Costs and Benefits of Bullying in the Context of the PeerGroup: A Three Wave Longitudinal Analysis

Albert Reijntjes & Marjolijn Vermande & Tjeert Olthof &Frits A. Goossens & Rens van de Schoot & Liesbeth Aleva &

Matty van der Meulen

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Whereas previous research has shown that bully-ing in youth is predictive of a range of negative outcomeslater in life, the more proximal consequences of bullying inthe context of the peer group at school are not as clear. Thepresent three-wave longitudinal study followed children(N=394; 53 % girls; Mage=10.3 at Time 1) from late child-hood into early adolescence. Joint trajectory analyses wereused to examine the dynamic prospective relations betweenbullying on the one hand, and indices tapping perceivedpopularity, peer-reported social acceptance, self-perceivedsocial competence, and internalizing symptoms on theother. Results show that although young bullies may beon a developmental path that in the long run becomesproblematic, from the bullies’ perspective in the shorter termpersonal advantages outweigh disadvantages. High bullying ishighly positively related to high social status as indexed byperceived popularity. Although bullies are not very high inpeer-rated social acceptance, most are not very low either.Moreover, bullies do not demonstrate elevated internalizingsymptoms, or problems in the social domain as indexed by

self-perceived social competence. As bullying yields clearpersonal benefits for the bullies without strong costs, thefindings underscore the need for interventions targetingmechanisms that reward bullying (198 words).

Keywords Bullying . Youth . Perceived popularity .

Joint trajectory analysis . Peer acceptance .

Internalizing symptoms . Self-perceived social competence

Bullying among schoolchildren is a very old and persistentphenomenon. Bullying, which is a specific type of proac-tive, goal-directed aggression, encompasses both directphysical and verbal behaviors (e.g., hitting, name calling),as well as more indirect manifestations such as group ex-clusion. The present longitudinal study was designed toinvestigate the proximal costs and benefits of bullying inthe context of the peer group during the last years of ele-mentary school.

Importantly, although bullying and aggression overlap, theyare distinct constructs (Hawley et al. 2010; Olweus 1991).Olweus (1991) mentions two key features of bullying thatmakes it stand apart from aggression in general. First, bullyingimplies that the tormentor repeatedly and continuously harmshis victim. Second, the victim of bullying is markedly lower inpower than the perpetrator. Hence, whereas all bullying isaggression, not all aggression is bullying. Consistent with thisconceptual distinction, research has shown that the sharedvariance between bullying and both physical and relationalaggression is less than 30 % (Pepler et al. 2008).

Many contemporary researchers agree that bullying is astrategic attempt to gain a powerful position in the peergroup (e.g., Olthof et al. 2011; Salmivalli and Peets 2009).Although for children and adults alike, status and affectionare both universal goals (e.g., Huberman et al. 2004), peoplediffer in the relative importance they attach to communal

This research was funded by a grant (431-09-030) from theNetherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) awarded toDr. Goossens and Dr. Vermande

A. Reijntjes :M. Vermande :R. van de Schoot : L. AlevaUtrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

T. Olthof : F. A. GoossensVU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

M. van der MeulenGroningen University, Groningen, the Netherlands

A. Reijntjes (*)Research Centre Psychosocial Development in Context,Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, P.O. Box 80140,3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlandse-mail: a.h.a.reijntjes@uu.nl

J Abnorm Child PsycholDOI 10.1007/s10802-013-9759-3

goals (feeling close to others) and agentic goals (being visibleand influential) (Ojanen et al. 2005). It seems likely that manybullies have a stronger status need than their peers.

Several studies examining the long term outcomes ofbullying have shown that bullying in youth predicts a rangeof negative adjustment outcomes later in life. A recent meta-analysis showed that school bullying is a strong and specificrisk factor for later criminal offending (Ttofi et al. 2011).Moreover, Bender and Losel (2011) found that bullying inyouth is a key risk marker for anti-social outcomes inadulthood. A large scale study in Finland also revealed thatfrequent bullying at age 8 predicts substance abuse, depres-sive and anxiety disorders, and antisocial personality at ages18–23 (Sourander et al. 2007).

Whereas bullies pay a clear price in terms of their long termadjustment, the more proximal consequences of bullying in thecontext of the peer group at school appear to be not exclusivelynegative. In fact, to the extent that bullying is motivated by aquest for power and prestige, at least some bullies victimizeothers to their personal advantage. Specifically, cross-sectionalresearch has revealed that bullies are perceived as more “cool”and popular than their peers (e.g., Olthof et al. 2011;Vaillancourt et al. 2003). However, because previous workhas primarily used cross-sectional designs, the developmentalrelationship between bullying and social status is largely un-known. The present research addresses this gap by investigat-ing the longitudinal linkage between bullying and perceivedpopularity.

Although bullying is concurrently positively related topopularity in the peer group, this does not mean that bulliesare only celebrated in the social domain. Noteworthy, manyresearchers distinguish between two dimensions of peergroup status; perceived popularity and peer acceptance orlikeability (LaFontana and Cillessen 2002; Parkhurst andHopmeyer 1998). Perceived popularity refers to prestigeand influence, whereas acceptance refers to being well liked.The (positive) correlation between perceived popularity andacceptance is typically small but significant (Parkhurst andHopmeyer 1998).

Not surprisingly given that bullies cause significant distressto others, several cross-sectional studies have shown that theyare often disliked by their peers (e.g., Goossens et al. 2006).However, research indicates that the rejection of bullies issometimes restricted to peers for whom they represent a threat(e.g., Veenstra et al. 2010). Importantly, and underscoring theneed for longitudinal research examining social acceptance ofbullies over time, children who continue to bully for severalyears are markedly more disliked than their peers who bullyothers during a limited period (Scholte et al. 2007).

Similar to research examining the concurrent functioningof bullies in the social domain, studies investigating thepsychological well-being of bullies have yielded mixed find-ings. Several cross-sectional studies have failed to chronicle

linkages between bullying and internalizing problems(Vaillancourt et al. 2003). In contrast, some studies havedocumented that bullies report higher levels of depressionthan do uninvolved children (e.g., Seals and Young 2003),and a recent meta-analysis revealed that internalizingproblems are linked, albeit weakly, with bullying (Cook etal. 2010). It may be that bullying leads to elevated interper-sonal stress (e.g., social censure, punishment), which in turnincreases the risk of internalizing problems (cf. Rose andSwenson 2009). In this context, it should be noted that re-search has consistently shown that youth who both bully andare bullied (“bully-victims”) exhibit the poorest psychosocialfunctioning (Salmivalli and Peets 2009).

Taken together, although bullyingmay yield popularity andsocial prominence, it is largely unclear whether the welldocumented long-term disadvantages associated with bully-ing already emerge in the context of the peer group in school-aged children. A better understanding of the more proximalcosts and benefits of bullying is important because it may haveimplications for intervention. For instance, if bullying pro-vides the perpetrators with the position of power and popular-ity they seek without producing patent concurrent negativeconsequences, intervention should focus primarily on the peergroup to reduce the rewards of bullying.

Most previous studies examining the concurrent or pro-spective correlates of bullying have used arbitrary cut-offpoints to identify subgroups of children (e.g., bullies, victims,uninvolved). Although this traditional approach has yieldedimportant findings, one significant limitation is that it does notcapture possible heterogeneities in the developmental paths ofbullying and associated factors. The importance ofdistinguishing different subgroups of bullies is highlightedby recent research using trajectory analysis. Specifically,Pepler and colleagues (Pepler et al. 2006) showed that thefour different trajectories that emerged for bullying throughoutadolescence (i.e., high, low, medium-high decreasing, andstable medium-high) were differentially linked to problemsin the individual, parent, and peer domains.

The present three-wave longitudinal study that followedchildren from late childhood into early adolescence wasdesigned to examine the developmental relations betweenbullying and indices tapping perceived popularity, social ac-ceptance, and intra-psychological wellbeing. To investigatetheir dynamic co-occurrence, taking the potential existence ofdifferent subgroups into account, person-centered joint trajec-tory analyses were used (Nagin and Tremblay 2001). Jointtrajectory models relate the entire longitudinal course of twoconstructs of interest (e.g., bullying and perceived popularity),and evaluate bidirectional associations between patterns inthese behaviors by, among others, determining conditionalprobabilities (e.g., the probability that a child following aparticular trajectory for bullying also follows a particulartrajectory for perceived popularity, and vice versa).

J Abnorm Child Psychol

We expected the existence of multiple subgroups of bulliesshowing distinct patterns of bullying over time, with only arelatively small group of participants, predominantly boys,engaging in consistently high levels of bullying. Moreover,we expected that children displaying consistently high levelsof bullying would experience both costs and benefits, in termsof high levels of perceived popularity and strained socialrelationships, respectively. We also anticipated that thecorrelates of bullying would differ for youths with differentbullying trajectories (e.g., high versus medium-high).

Method

Participants

Participants were 394 children (53 % girls) from 12 elemen-tary schools throughout the Netherlands. At the start of thestudy in 2006 (Time 1), all participants were in fourth grade,at Time 2 and Time 3, they were in fifth and sixth grade.There was no school transition during this period, andalmost all children remained in the same classroom withthe same peers (in the Dutch school system, similar to manyother European countries, pupils usually remain together inthe same class throughout all grades in elementary school).Consequently, the nominating groups were about the samesize throughout the study period. At Time 1, the nominatinggroups ranged from 15 to 30 children (mean=24.3). At Time2, the range was 13–31 (mean=22.4), and at Time 3 the rangewas 10–34 (mean=23.8). Participation rates within classroomwere almost equal across years. Although socio-economicstatus was not formally assessed, the sample included pupilsfrom a wide range of social backgrounds (low and workingclasses through upper middle class). Participants’mean age atTime 1 was 10.3 years (SD=0.5 years). Parents receiveda letter in which the purpose of the study and theprocedures were explained. They could respond by ei-ther providing passive consent for their children toparticipate by not further communicating with the researchteam (96 %), or refusing participation by returning apreprinted objection form (4 %). All participants providedtheir own assent. We also obtained approval from the ethicboards of the three universities involved, and permission toconduct the study from the school principal and each child’steacher. The large majority (83 %) of the participants wasnative Dutch (Caucasian).

At Time 2 and Time 3, data were available for 372(94.4 %) and 342 participants (86.8 %). Attrition was mainlydue to participants moving to other, non-participating schools(16 at Time 2, and an additional 17 at Time 3). Children notparticipating at Time 2 and/or Time 3 did not significantlydiffer from participants with complete data in terms of theirscores on relevant variables at Time 1.

Measures

Bullying Bullying was assessed with the psychometricallysound bullying role nomination procedure (BRNP; Olthof etal. 2011). The BRNP is a broad measure that also taps themore subtle forms of bullying (e.g., spreading lies; Salmivalliand Peets 2009). Five distinct forms of bullying wereassessed, including physical (e.g., pushing), property attacks(e.g., taking away personal property), verbal (e.g., scolding),direct relational (e.g., excluding someone), and indirect rela-tional (e.g., gossiping). To avoid potential interpretation dif-ferences, children first received an elaborate description of theconcept of bullying, in which its core features were explained;i.e., intent to harm, repetition over time, and a clear powerdifference between perpetrator and victim (Salmivalli andPeets 2009). Children were told that bullying can occur indifferent ways and that it is unprovoked by the victim.Subsequently, a particular type of bullying was describedand the participant was handed a list with various behavioralmanifestations of that type. Given the strong recent increase incyber-bullying (Smith et al. 2008), we also included severalexamples of that type of bullying (e.g., “tell other children atMSN that everyone should block out a certain child”).

For each type of bullying, nominations were obtained byasking two questions; i.e., “Do you knowwhich classmates carryout that particular form of bullying?”, and “If so, could you giveus their names?” For all types of bullying, continuous scores foreach child were computed within classrooms by dividing thetotal number of received nominations for that participant by thenumber of nominators (Goossens et al. 2006; Kärnä et al. 2011).Given the high internal consistency of the five scores across timeand gender (Cronbach’s alpha for boyswere 0.91 at Time 1, 0.91at Time 2, and 0.92 at Time 3; for girls these figures amounted to0.80, 0.83, and 0.76, respectively), an overall mean bullyingscore was calculated by averaging these scores.

Perceived Popularity This construct refers to social status andvisibility and it is positively related to peer perceptions of power(Vaillancourt et al. 2003). Children nominated both popular andunpopular classmates. Consistent with previous research (e.g.,LaFontana and Cillessen 2002; Parkhurst and Hopmeyer1998), these terms were not defined. Instead, we explained that“in every class some children are very popular, whereas otherchildren are not popular at all”. We then asked “Which childrenin your class are popular?” and “Which children in your classare not popular at all?” Perceived popularity scores were cal-culated within classrooms as the standardized difference be-tween the standardized number of popular votes and thestandardized number of unpopular votes the child received(see LaFontana and Cillessen 2002; Olthof et al. 2011).

Peer-Reported Social Acceptance Peer acceptance (orlikeability) was assessed with the sociometric status rating

J Abnorm Child Psychol

(SSRat) procedure developed by Maassen and colleagues(Maassen et al. 1996). Specifically, participants rated theirclassmates on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (‘dislike verymuch’) to 6 (‘like very much’). Overall acceptance wascalculated by averaging all received ratings. In the presentsample, the correlation between perceived popularity andpeer-reported social acceptance ranged from 0.14 to 0.21across the three assessment points (p’s<0.01).

Self-Perceived Social Competence We also assessed partic-ipants’ own perception of their functioning in the socialdomain, using the 6-item social subscale of the PerceivedCompetence Scale for Children (PCSC; Harter 1982). Foreach item, the child was presented two statements (e.g.,‘some children have a lot of friends’ versus ‘other childrendon’t have many friends’) and chose the one that describesher best. That choice was then rated on a scale ranging from1 to 4, with higher scores indicating higher self-perceivedsocial competence. The Dutch version of the PCSC is psy-chometrically sound (Veerman et al. 1996). In the present study,internal consistency was adequate at all assessment points(range 0.73–0.84). The correlation between peer-reported so-cial acceptance and self-perceived social competence rangedfrom 0.22 to 0.34 (p’s<0.001).

Symptoms of Internalizing Problems The short Dutch ver-sion of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale(RCADS; Chorpita et al. 2000; Muris et al. 2002) was usedto assess symptoms of DSM-defined anxiety disorders anddepression (i.e., social anxiety, separation anxiety, panic dis-order, generalized anxiety, and major depression). The scalecontains 25 items (five items for each of the five subscales),which are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4(always). For participants with missing values (e.g., childrenwith data on 23 of the 25 items), we used the SPSS procedure“Mean” to calculate the mean score for the valid data. Themeasure has good internal consistency, construct validity, andadequate temporal stability (Chorpita et al. 2000; Muris et al.2002). Similar toMuris et al. (2002), a total anxiety and a totaldepression score were calculated by summing across relevantitems. These two scores were substantially correlated (r’s>0.55; p’s<0.001, on all assessment points). Because the tra-jectory analyses yielded highly similar findings for anxietyand depression, we used an aggregated score reflecting totallevel of internalizing symptoms. The internal consistency ofthe entire scale was good, as evidenced by Cronbach’s alphaexceeding 0.85 on all assessment points.

Procedure

Children and their peers provided data. Children’s self-reported symptoms of internalizing problems and self-perceived social competence were obtained during a

classroom group session that lasted about 30 min. The peerreports that were used for the present study were collected intwo separate interview sessions. Children were individuallyinterviewed by a research assistant in a quiet room. To mini-mize interviewer effects, research assistants were extensivelytrained, written research protocols were employed, and stan-dardized interviews were used. To facilitate comparison withprevious research and in view of time constraints, bullyingand perceived popularity were assessed with peer nominations(as opposed to peer ratings). Participants were provided a listof their classmates to use whenmaking their nominations. Thenumber of nominations was unlimited. Children could onlynominate children from their own classroom.

Analytic Strategy

Subsequent to conducting preliminary analyses, the group-based trajectory approach (Nagin 2005) was used to estimateseparate models for the developmental trajectories of all vari-ables of interest. This technique allows for cross-group differ-ences in the shape of the developmental trajectories (Naginand Tremblay 2001). We used latent class growth analysesmodels (LCGA’s, Muthén 2004) to estimate the trajectoriesusing MPlus version 6.11 (Muthén and Muthén 2010).Missing data for participants who did not complete one ortwo entire measures (as opposed to individual items) werehandled through full information maximum likelihood. Latentclass growth analyses models identify clusters of individualswho follow distinct developmental trajectories. In the case ofthree assessment points, these trajectories are identified on thebasis of intercepts and linear slopes.

For all constructs a series of models was fitted, startingwith a one-group trajectory model and moving to a five-group trajectory model. To make a well-founded decisionregarding the number of groups that are most parsimoniousand descriptive of the data, several statistical indicators wereused, including the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC),the Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (LMR-LRT), andentropy (Nagin 2005).To evaluate the adequacy of the se-lected trajectory models, three additional diagnostics wereused (Nagin 2005). First, we examined whether all groupsmet the criterion that the chance that participants assigned toa particular trajectory group belong to that group accordingto their individual data is at least 0.70. Second, the criterionthat the odds of correct classification (OCC j) should be atleast 5 for all groups was examined (Nagin 2005). Finally,the model estimated proportion of the population followinga particular trajectory (π j) was compared with the corre-sponding proportion assigned to that trajectory (P j), with lessdiscrepancy indicating better model fit (Nagin 2005).

After determining the best fitting trajectory models for thevariables separately, in the second step the joint trajectories forbullying and one of the other four constructs were

J Abnorm Child Psychol

estimated. Key outputs of a joint model are the jointprobabilities and two sets of conditional probabilities.Joint probabilities pertain to the proportion of partici-pants estimated to belong simultaneously to certain tra-jectory groups of both variable A and variable B (e.g.,children following both the high bullying trajectory andthe high perceived popularity trajectory). Conditionalprobabilities pertain to the estimated probability of be-longing to a specific trajectory group for variable A(e.g., high bullying) given membership of a specific trajectorygroup for variable B (e.g., high perceived popularity).Importantly, conditional probabilities do not imply a timeorder relationship. Rather, they pertain to the probability ofsimultaneously following two trajectories during the sameperiod.

To evaluate differences between probabilities, we usedBayesian model selection with (in)equality constraints be-tween the parameters of interest (Klugkist et al. 2005). Thisapproach has been used for similar purposes by, for exam-ple, Meeus et al. (2011); see Wong and Van de Schoot(2012) for an introduction. The results of this Bayesianapproach are expressed in terms of posterior modelprobabilities (PMPs), representing the probability thatthe model at hand receives most support from the dataamong a set of models (e.g., Model 1: probability A islarger than probability B, versus Model 2: probabilityA is equal to probability B). A model was consideredto outperform another model when its PMP was atleast 0.95.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for alloutcome variables at each wave, for the total sample and forboys and girls separately. Scores for most variables wererelatively stable over time, but within-subject ANOVA’srevealed several significant changes. Bullying and internal-izing symptoms decreased from T1 to T2, whereas self-perceived social competence increased between T1 and T2.From T2 to T3, internalizing symptoms showed a modestdecrease, while self-perceived social competence ratings in-creased. Girls consistently displayed more internalizing symp-toms and higher peer-reported social acceptance ratings (p’s<0.05). Conversely, across waves boys consistently scoredhigher on bullying (p’s<0.001).

Latent Class Growth Analyses

Children were assigned to the trajectory group for whichthey showed the highest posterior probability.

Bullying The statistical indicators provided clear support for athree-group model of bullying. Fit indices for this model wereexcellent (AvePP j’s>0.0.95; OCC j’s>13.5; differences be-tween P j and π j were less than 2 %). The largest group(n=322; 82 % of the sample) displayed consistently lowbullying scores across the three waves (intercept (I)=0.03,p<0.001; slope (S)=−0.002, p>0.05). Participants in the sec-ond largest group (n=44; 11 %) showed moderately high, anddeclining scores (I=0.182, p<0.001; S=−0.032, p<0.01). Thethird and smallest group (n=28; 7 %) represented those whoconsistently engaged in most intense bullying, albeit signifi-cantly less over time (I=0.37, p<0.001; S=−0.036, p<0.01).Boys were overrepresented in both the high and moderatebullying trajectories (89.3 % and 75.0 %; χ2 (2)=36.85,p<0.001). No gender differences were observed in the lowbullying group (58.1 % girls).

