P1 1
P1 – Bullying
In-depth questions:
1. Which article is the most appropriate for the learning goals on bullying (causes, risk
factors, problems, roles, etc.), and why would you select this specific article for
answering these learning goals?
2. Which article(s) is the most appropriate for the learning goal on the effect of anti-bullying
interventions, and why would you pick this/these article(s)?
3. The articles from Vreeman & Carroll and from Jimenez et al. are both reviews of
evidence. But in what aspects are the conclusions from both articles the same, and in
what aspects are they different? Also try to name at least three arguments why these
two reviews (could) lead to different conclusions.
4. What is the main conclusion of the article by Van der Ploeg et al.? How generalizable is
their conclusion? And for which setting would their conclusion be most relevant? Try to
describe as accurately as possible the different conditions that were compared in this
specific study. Based on these conditions, do the results from this study tell us
something about the effectiveness of the KiVa intervention as a whole?
NOTES
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The
power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65, 159–185.
Aim → Review the current research on both bullying preparation and victimization in an effort to
bridge the:
American research tradition (focuses on children aggression; provides insights into the
social cognitions and relationships of bullies compared with well-adjusted peers)
Scandinavian tradition (illuminates the effects of aggressive behaviors on other children;
stems from a phenomenon known as mobbing → a group turns against one person)
Bullying → involves targeted intimidation or humiliation; typically, someone stronger or socially
more prominent abuses his power to threaten, demean, or belittle another
- The power imbalance between the two parties distinguishes bullying from conflict
- Getting bullied > bullying > both
, P1 2
Stability:
- Many childhood bullies age out their tendency to physically intimidate others in
adolescence (is just physical aggression replaced by some other kind?)
- In general, there is more stability than instability in bullying/bullied behaviors
- 9% from bullies to bullied, 6% from bullied to bullies
Forms of bullying--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct → physical aggression, threats, name-calling
- only physical bullying is known to decrease with age
- (physical bullying) more common in men (boys are more aggressive than women)
Indirect → spreading rumors, backstabbing, exclusion from the group → designed to
dmg the targets’ social reputation or deflate social status while concealing the identity of
the perpetrator
- does not require developmental progression to use indirect bullying
- more common in females because: girls value more relationships than boys & girls who
attack the reputations of other girls would be in a better position to compete for males
Meta-analysis → although girls use more relational than physical aggressive behaviors,
there are no strong differences between the 2 genders in the use of relational
aggression; boys are just as likely to use behaviors that dmg the reputation of peers or
engage in exclusionary tactics!
- By middle adolescence it is less socially acceptable to use physically aggress
Social dominance/status-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early studies → childhood aggression = lack of social skills
Current research → bullies are cold and calculating, often lacking empathy and resorting to
coercive strategies to dominate and control the behavior of peers; score higher on how
important it is for them to be visible, influential and admired
- Bullies usually have high social status
- Ethological research → aggression is a way to establish a dominant position within a
group → bullying helps maintain a dominant position
- Status enhancement is important especially during early adolescence which coincides
with a transition from the elementary school to middle school
- Robust (strong and healthy) association between aggressive behaviors and social
prominence after the transition to the new school
→ bullying behaviors are not only proactive or instrumental forms of aggression but they
appear to be guided by social dominance motives that peak at times of social
reorganization associated with transitions (not sure if development transition has an
effect too)
Inflated self-views and social-cognitive biases of bullies------------------------------------------------------
Positive self-views:
P1 – Bullying
In-depth questions:
1. Which article is the most appropriate for the learning goals on bullying (causes, risk
factors, problems, roles, etc.), and why would you select this specific article for
answering these learning goals?
2. Which article(s) is the most appropriate for the learning goal on the effect of anti-bullying
interventions, and why would you pick this/these article(s)?
3. The articles from Vreeman & Carroll and from Jimenez et al. are both reviews of
evidence. But in what aspects are the conclusions from both articles the same, and in
what aspects are they different? Also try to name at least three arguments why these
two reviews (could) lead to different conclusions.
4. What is the main conclusion of the article by Van der Ploeg et al.? How generalizable is
their conclusion? And for which setting would their conclusion be most relevant? Try to
describe as accurately as possible the different conditions that were compared in this
specific study. Based on these conditions, do the results from this study tell us
something about the effectiveness of the KiVa intervention as a whole?
NOTES
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The
power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65, 159–185.
Aim → Review the current research on both bullying preparation and victimization in an effort to
bridge the:
American research tradition (focuses on children aggression; provides insights into the
social cognitions and relationships of bullies compared with well-adjusted peers)
Scandinavian tradition (illuminates the effects of aggressive behaviors on other children;
stems from a phenomenon known as mobbing → a group turns against one person)
Bullying → involves targeted intimidation or humiliation; typically, someone stronger or socially
more prominent abuses his power to threaten, demean, or belittle another
- The power imbalance between the two parties distinguishes bullying from conflict
- Getting bullied > bullying > both
, P1 2
Stability:
- Many childhood bullies age out their tendency to physically intimidate others in
adolescence (is just physical aggression replaced by some other kind?)
- In general, there is more stability than instability in bullying/bullied behaviors
- 9% from bullies to bullied, 6% from bullied to bullies
Forms of bullying--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct → physical aggression, threats, name-calling
- only physical bullying is known to decrease with age
- (physical bullying) more common in men (boys are more aggressive than women)
Indirect → spreading rumors, backstabbing, exclusion from the group → designed to
dmg the targets’ social reputation or deflate social status while concealing the identity of
the perpetrator
- does not require developmental progression to use indirect bullying
- more common in females because: girls value more relationships than boys & girls who
attack the reputations of other girls would be in a better position to compete for males
Meta-analysis → although girls use more relational than physical aggressive behaviors,
there are no strong differences between the 2 genders in the use of relational
aggression; boys are just as likely to use behaviors that dmg the reputation of peers or
engage in exclusionary tactics!
- By middle adolescence it is less socially acceptable to use physically aggress
Social dominance/status-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early studies → childhood aggression = lack of social skills
Current research → bullies are cold and calculating, often lacking empathy and resorting to
coercive strategies to dominate and control the behavior of peers; score higher on how
important it is for them to be visible, influential and admired
- Bullies usually have high social status
- Ethological research → aggression is a way to establish a dominant position within a
group → bullying helps maintain a dominant position
- Status enhancement is important especially during early adolescence which coincides
with a transition from the elementary school to middle school
- Robust (strong and healthy) association between aggressive behaviors and social
prominence after the transition to the new school
→ bullying behaviors are not only proactive or instrumental forms of aggression but they
appear to be guided by social dominance motives that peak at times of social
reorganization associated with transitions (not sure if development transition has an
effect too)
Inflated self-views and social-cognitive biases of bullies------------------------------------------------------
Positive self-views:
