rakovi, D., Jovanovi, I., & olovi, P. (2008). Povezanostvrnjakog nasilja, osobina linosti i vaspitnih stavova [Relations between bul-

lying, personality traits and parenting practices]. Primenjena Psihologija, 1,124-144.Maynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association

with Eysenks personality dimensions in 8- to 13 year-olds. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 67, 51-54.

Mitrovi, D., Kodopelji, J., & olovi, P. (2011, October). Prediktori nasilnogponaanja na osnovnokolskom uzrastu: Osobine linosti dece i vaspitni stavovi

roditelja [Predictors of violent behavior in the primary-school age: Childrenspersonality traits and parenting styles]. Paper presented at the Scientific confer-

ence Current trends in psychology, Novi Sad, Serbia.Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Ramani, S. P., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton,B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behavior among U.S. youth: Prevalence andassociation with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 285, 2094-2100.Olweus, D. (1978).Aggression in the school: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington,

DC: Hemisphere.Olweus, D. (1993).Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford,

UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. InS. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullyingin schools: An international perspective(pp. 9-33). New York, NY: Routledge.

Paul, J. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Dynamics of peer victimization in early ado-lescence: Results from a four-year longitudinal study.Journal of Applied School

Psychology, 19, 25-43.Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. J. (2010). Clueless or powerful?

Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence.Journal of Youth and Adolescence,39, 1041-1052.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang,D. (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying.Aggressive Behavior, 32,376-384.

Peterson, L., & Rigby, K. (1999). Countering bullying at an Australian secondaryschool with students as helpers.Journal of Adolescence, 22, 481-492.



21/23

Kodopeljiet al. 755

Popadi, D., & Plut, D. (2007). Nasilje u osnovnim kolama u Srbiji: Oblici i uestalost[Violence in primary schools in SerbiaForms and prevalence].Psihologija, 40,309-328.

Price, J. M., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood:Relation to peer status and social context dimension.Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 17, 455-471.

Robins, W. R., John, O. P., & Caspi, A. (1994). Major dimensions of personal-ity in early adolescence: The big five and beyond. In C. F. Halverson, G. A.Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperamentand personality from infancy to adulthood(pp. 267-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Robins, W. R., John, O. P., Caspi, A., & Moffit, T. E. (1996). Resilient, overcon-trolled, and undercontrolled Boys: Three replicable personality types.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157-171.Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review.Aggression and ViolentBehavior, 15, 112-120.

Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1999). Self-evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as pre-dictors of adolescents participation in bullying situations.Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268-1278.Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjrkqvist, K., sterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.

(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social

status within the group.Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and changebehavior in connection with bullying in school: A two-year follow-up.AggressiveBehavior, 24, 205-218.

Scholte, R. H. J., van Lieshout, C. F. M., de Wit, C. A. M., & van Aken, M. A. G.(2005). Adolescent personality types and subtypes and their psychosocial adjust-ment.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 258-286.

Sharpe, J. P., & Desai, S. (2001). The revised NEO personality inventory and theMMPi-2 psychopathology five in the prediction of aggression. Personality and

Individual Differences, 31, 505-518.Smederevac, S., & olovi, P. (2011, October). Osobine linosti, porodina i socijalnainterakcija kao prediktori izloenosti vrnjakom nasilju na osnovnokolskom

uzrastu [Bullying in primary schools: The predictors of victimization]. Paperpresented at the Scientific conference Current trends in psychology, Novi Sad,Serbia.

Smederevac, S., Mitrovi, D., & olovi, P. (2010). Velikih pet plus dva: Primena iinterpretacija[Big Five Plus Two: Manual for administration and interpretation].Beograd, Serbia: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying withthe Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire.Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.Tani, F., Greenman, P. S., Schneider, B. H., & Fregoso, M. (2003). Bullying and the

Big Five: A study of childhood personality and participant role in bullying inci-dents. School Psychology International, 24, 131-146.



22/23


Thomson, D., Arora, T., & Sharp, S. (2002). Bullying: Effective strategies for longterm improvement. London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Trebblay, P. F., & Ewart, L. A. (2005). The Buss and Perry aggression question-

naire and its relations to values, the Big Five, provoking hypothetical situations,alcohol consumption, and alcohol expectancies. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 38, 337-346.

Van Dam, C., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & De Bruyn, E. E. J. (2005). PEN, Big Five,juvenile delinquency, and criminal recidivism. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 39, 7-19.

Van Leeuwen, K., de Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2004). A longitudinal study of theutility of the resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types as

predictors of childrens and adolescents problem behavior.International Journal

of Behavioral Development, 28, 210-220.Waller, N. G. (1999). Evaluating the structure of personality. In R. C. Cloninger (Ed.),Personality and psychopathology (pp. 155-197). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychiatric Press.

Author Biographies

Jasmina Kodopelji, PhD, is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology,University of Novi Sad. She is currently taking part in several research projects,including Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual

Predictors (funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and TechnologicalDevelopment) and was the principal investigator of the project School WithoutViolence (funded by UNICEF Serbia). Her main research interest is educational

psychology.

Sneana Smederevac, PhD, is a full professor at the Department of Psychology,University of Novi Sad. She is the principal investigator of several research projects,including Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and ContextualPredictors (funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological

Development). She also took part in the research project School Without Violence(funded by UNICEF Serbia) in 2009-2010. Among her main research interests is therole of personality traits in different aspects of maladaptive behavior.

Duanka Mitrovi, PhD, is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology,University of Novi Sad. She is a researcher in several research projects, includingViolence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual Predictors(funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development). Hermain research interests include personality assessment, psychobiological and lexicalmodels of personality, and relationships between personality traits and various typesof maladaptive behavior.

Bojana Dini, MSc, PhD candidate, is a teaching assistant at the Department ofPsychology, University of Novi Sad. She is currently taking part in several research

projects, including Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual



23/23

Kodopeljiet al. 757

Predictors (funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and TechnologicalDevelopment). Her main research interest is the study of aggressive behavior, includ-ing the assessment of various aspects of aggression.

Petar olovi, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Psychology,University of Novi Sad. He is participating in several research projects, includingViolence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual Predictors(funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development). Hewas among the researchers involved in the project School Without Violence (funded

by UNICEF Serbia) in 2009-2010. His research interests include person-centeredapproach to personality and psycho-lexical studies.
http://jiv.sagepub.com/

school bullying in adolescence and personality traits; a person-centered approach

Documents