Perceived Popularity Combining statistical criteria and sub-stantive considerations, a three-group model was selected asthe best fitting model. The diagnostic guidelines indicate goodmodel fit (AvePP j’s>0.0.92; OCC j’s>11.5; differences

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of bullying, perceived popu-larity, peer-reported social acceptance, self-perceived social compe-tence, and internalizing symptoms by gender

Measure Boys Girls Total

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Bullying

Wave1 0.12 1 0.13 0.03 2 0.06 0.07a 0.11

Wave2 0.09 1 0.12 0.03 2 0.05 0.06 b 0.10

Wave3 0.08 1 0.11 0.03 2 0.04 0.06 b 0.09

Perceived Popularity

Wave1 0.05 1.03 −0.09 0.89 −0.01 0.97

Wave2 0.08 1.02 −0.03 0.92 0.03 0.97

Wave3 0.03 1.03 −0.06 0.88 −0.02 0.95

Peer-Reported Social Acceptance

Wave1 3.52 1 0.66 3.80 2 0.59 3.66 0.64

Wave2 3.46 1 1.05 3.69 2 1.06 3.58 1.06

Wave3 3.70 1 0.66 3.92 2 0.61 3.81 0.65

Self-Perceived Social Competence

Wave1 2.74 0.50 2.70 0.51 2.73a 0.51

Wave2 3.07 0.57 2.90 0.71 2.97b 0.66

Wave3 3.06 0.65 2.95 0.68 3.00c 0.67

Internalizing Symptoms

Wave1 1.70 1 0.54 1.84 2 0.56 1.78 a 0.58

Wave2 1.45 1 0.33 1.56 2 0.38 1.51 b 0.35

Wave3 1.41 1 0.29 1.49 2 0.31 1.45 c 0.32

Within rows, subscripts with different figures indicate significant dif-ferences between boys and girls (p<0.05). Within columns, subscriptswith different letters indicate significant differences between assess-ment points for the total sample (p<0.05)

J Abnorm Child Psychol

between P j and π j less than 1 %; entropy=0.88). The largestgroup (n=260; 66 % of the sample) displayed consistentlyaverage scores (I=−0.043, p >0.20; S=0.04, p >0.20).Children in the second largest group (n=68; 17.3 %)showed consistently high scores (I=1.39, p<0.001; S=−0.06,p>0.20). The third and smallest group (n=65; 16.5 %)consisted of children who were consistently unpopular,and whose scores decreased slightly over time (I=−1.26,p<0.001; S=−0.09, p<0.05). Boys and girls were equallyrepresented in the three trajectory groups (χ2 (2)=3.13,p>0.20).

Peer-Reported Social Acceptance Combining statisticalcriteria and substantive considerations, a three-grouptrajectory model was selected as the best fitting model(AvePP j’s>0.85;OCC j’s>5.8; differences between P j and π j

less than 2%). The largest group (n=232; 59% of the sample)displayed consistently high scores that slightly increased(I=4.02, p <0.001; S=0.08, p <0.001). Children in the secondlargest group (n=134; 34 %) showed consistently medium,but increasing scores (I=3.27, p<0.05; S=0.09, p<0.01).Children in the smallest third group (n=27; 7 %) wereconsistently least liked by their peers (I=2.41, p<0.05;S=−0.006, p>0.50). Boys were overrepresented in the lowandmedium trajectory groups, while girls were overrepresentedin the high trajectory group (χ2 (2)=16.19, p<0.001).

Self-Perceived Social Competence The statistical criteriaconverged in showing that the three-group model was thebest fitting model (AvePP j’s>0.83; OCC j’s>5.5; differ-ences between P j and π j less than 1 %), although entropyfell just below 0.70 (0.67). The largest group (n=170;43.1 % of the sample) displayed consistently medium-high and increasing scores (I=2.60, p<0.001; S=0.1328,p<0.001). Participants in the second, almost equally largegroup (n=168; 42.6 %) showed consistently high and increas-ing scores (I=3.083, p<0.001; S=0.227, p<0.001). Childrenin the smallest third group (n=55; 14 %) consistently reportedthe lowest scores (I=2.133, p<0.001; S=−0.132, p>0.10).Boys and girls were equally represented in the three groups(χ2 (2)=4.35, p>0.10).

Internalizing Symptoms The three-group model fitted thedata best (AvePP j’s>0.86; entropy=0.74; differences be-tween P j and π j less than 2.5 %), although the OCC for thelargest class was slightly lower than 5 (4.6). The largesttrajectory group (n=252; 64 % of the sample) displayedconsistently low and decreasing scores (I=1.53, p<0.001;S=−0.13, p<0.001). Children in the second largest group(n=117; 30 %) showed consistently medium and decreasingscores (I=1.89, p<0.001; S=−0.11, p<0.001). Children in thesmallest third group (n=24; 6 %) consistently reported thehighest, but decreasing scores (I=2.88, p<0.001; S=−0.32,

p<0.001). Girls were overrepresented in the high and mediumtrajectory groups (χ2 (2)=7.29, p<0.03).

Primary Analyses

Given the small number of girls assigned to the two bullyinggroups (n=3 and n=11, respectively), and the power prob-lems inherent in stringently examining differences betweenthese girls and girls low in bullying, as well as differencesbetween male and female bullies, analyses were performedseparately for both genders. Specifically, for boys joint andconditional probabilities were computed and compared usingthe Bayesian approach outlined in the Analytic Strategy sec-tion. For girls, we report joint and conditional probabilitiesand investigate at a descriptive level whether the pattern offindings for boys also applies to girls.

Joint Trajectories of Bullying and Perceived Popularity Thetop part of Table 2 shows the joint probabilities of trajectorymembership for bullying and perceived popularity, for boysand girls separately. In this part of the Table, probabilitiesacross all cells sum to 1. Most children, both boys and girls,scored low on bullying and followed the medium trajectoryof perceived popularity (n=227; 89 boys and 138 girls;57.5 % of the sample). Across gender, there were no chil-dren who simultaneously followed the high bullying andlow perceived popularity trajectories.

Conditional Probabilities of Perceived Popularity GivenBullying The middle part of Table 2 presents the likelihoodof following one of the perceived popularity trajectoriesconditional on membership of a specific bullying trajectorygroup. Boys on the high bullying trajectory (n=25) weremore likely to follow the high than the medium high per-ceived popularity trajectory (probabilities 0.80 and 0.20;PMP>0.99), whereas boys following the medium bullyingtrajectory (n =34) and the low bullying trajectory (n=134)were more likely to follow the medium perceived popularitytrajectory than the other two perceived popularity trajecto-ries (PMPs>0.99). Boys high in bullying were more likelythan those medium in bullying to be highest in perceivedpopularity (probabilities 0.80 and 0.38; PMP>0.99). In turn,boys medium high in bullying were more likely to behighest in perceived popularity than their peers low inbullying (probabilities 0.38 and 0.08; PMP>0.99).

Conditional Probabilities of Bullying Given PerceivedPopularity The bottom part of Table 2 presents the likelihoodof following one of the bullying trajectories conditional onmembership of a specific perceived popularity trajectory group.The results show that boys following the low and mediumperceived popularity trajectories (n=35 and 114, respectively)were more likely to follow the low bullying trajectory than the

J Abnorm Child Psychol

other two bullying trajectories (all PMPs>0.99). In contrast,boys on the high perceived popularity trajectory (n=44) weremore likely to follow the highest bullying trajectory than theother two bullying trajectories (PMPs>0.99). However, forboys highest in perceived popularity the probability of beingeither medium or low in bullying was more than 50 %. Thus,most highly bullying boys are also high in perceived popularity,but most highly popular boys are not highest in bullying. Thatis, high bullying is more strongly associated with high per-ceived popularity (probability 0.80), than is high perceivedpopularity with high bullying (probability 0.45; PMP>0.99).

