Bullies and victims seem to be similar in reactive aggression, SIP, and in the expression of anger, but the motivations which lead to their behavior may be different, as well as the final outcomes of their acts.

The

This study aimed to investigate: (1) the influence of gender,s ibling age,a nd sibling gender on sibling bullying and victimization; (2) the links between personality characteristics, quality of the sibling relationship,a nd sibling bullying/victimization; (3) the association between sibling and school bullying/victimization, and the direct and indirect associations between personality variables and school bullying/victimization. The sample comprised 195 children( 98 boys and 97 girls, aged 10-12 years). Instruments included: as elf-reportq uestionnairef or bullying and victimization, the Big Five Questionnaire for Children and the Sibling Inventoryo fB ehaviour.R esults highlighted that the presence of an older brother is arisk factor for the emergence of sibling victimization. Forboth boys and girls, high levels of conflict in the dyad and low levels of empathyw eresignificantly related to sibling bullying and sibling victimization. Formales, energywas associated with sibling bullying and indirectly to school bullying; friendliness and high emotional instability weredirectlyassociated with school bullying. School victimization was directly associated with emotional instability for both males and females. Finally,both sibling bullying and sibling victimization wereassociated with bullying and victimization at school. The discussion highlights the role of am ulticontextual approach to understand and prevent bullying.Bullying has been widely studied in schools (Menesini, 2008;Olweus, 1993; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Osterman, &K aukiainen, 1996; Smith, Pepler,&Rigby,2 004) but information about the extent and the nature of this problem among siblings in the family context is stills carce. Similarly to peerb ullying, sibling bullying can be defined as as pecific type of aggression aimed at dominating another person and at causing physical or psychological harm (Olweus, 1999;Smith et al.,1999). Therefore, although

This study aimed at investigating intentional and non‐intentional situations eliciting shame and guilt in relation to children's involvement in bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour. We used the contextual model designed by Olthof, Schouten, Kuiper, Stegge, and Jennekens‐Schinkel (2000) according to which certain situations elicit more shame than guilt (‘shame‐only’, SO), whereas others elicit both guilt and shame (‘shame‐and‐guilt’, SAG). Besides these, four new scenarios were added (2 SO and 2 SAG) in which the protagonist was alternatively the perpetrator or the receiver of harm. Participants were 121 children aged 9–11, who filled in the self‐report Shame and Guilt Questionnaire, and a peer nomination survey to investigate the roles of bully, victim, prosocial and not involved. Results showed that in SAG situations, perpetrated‐harm situations elicited more guilt than neutral situations; while in SO situations, neutral situations elicited more shame than received‐harm situations. In SAG situations, prosocial children reported feeling more ashamed and guilty than bullies and not‐involved children, while in SO situations, victims scored higher on shame than not‐involved children. Results are discussed considering the contextual model employed and the relationship between emotions and behaviours.

To cite this Article Camodeca, Marina and Goossens, Frits A.(2005) 'Children's opinions on effective strategies to cope with bullying: the importance of bullying role and perspective ', Educational Research, 47: 1,[93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105] To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0013188042000337587 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000337587Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.Children's opinions on effective strategies to cope with bullying: the importance of bullying role and perspective In order to find out what children would suggest as useful interventions to stop bullying, we designed a questionnaire administered to 311 children (155 boys and 156 girls; mean age = 11 years). Thirty-six items were employed to ask children how effective, in their opinion, retaliation, nonchalance and assertiveness could be in stopping bullying. Items were presented to children from three different perspectives (imagine you are the victim, the bully or a witness). We used peer reports to assess children's role in bullying. Children were grouped into bullies, followers of the bully, defenders of the victims, outsiders, victims and those not involved. The strategy most frequently chosen by all children was to cope with bullying through assertiveness. Bullies considered retaliation effective more often than their classmates, especially when they adopted the perspective of the victim or witness. Bullies did not consider assertive strategies as efficient in stopping the bully. Defenders, outsiders, victims and children not involved, on the other hand, were very much in favour of strategies aimed at solving the conflict through nonchalance or assertiveness, especially when they imagined being the bully. Girls chose assertive strategies more often than boys and younger children preferred nonchalance more often than older children, who tended to choose retaliation more often. Suggestions for intervention are made.