Empirical test of bullies' status goals: assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige

Sijtsema, Jelle J.; Veenstra, René; Lindenberg, Siegwart; Salmivalli, Christina

doi:10.1002/ab.20282

Cited by 326 publications

(347 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

301

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, these children may have learned that bullying can have both negative consequences such as punishment but also positive consequences such as dominance or social status (e.g., Sijtsema et al 2009). In this case there is less motivation to inhibit automatically generated, impulsive processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, research has shown that bullying that is normative in the peer group or is rewarded by status, popularity, or acceptance in this group might trigger more favourable attitudes toward bullying (e.g., Sijtsema et al 2009). Therefore it could be interesting to explore whether the implicit-and explicit bullying attitudes of children can be predicted by the bullying behavior and attitudes of their peers (in the classroom).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Goethem

Scholte

Wiers

2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of this study was to examine whether an assessment of implicit bullying attitudes could add to the prediction of bullying behavior after controlling for explicit bullying attitudes. Primary school children (112 boys and 125 girls, M age=11 years, 5 months) completed two newly developed measures of implicit bullying attitudes (a general Implicit Association Test on bullying and a movie-primed specific IAT on bullying), an explicit bullying attitude measure, and self reported, peer reported, and teacher rated bullying behavior. While explicit bullying attitudes predicted bullying behavior, implicit attitudes did not. However, a significant interaction between implicit and explicit bullying attitudes indicated that in children with relatively positive explicit attitudes, implicit bullying attitudes were important predictors of bullying behavior. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.Keywords Explicit bullying attitudes . Implicit bullying attitudes . Interaction explicit and implicit bullying attitudes . Bullying School bullying is a large societal problem and is already evident among primary school children. Studies on this population show that 3-27% of the children bully, and 9-32% are bullied once a week or more (Berger 2007). Bullying has also been shown to have large negative consequences for the well-being of victims and bullies (Berger 2007;Scholte et al. 2007), which stresses the importance of targeting bullying behavior together with the factors that are related to bullying.Various factors have been found to contribute to the extent to which children bully other children. Research evidence indicates that social factors such as group membership and peer pressure, as well as individual, personal factors such as physical strength, aggressiveness, and empathy influence bullying (Rigby 2004). Another often studied individual factor is children's attitudes towards bullying. Attitudes are predictors of all kinds of spontaneous and deliberate social and non-social behavior (e.g., Glasman and Albarracin 2006) including bullying behavior (Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). Attitudes can be defined as general and enduring, concrete or abstract evaluations of a person, group, or issue and can be based on beliefs, emotions and behavior (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1986).In attitude research, a distinction is made between implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes. Implicit attitudes are impulsive, spontaneous, uncontrolled emotional reactions and evaluations. In contrast, explicit attitudes refer to deliberate, reflective, controlled, consciously self-reported evaluations (Gawronski and Bodenhausen 2006). Dualprocess models assume that there are two different modes of information processing that underlie implicit and explicit attitudes. According to these models more automatic, impulsive, associative processes underlie implicit attitudes and more controlled, reflective processes underlie explicit During the research project on implicit and explicit bullying attitudes all authors were working at ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Goethem

Scholte

Wiers

2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Status is not, however, merely a means to win resources, but is an end to itself. The majority of adolescents in our study felt that "being popular" was somewhat or very important, and status valuation predicts subsequent aggression and other risk behaviors ( Faris and Ennett, 2012;Sijtsema et al, 2009). Park and Burgess (1921, p. 30;quoted in Bothner et al, 2010a andBothner et al, 2010b) observed that "men work for wages…they will die to preserve their status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Movement without mobility: Adolescent status hierarchies and the contextual limits of cumulative advantage

Smith

Faris

2015

Social Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This situation is particularly notable in indirect forms of bullying, from which cyberbullying is part, because they involve a greater knowledge of the weaknesses of the victims, same ones that can be used for aggression. The above suggests that the behavior of some of the aggressors does not originate in an empathy poorly developed or social skills deficits, but in the construction of a personal identity, where aggression constitutes a source that the person associates to instrumental and social gains (Gini, 2006;Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Types and Technological Means by Which Mexican High Schools Students Perform Cyberbullying: Its Relationship with Traditional Bullying

Cuervo¹,

Martínez²,

Quintana³

et al. 2014

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to determine the differences between types and technological means by which Mexican high school students perform cyberbullying. The effects to perform the role of aggressor and victim in the traditional bullying were also established in the intensity of the reports of cyberbullying. It was used a random cluster sampling with 278 students selected from four high schools, to which they were given two instruments designed expressly for measuring the frequency of types of cyberbullying and the use of technological means for its realization, as well as the frequency of bullying respectively. Results showed that denigration, harassment and exclusion were reported significantly more strongly than the other types of cyberbullying, and that the most frequently used technological medium were social networks. It was also found that performing the role of aggressor (R 2 =.44) or victim (R 2 =.37) explained a significant portion of the variance of cyberbullying reports. It was concluded that cyberbullying is a phenomenon that can take various forms and it is related in a complex way with traditional bullying.

show abstract

Empirical test of bullies' status goals: assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige

Cited by 326 publications

References 56 publications

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Movement without mobility: Adolescent status hierarchies and the contextual limits of cumulative advantage

Differences in Types and Technological Means by Which Mexican High Schools Students Perform Cyberbullying: Its Relationship with Traditional Bullying

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About