Linkages Between Bullying and Perceived Popularity inGirls Most of the girls assigned to the high or mediumbullying groups (n=15) simultaneously belonged to thehighest perceived popularity group (n=10; 66.7 %). In linewith the findings observed for boys, but more pronounced,the association between high perceived popularity and highbullying was weaker than the association between highbullying and high perceived popularity. In fact, only 2 ofthe 27 most popular girls simultaneously belonged to thehighest bullying group. Taken together, the observed link-ages between bullying and perceived popularity show asimilar pattern across both genders.

Joint Trajectories of Bullying and Peer-Reported SocialAcceptance Most children—both boys and girls—simul-taneously scored low on bullying and high on peer-reported

social acceptance (51.4 % of the sample, n=203; 75boys and 128 girls; see Table 3). For both genders, therewas no overlap between high scores on bullying and highestsocial acceptance.

Conditional Probabilities of Peer-Reported Social AcceptanceGiven Bullying The middle part of Table 3 shows that boysfollowing the high and medium bullying trajectories (n=24and 40) were most likely to simultaneously follow themedium-high social acceptance trajectory, more so thanboth other social acceptance trajectories (PMPs>0.99).However, whereas boys high on bullying were certain tobe not high on social acceptance, for those medium onbullying this probability was substantial (0.25; n=8). Boyslow on bullying (n=129) were most likely to follow thehighest social acceptance trajectory, more so than themedium-high trajectory (probabilities 0.58 and 0.36, n=75and 46, PMP>0.99). Moreover, boys high on bullying weremuch more likely than their peers medium high and low inbullying to belong to the most disliked group (probabilities0.37, 0.02, and 0.06, respectively; PMPs>0.99). Taken to-gether, higher levels of bullying were associated with alower probability to be well liked by peers, and thosehighest on bullying were more likely to be the most disliked.

Conditional Probabilities of Bullying Given Peer-ReportedSocial Acceptance Boys on the high and medium high socialacceptance trajectories were most likely to follow a trajectory

Table 2 Joint and conditional probabilities of bullying and perceived popularity trajectories by gender

Perceived popularity Bullying

High Medium Low

Joint probability of trajectory group membershipa

High 0.10 (n=20)/ 0.01 (n=2) 0.07 (n=13)/ 0.04 (n=8) 0.06 (n=11)/ 0.08 (n=17)

Medium 0.03 (n=5)/ 0.005 (n=1) 0.10 (n=20)/ 0.02 (n=4) 0.45 (n=89)/ 0.69(n=138)

Low −/ − 0.01 (n=1)/ - 0.18 (n=34)/ 0.15(n=31)

Perceived popularity

High Medium Low

Probabilities of perceived popularity conditioned on bullyingb

High bullying (Nboys=25; Ngirls=3) 0.80/ 0.67 0.20/ 0.33 −/ −

Medium bullying (Nboys=34; Ngirls=12) 0.38/ 0.67 0.59/ 0.33 0.03/ -

Low bullying (Nboys=134; Ngirls=186) 0.08/ 0.09 0.66/ 0.74 0.25/ 0.17

Bullying

High Medium Low

Probabilities of bullying conditioned on perceived popularityb

High perc. popularity (Nboys=44; Ngirls=27) 0.45/ 0.07 0.30/ 0.30 0.25/ 0.63

Medium perc. pop. (Nboys=114; Ngirls=143) 0.04/ 0.01 0.18/ 0.03 0.78/ 0.96

Low perc. pop. (Nboys=35; Ngirls=31) −/ − 0.03/ - 0.97/ 1.00

a Cells sum to 1. b Rows sum to 1. Figures in bold pertain to girls

J Abnorm Child Psychol

of low bullying, although this probability was much higher forchildren following the highest social acceptance trajectory(0.88) than it was for their medium social acceptancecounterparts (0.51; PMP>0.99). Importantly, none of theboys on the highest social acceptance trajectory (n=85) si-multaneously followed a trajectory of high bullying, whereasa sizeable minority of those on the medium social acceptancetrajectory did (probability 0.18; n=16). The probability ofbeing high in bullying was highest (0.47) for those loweston social acceptance; this probability exceeded the probabilityof 0.18 (n=8) for those on the medium social acceptancetrajectory (PMP>0.99). Taken together, as social acceptanceis lower, the likelihood to simultaneously follow the highbullying trajectory is higher.

Linkages Between Bullying and Peer-Reported SocialAcceptance in Girls Similar to the findings for boys, noneof the three girls in the highest bullying group simultaneouslybelonged to the highest social acceptance group. Compared toboys medium high in bullying, their female counterparts(n=11) were somewhat more likely to simultaneously followthe highest social acceptance group (probabilities 0.25 and0.55, respectively). However, this figure applies to only sixgirls and girls were overrepresented in the highest socialacceptance group. In line with findings for boys, girls highand medium high in peer-reported social acceptance weremost likely to be simultaneously low in bullying (probabilities0.96 and 0.89). Taken together, the observed linkages between

bullying and peer-reported social acceptance are about equallyapplicable for boys and girls.

Joint Trajectories of Bullying and Self-Perceived SocialCompetence For both genders, the largest group consistedof children simultaneously following the low bullying andmedium self-perceived social competence trajectories(38.1 % of the sample, n=150; 57 boys and 93 girls; seeTable 4).

Conditional Probabilities of Self-Perceived Social CompetenceGiven Bullying Boys following the high and medium highbullying trajectories (n=25 and 38) are most likely to simul-taneous follow the highest self-perceived social competencetrajectory (probabilities 0.63 and 0.79), more so than theother two social competence trajectories (all PMPs>0.99).Compared to these two bullying groups, boys following thelow bullying trajectory (n=130) were less likely to follow thehighest self-perceived competence trajectory (probability0.44; both PMPs>0.99) and more likely to follow the lowestself-perceived social competence trajectory (probability 0.13;both PMPs>0.99).

Conditional Probabilities of Bullying Given Self-PerceivedSocial Competence Boys in all three self-perceived socialcompetence trajectories were most likely to follow the lowestbullying trajectory. However, boys following the highest self-perceived social competence trajectory (n=101) were more

Table 3 Joint and conditional probabilities of bullying and peer-reported social acceptance trajectories by gender

Peer-Reported Social Acceptance Bullying

High Medium Low

Joint probability of trajectory group membershipa

High −/ − 0.05 (n=10)/ 0.03 (n=6) 0.39(n=75)/ 0.64(n=128)

Medium 0.08 (n=16)/ 0.01 (n=2) 0.15 (n=29)/ 0.02 (n=4) 0.24(n=46)/ 0.25(n=51)

Low 0.04 (n=8)/ 0.005(n=1) 0.01 (n=1)/ 0.005 (n=1) 0.04(n=8)/ 0.04(n=8)

Peer-Reported Social Acceptance

High Medium Low

Probabilities of peer-reported social acceptance conditioned on bullyingb

High bullying (Nboys=24; Ngirls=3) −/ − 0.67/ 0.67 0.33/ 0.33

Medium bullying (Nboys=40; Ngirls=11) 0.25/ 0.55 0.73/ 0.36 0.02/ 0.09

Low bullying (Nboys=129; Ngirls=187) 0.58/ 0.68 0.36/ 0.27 0.06/ 0.04

Bullying

High Medium Low

Probabilities of bullying conditioned on peer-reported social acceptanceb

High soc. accep (Nboys=85; Ngirls=134) −/ − 0.12/ 0.04 0.88/ 0.96

Medium soc. accep (Nboys=91; Ngirls=57) 0.18/ 0.04 0.32/ 0.07 0.51/ 0.89

Low soc. accep (Nboys=17; Ngirls=10) 0.47/ 0.10 0.06/ 0.10 0.47/ 0.80

a Cells sum to 1. b Rows sum to 1. Figures in bold pertain to girls

J Abnorm Child Psychol

likely to follow the high bullying trajectory than those(n=20) following the lowest self-perceived social com-petence trajectory (probabilities 0.15 versus 0.05; n=15 andn=1; PMP>0.99).

Linkages Between Bullying and Self-Perceived SocialCompetence in Girls Like boys, most of the girls whobelonged to either the high or the medium bullying group(n=14) simultaneously belonged to the highest self-perceived social competence group (n=10; 71.4 %). Alsoin line with the findings observed for boys, only among thegirls highest in self-perceived social competence high bul-lying was observed (albeit only 3 out of 71), whereas noneof the girls in the other two self-perceived social compe-tence groups engaged in high levels of bullying. Takentogether, the observed linkages between bullying and self-perceived social competence do not systematically differbetween boys and girls.

Joint Trajectories of Bullying and Internalizing Symptoms Thetop part of Table 5 shows the joint probabilities of trajectorymembership. For both genders, the largest group consistedof those who simultaneously followed the low bullyingand low internalizing symptoms trajectories (50 % of thesample; n=197).

Conditional Probabilities of Internalizing Symptoms GivenBullying Boys in all three bullying trajectories were most

likely to follow the low internalizing trajectory (probabili-ties ranged from 0.70 to 0.84) and considerably less likely tofollow either the high internalizing trajectory (probabilitiesranged from 0.03 to 0.08; PMPs>0.99) or the medium highinternalizing trajectory (probabilities ranged from 0.13 to0.26; PMPs>0.99).

Conditional Probabilities of Bullying Given InternalizingSymptoms Boys in all three internalizing trajectories weremost likely to follow the low bullying trajectory (probabil-ities ranged from 0.63 to 0.79) and considerably less likelyto follow either the high bullying trajectory (probabilitiesranged from 0.09 to 0.25; PMPs>0.99) or the medium highbullying trajectory (probabilities ranged from 0.12 to 0.23;PMPs>0.99). Taken together, results indicate no systematicdevelopmental overlap between bullying and internalizingsymptoms.

Linkages Between Bullying and Internalizing Symptoms inGirls Like boys, most of the girls who belonged to eitherthe high or the medium bullying group (n=14) simulta-neously followed the lowest internalizing symptoms tra-jectory (n=10; 71.4 %). Also in line with the findingsfor boys, girls in all three groups were most likely tosimultaneously belong to the low bullying group (all proba-bilities>0.90). Taken together, the observed linkages betweenbullying and internalizing symptoms are similar for boysand girls.

Table 4 Joint and conditional probabilities of bullying and self-perceived social competence trajectories by gender

Self-Perceived Social Competence Bullying

High Medium Low

Joint probability of trajectory group membershipa

High 0.08 (n=15)/ 0.01 (n=3) 0.16 (n=30)/ 0.03 (n=7) 0.29(n=56)/ 0.30(n=61)

Medium 0.05 (n=9)/ - 0.03 (n=6)/ 0.005 (n=1) 0.30(n=57)/ 0.46(n=93)

Low 0.005 (n=1)/ - 0.01 (n=2)/ 0.01 (n=3) 0.09(n=17/ 0.17(n=33)

Self-Perceived Social Acceptance

High Medium Low

Probabilities of self-perceived social competence conditioned on bullyingb

High bullying (Nboys=25; Ngirls=3) 0.60/ 1.00 0.36/ - 0.04/ -

Medium bullying (Nboys=38; Ngirls=11) 0.79/ 0.64 0.16/ 0.09 0.05/ 0.27

Low bullying (Nboys=130; Ngirls=187) 0.43/ 0.33 0.44/ 0.50 0.13/ 0.18

Bullying

High Medium Low

Probabilities of bullying conditioned on self-perceived social competenceb

High self-perc. soc. compet. (Nboys=101; Ngirls=71) 0.15/ 0.04 0.30/ 0.10 0.55/ 0.86

Medium self-perc. soc. compet. (Nboys=72; Ngirls=94) 0.13/ - 0.08/ 0.01 0.79/ 0.99

Low self-perc. soc. compet. (Nboys=20; Ngirls =36) 0.05/ - 0.10/ 0.08 0.85/ 0.92

a Cells sum to 1. b Rows sum to 1. Figures in bold pertain to girls

J Abnorm Child Psychol

Discussion

The present study examined the costs and benefits of bully-ing, from the perspective of bullies, in the context of thepeer group as it unfolds during the last years of elementaryschool. The use of joint trajectories enabled us to investigatethe joint development of bullying and indices tapping func-tioning in several important domains. The most importantconclusion of the present work is that for bullies theirbehavior appears to yield clear immediate rewards withoutstrong concurrent negative consequences. Being high inbullying is strongly positively associated with high per-ceived popularity, and bullies do not demonstrate elevatedinternalizing symptoms, nor subjectively experienced prob-lems in the social domain. Although a sizeable minority ofthe bullies is strongly disliked by their peers, most belong tothe trajectory group that is reasonably well accepted (i.e.,medium-high in social acceptance/likeability). Hence, theprice for high bullying seems quite low, at least in thecontext of the peer group when participants are still at(elementary) school. Although boys were strongly overrep-resented among the bullies, analyses suggest that the patternof findings is about equally applicable for boys and girls.

For all constructs that were examined, three-group trajec-tory models consisting of high, medium, and low scoringgroups fitted the data best. The large majority of the partic-ipants followed a stable low trajectory of bullying. For thosefollowing the high or medium bullying trajectories (18 % of

the sample; predominantly boys), a significant decrease overtime was observed. Previous research examining the linkbetween age and prevalence of bullying has yielded incon-clusive findings. Some studies have found that bullyingincreases with age and peaks in early-to-middle adolescence(see Salmivalli and Peets 2009). In contrast, large-scalesurveys of the prevalence of bullying have revealed a de-crease in bullying from childhood through adolescence(Nansel et al. 2001).

The joint analysis of the bullying and perceived popularitytrajectories revealed an asymmetrical relationship. Specifically,the large majority of the children in the high bullying groupsimultaneously belonged to the high perceived popularitygroup and were certain to be not low in perceived popularity.In contrast, less than half of the children in the high perceivedpopularity group simultaneously followed the highest bullyingtrajectory. Hence, although bullying may be sufficient to obtainhigh perceived popularity, it is not necessary. In line with theobservation that children low or medium on bullying maynonetheless be high in perceived popularity, Vaillancourt andHymel (2006) concluded that “there are two different pathwaysto achieving status (visibility and influence) within the peergroup, one through the explicit use of aggressive behaviour, theother through the possession of peer-valued characteristics”(p. 398). Examples of these latter characteristics include beingathletic, physically attractive, or socially sophisticated.

While the findings for perceived popularity suggest thatbullying may lead to desired outcomes, less advantageous

Table 5 Joint and conditional probabilities of bullying and internalizing symptoms trajectories by gender

Internalizing Symptoms Bullying

High Medium Low

Joint probability of trajectory group membershipa

High 0.01(n=2)/ - 0.005(n=1)/ 0.005(n=1) 0.03(n=5)/ 0.07(n=15)

Medium 0.02 (n=4) / 0.005(n=1) 0.03 (n=5)/ 0.01 (n=2) 0.18(n=34)/ 0.33(n=67)

Low 0.09 (n=18)/ 0.01 (n=2) 0.17(n=32)/0.04 (n=8) 0.47(n=92)/ 0.52(n=105)

Internalizing Symptoms

High Medium Low

Probabilities of internalizing symptoms conditioned on bullyingb

High bullying (Nboys=24; Ngirls=3) 0.08/ - 0.17/ 0.33 0.75/ 0.67

Medium bullying (Nboys=38; Ngirls=11) 0.03/ 0.09 0.13/ 0.18 0.84/ 0.73

Low bullying (Nboys=131; Ngirls=187) 0.04/ 0.08 0.26/ 0.36 0.70/ 0.56

Bullying

High Medium Low

Probabilities of bullying conditioned on internalizing symptomsb

High int. symptoms (Nboys=8; Ngirls=16) 0.25/ - 0.12/ 0.06 0.63/ 0.94

Medium int. symptoms (Nboys=43; Ngirls=70) 0.09/ 0.01 0.12/ 0.03 0.79/ 0.96

Low int. symptoms (Nboys=142; Ngirls=115) 0.13/ 0.02 0.22/ 0.07 0.65/ 0.91

a Cells sum to 1. b Rows sum to 1. Figures in bold pertain to girls

J Abnorm Child Psychol

findings were observed for peer-reported social acceptance.For instance, there was no developmental overlap betweenhigh bullying and the highest levels of social acceptance,indicating that bullies are certain to be not among the mostwell liked children. Moreover, compared to their low bully-ing counterparts, those high in bullying were much morelikely to belong to the most disliked group. Still, the major-ity of the high bullying group belonged to the average(medium-high) social acceptance group.

Importantly, the results for the longitudinal co-occurrence of bullying and self-perceived social compe-tence indicate that other-versus self-perceptions of socialfunctioning do not coincide. These findings are in line withother studies documenting that youth high in aggression tendto overestimate their own social competence, relative to peerratings of social acceptance/preference (e.g., Brendgen et al.2004; David and Kistner 2000). Whereas children in the highbullying group were considerably more likely than those lowin bullying to belong to the most disliked group, at the sametime they were more likely to belong to the highest self-perceived social competence group. In a similar vein, childrenin the low bullying group were more likely than those high onbullying to follow the lowest self-perceived social competencetrajectory.

One possible explanation for these differential linkages isthat bullies do not consider their social relations with peersas problematic. It has been shown that bullies do havefriends (Salmivalli and Peets 2009). Moreover, childrenwho dislike bullies may be reluctant to provide them withnegative feedback to avoid becoming the next victim. Forthe bully, a lack of clear indications that his peers do not likehim may result in the erroneous perception he is well ac-cepted (Hymel et al. 1993). Another possibility is thatbullies do recognize the fact that quite a few children donot really like them, but do not care much about beingdisliked by those who do not belong to their inner circle(Olthof & Goossens 2008).

Whereas children high in bullying differed in meaningfulways from their peers low in bullying with respect to perceivedpopularity and social acceptance, the joint analysis of bullyingand internalizing symptoms revealed no systematic co-morbidity over time. One possible explanation for this findingmay be that the high popularity of bullies helps them to avoidcertain negative consequences of their behavior that have thepotential to yield internalizing distress (e.g., adult punishment;see Rose and Swenson 2009). Peers may tend to forgive thebehavior of bullies because of their social power and socialcentrality. Moreover, if bullies are indeed socially savvy andhave good theory of mind skills (e.g., Sutton et al. 1999), theymay bully in subtle ways that escape notice from teachers (e.g.,starting a rumor with relative anonymity).

The results provide clear support for our expectation thatdifferent subgroups of bullies can be distinguished, who differ

in their associations with outcomes of interest. Importantly,variable-centered approaches (e.g., SEM, regression analysis)are unable to detect such important heterogeneity in the data.Comparing the high with the medium high bullies revealedthat medium high bullying is less strongly associated withboth positive outcomes (i.e., high perceived popularity) aswell as negative outcomes (i.e., low social acceptance).

The present research has possible implications for inter-vention. To the extent that bullying provides the perpetratorswith the popularity they seek, these children likely havelittle motivation for behavioral change. Hence, interventionis most likely to be successful when the peer group is usedto deprive bullies of their motivation to engage in bullyingby reducing its rewards. Potential strategies include foster-ing anti-bullying attitudes, encouraging bystanders to reportbullies to adults, be supportive to victims, and encouraging“reinforcers” to change their pro-bullying attitude (Olthof etal. 2011). Moreover, bullies should be taught more accept-able ways to achieve high popularity (e.g., by fosteringathletic competence). Parents of bullies should demonstratezero tolerance for bullying, have their child internalize therule that they do not bully, punish them when needed, andalso explain how frightening and unfair bullying is for thevictim (Salmivalli et al. 2010).

Several limitations of the present work deserve mentionand should be addressed in future work. First, our findingsare based on primarily Caucasian pre-adolescents. To exam-ine generalizability, future studies should include childrenfrom a broader age range, and different ethnic groups.Second, although bullying and aggression are different phe-nomena, both conceptually and empirically, by not includ-ing a measure for aggression our findings do not speak tothe specificity for bullying. Future research that examinesboth constructs simultaneously is needed. Third, becauseonly few girls engaged in high levels of bullying, potentialgender differences in the linkages between bullying andother constructs could not be rigorously tested. However,descriptive data suggest that our findings are about equallyapplicable to boys and girls. Fourth, almost all participants inthe present study remained in the same classroom with thesame peers. Given that changes in the peer group or schooltransitions may affect aggressive behavior and bullying, futureresearch should examine to what extent our findings extend toyouth who do not stay with the same peers year after year.Fifth, although not the focus of the current study, research hasconsistently found that among children who bully there is asubgroup of “bully-victims”, who are also being bullied them-selves (e.g., Vaillancourt et al. 2003). It appears that in generalthese children are undercontrolled, impulsively aggressive,psychologically troubled, and lack social skills (Roland andIdsoe 2001; Vaillancourt et al. 2003). Recent cross-sectionalresearch (Olthof et al. 2011) has provided evidence to suggestthat while the bullying of bully–victims is as strategic as that

J Abnorm Child Psychol

of other bullies, they are less successful in reaching their aims.It may be that their emotionally dysregulated behavioral stylehampers their choice of “suitable targets” and the “best occa-sion” to bully. Future longitudinal studies using jointtrajectory analysis should examine both bullying and victim-ization in the context of a single study. Research along thoselines will increase our understanding of the developmentalrelations between bullying and victimization. Moreover, lon-gitudinal trajectory analysis may help further elucidate differ-ences between bullies and bully-victims in terms of theirfunctioning in salient domains. Sixth, we did not formallyassess whether pupils in the participating schools participatedin any bullying prevention or intervention program. Finally,long-term follow-up studies are needed to clarify why bulliesappear to be dominant and successful in the context of the peergroup, but seem to follow a developmental path towards amarginal, unsuccessful later life.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present researchextends our understanding of bullying and its correlates inseveral ways. First, there are different subgroups of bullieswho show a different pattern of associated costs and bene-fits. Second, it is rare to have stable high levels of bullyingwithout having high levels of perceived popularity as well.However, bullying is not a prerequisite to achieve perceivedpopularity. Third, although bullies are overall not among themost well liked children, most of them are not stronglydisliked either, and they are more likely than their low bully-ing counterparts to experience high levels of self-perceivedsocial competence. Taken together, although childhood bulliesmay be on a developmental path that in the long run becomesproblematic, it appears that for them in the context of the peergroup at school immediate advantages clearly outweighdisadvantages.

References

Bender, D., & Losel, F. (2011). Bullying at school as a predictor ofdelinquency, violence, and other anti-social behaviour in adult-hood. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 99–106.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Turgeon, L., Poulin, F., & Wanner, B. (2004). Isthere a dark side of positive illusions? overestimation of social com-petence and subsequent adjustment in aggressive and non-aggressivechildren. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 302–320.

Chorpita, B. F., Yim, L., Moffitt, C., Umetoto, L. A., & Francis, S. E.(2000). Assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and depres-sion in children: a revised child anxiety and depression scale.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 835–855.

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S.(2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood andadolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School PsychologyQuarterly, 25, 65–83.

David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions havea “dark side?” Examination of the link between perceptual bias

and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 327–337.

Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. (2006). The new participant rolescales: A comparison between various criteria for assigning rolesand indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 343–357.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. ChildDevelopment, 53, 87–97.

Hawley, P.H., Stump, K.N., & Ratliff, J.M. (2010). Sidestepping thejingle fallacy: Bullying, aggression, and the importance of know-ing the difference. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer, Bullying inAmerican Schools (pp. 101–115). Rutledge.

Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus with-drawn unpopular children: Variations in peer and self-perceptions inmultiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879–896.

Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. A., & Őnçűler, A. (2004). Status a s avalued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 103–114.

Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Pospikarta, E., Kaljonen, A., &Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVaantibullying program: Grades 4–6.Child Development, 82, 311–330.

Klugkist, I., Laudy, O., & Hoijtink, H. (2005). Bayesian evaluation ofinequality and equality constrained hypotheses for contingencytables. Psychological Methods, 15, 281–299.

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s percep-tions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment.Developmental Psychology, 38, 635–647.

Maassen, G. H., Akkermans, W., & van der Linden, J. L. (1996). Two-dimensional sociometric status determination with rating scales.Small Group Research, 27, 56–78.

Meeus, W., Van De Schoot, R., Klimstra, T., & Branje, S. (2011).Personality types in adolescence: Change and stability and linkswith adjustment and relationships: A five-wave longitudinal stud-y. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1181–1195.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Schouten, E. (2002). A brief questionnaireof DSM-IV defined anxiety and depression symptoms amongchildren. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 9, 430–442.

Muthén, B. O. (2004). Latent variable analysis: Growth mixturemodeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In D.Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodologyfor the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). MPlus User’s guide (6th ed.).Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modelling of development over thelife course. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nagin, T. R., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Analyzing developmentaltrajectories of distinct but related behaviors: A group-based meth-od. Psychological Methods, 6, 18–34.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among USyouth: Prevalence and associations with psychosocial adjustment.Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.

Ojanen, T., Gronroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonalcircumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reportedbehavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699–710.

Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2008). Bullying and the need to belong:Early adolescents’ bullying-related behavior and the acceptancethey desire and receive from particular classmates. SocialDevelopment, 17, 24–46.

Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vermande, M. M., Aleva, E. A., & van derMeulen, M. (2011). Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations withdesired and acquired dominance in the peer group. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 49, 339–359.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully-victim problems among schoolchildren: Basicfacts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D.Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of child-hood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

J Abnorm Child Psychol

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity andpeer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status.Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144.

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

Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmentaltrajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development,79, 325–338.

Roland, E., & Idsoe, T. (2001). Aggression and bullying. AggressiveBehavior, 27, 446–462.

Rose, A. J., & Swenson, L. P. (2009). Do perceived popularadolescents who aggress against others experience emotionaladjustment problems themselves? Developmental Psychology,45, 868–872.

Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2010). Development,evaluation, and diffusion of a national anti-bullying program,KiVa. In B. Doll, W. Pfol, & J. S. Yoon (Eds.), Handbook ofyouth prevention science (pp. 240–254). New York: Routledge.

Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2009). Bullies, victims, and bully-victimrelationships in middle childhood and early adolescence. In K. H.Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peerinteraction, relationships, and groups (pp. 322–340). New York:Guilford.

Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M. E., Overbeek, G., Van de Kemp, R.A. T., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2007). Stability in bullying andvictimization and its association with social adjustment in child-hood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,35, 217–228.

Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalenceand relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, anddepression. Adolescence, 38, 735–747.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvaldo, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett,N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary schoolpupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.

Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Rönning, J. A., Niemelä, S., Helenius, H.,Sillanmäki, L., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T.,Moilanen, I., & Almqvist, F. (2007). What is the early adulthoodoutcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? Thefinnish “From a Boy to a Man” study. Pediatrics, 120, 397–404.

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). “Bullying and theoryof mind”: A critique of the social skills deficit view of anti-socialbehavior. Social Development, 8, 117–127.

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Losel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Thepredictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: Asystematic/meta analytic review of longitudinal studies. CriminalBehavior and Mental Health, 21, 80–89.

Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: Themoderating roles of sex- and peer valued characteristics. AggressiveBehavior, 32, 396–408.

Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power:Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal ofApplied School Psychology, 19, 157–176.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010).The complex relation between bullying, victimization, accep-tance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection,and sex differences. Child Development, 81, 480–486.

Veerman, J. W., Straathof, M. A. E., & Ten Brink, L. T. (1996).Measuring children’s self-concept. Factorial validity and invari-ance across normal and clinical groups. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 67, 142–154.

Wong, T., & Van de Schoot, R. (2012). Reporting violent victimizationto the police: The role of the sex of the offender. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 27, 1276–1292.

J Abnorm Child Psychol