18
School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3, pp. 384-400 Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Ernest V. E. Hodges St. John's University Abstract. The purpose of this article is to synthesize recent work on aggression and victimization in educational settings from an ecological perspective. Four ques- tions directed towards school psychologists and bullying researchers guide this review: (a) How do bullies fit into their peer ecologies? (b) How do victims fit into their peer ecologies? (c) How can teachers impact bullying and victimization? (d) How can parents impact bullying and victimization? Our goal is to encourage school service professionals, prevention and intervention researchers, developers of antibullying curricula, and child development researchers to consider the impli- cations of these questions as part of their effort to confront victimization and un- derstand its contextual roots. Everyone operates in social situations where others can influence what we do, think, and say. Social influences are powerful, but they are easy for all but the most sensitive ob- servers to misperceive. As this applies to bul- lying research, our challenge is to better un- derstand the role of children's peers and rel- evant adults (such as teachers and parents) along with the individual characteristics of vic- timizing and victimized children. In this re- view, we organize a growing body of research focused on the peer ecology of bullying and victimization. Suggestions are offered for how school psychologists and developers of antibullying curricula might use current re- search as they work against children's aggres- sion towards one another. Greater use of so- ciometric and social network technologies that make children's social relations visible to adults is particularly encouraged. Intervention strategies that incorporate how particular bul- lies and victims are networked among their peers would be a significant advance over ap- proaches that assume a common profile to bul- lies and victims, or uniformity in how other children view them. What is meant by a peer ecology? Eco- logical psychology has a long history dating back to Gestalt psychology, known for befud- dling illusions such as when objects in a picture's foreground and background appear to shift rapidly. The point of this illusion was that the obvious (foreground) and not-so-ob- vious (background) inseparably determine our perceptions and judgments. Applied to the present context, bullies and victims are in the foreground, embedded against a background of other children, teachers, parents, and their Authlor Note. Rodkin was supported by a Faculty Fellows grant from the Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Hodges was supported by NICHD I R15 HD040195-OlAI. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Ernest Hodges, Department of Psychology, St. John's University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439: E-mail: [email protected]; or Philip C. Rodkin, 220B Education Building, Mail Code 708, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1310 S. 6' St., Champaign, IL 61820; E-mail: [email protected]. 384

Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

  • Upload
    lyduong

  • View
    219

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review,2003, Volume 32, No. 3, pp. 384-400

Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questionsfor Psychologists and School Professionals

Philip C. RodkinUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Ernest V. E. HodgesSt. John's University

Abstract. The purpose of this article is to synthesize recent work on aggressionand victimization in educational settings from an ecological perspective. Four ques-tions directed towards school psychologists and bullying researchers guide thisreview: (a) How do bullies fit into their peer ecologies? (b) How do victims fit intotheir peer ecologies? (c) How can teachers impact bullying and victimization? (d)How can parents impact bullying and victimization? Our goal is to encourageschool service professionals, prevention and intervention researchers, developersof antibullying curricula, and child development researchers to consider the impli-cations of these questions as part of their effort to confront victimization and un-derstand its contextual roots.

Everyone operates in social situationswhere others can influence what we do, think,and say. Social influences are powerful, butthey are easy for all but the most sensitive ob-servers to misperceive. As this applies to bul-lying research, our challenge is to better un-derstand the role of children's peers and rel-evant adults (such as teachers and parents)along with the individual characteristics of vic-timizing and victimized children. In this re-view, we organize a growing body of researchfocused on the peer ecology of bullying andvictimization. Suggestions are offered for howschool psychologists and developers ofantibullying curricula might use current re-search as they work against children's aggres-sion towards one another. Greater use of so-ciometric and social network technologies thatmake children's social relations visible to

adults is particularly encouraged. Interventionstrategies that incorporate how particular bul-lies and victims are networked among theirpeers would be a significant advance over ap-proaches that assume a common profile to bul-lies and victims, or uniformity in how otherchildren view them.

What is meant by a peer ecology? Eco-logical psychology has a long history datingback to Gestalt psychology, known for befud-dling illusions such as when objects in apicture's foreground and background appearto shift rapidly. The point of this illusion wasthat the obvious (foreground) and not-so-ob-vious (background) inseparably determine ourperceptions and judgments. Applied to thepresent context, bullies and victims are in theforeground, embedded against a backgroundof other children, teachers, parents, and their

Authlor Note. Rodkin was supported by a Faculty Fellows grant from the Bureau of Educational Research,College of Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Hodges was supported by NICHD IR15 HD040195-OlAI.

Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Ernest Hodges, Department of Psychology,St. John's University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439: E-mail: [email protected]; or PhilipC. Rodkin, 220B Education Building, Mail Code 708, Department of Educational Psychology, Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1310 S. 6' St., Champaign, IL 61820; E-mail: [email protected].

384

Page 2: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

ties to them. The notion of children's ecolo-giesis strongly associated with Bronfenbrenner(1979), who constructed an elaborate architec-ture for social environments by describingthem as multileveled and characterized by mi-cro- to macrosocial "nested structures, eachinside the next, like a set of Russian dolls" (p.3). Bronfenbrenner (1996) made it clear thatmicrosystems-the immediate, proximal set-tings in which behavior unfolds-were oftenthe contexts of paramount importance: "theultimate mechanism through which develop-ment occurs" (p. xv). The peer ecology is thatpart of children's microsystem that involveschildren interacting with, influencing, and so-cializing one another. Peer ecologies do notinclude adults, but can affect and be affectedby them.

Social structures in peer ecologies orga-nize children's behavior horizontally and ver-tically (Rodkin & Fischer, in press). Horizon-tally, even simple grade school classrooms arecontoured environments featuring multiplesocial relationships (e.g., friendships, peergroups) and hence provide multiple avenuesfor children to find a niche and enjoy socialsupport. Relationships of mutual dislike, orchildhood enemies, are also part of the hori-zontal structure of peer ecologies (Hodges &Card, in press). Peer groups deserve specialmention as a unit of social structure. Groupstypically include between three and seven chil-dren, are segregated by gender and ethnicity,and are often the most immediate context ofchildren's perceptions and behaviors (Allen,1981;Bukowski & Sippola, 2001; Cairns,Xie,& Leung, 1998). Our emphasis on the group isin line with Kurt Lewin's (1943) dictum that"all education is group work" (p. 115).

The vertical structure of peer ecologiescorresponds to a dimension of social power (cf.Lippitt, Polansky, Redl, & Rosen, 1952) andis usually accepted by children as a source oflegitimate peer authority even when it is per-sonally disliked. Children and their peer groupsvary in social status and influence. One con-sequence of social status differences is thatsome children have more power than others indetermining what peers value and devalue,support and stigmatize. In the present context,

the relevant question for psychologists iswhether the social dynamics of a bully-victimrelationship occur in the context of rejectionby or support from children with high status.

The first two questions that structure ourreview focus on how bullies and victims fit intotheir peer ecologies. The last two questionsfocus on the impact of two relevant adult roles,teacher and parent, lying outside of the peerecology. Beyond the scope of our review,Swearer and Doll (2001) provide excellentcoverage of distal ecological systems impli-cated in bullying. We supplement research onbullies and victims with research on the peerrelations of aggressive and withdrawn childrenwhere bully/victim classifications have notbeen explicitly made.

Question 1: How Do Bullies Fit IntoTheir Peer Ecologies?

Classic social development research(e.g., Asher & Coie, 1990) portrays a hostilepeer ecology for many aggressive children,who reactively lash out as they sense provoca-tion from others. This characterization is aptfor low status bullies, particularly those whoare also victims of harassment (Boivin, HIymel,& Hodges, 2001; Perry, Hodges, & Egan,2001). Some bullies are friendless and lonely;others gain acceptance but only in small, pe-ripheral social networks consisting mainly ofother unpopular, aggressive children (Coie &Dodge, 1998; McDougall, Hymel,Vaillancourt, & Mercer, 2001; Rubin,Bukowski, & Parker,. 1998). Preventative in-terventions emphasizing the acquisition of so-cial skills and alleviation of social-cognitivedeficits derive from a tradition of highlightingassociations between aggression and rejection.

Many bullies, however, are not rejected.Bullies with moderate to high levels of socialstatus are integrated into their peer ecologies andexperience a different, more complicated envi-ronment than bullies rejected by peers. We nowdescribe some aspects of these ecologies anddraw implications for psychologists and othereducational and mental health professionals.

Horizontal structure. Our focus is onthe peer groups of aggressive children. Groups

385

Page 3: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

provide children with multiple routes for inte-grating into their peer ecology. Some groupsecho dominant societal values, but others givesocial shelter to children who resist adult-en-dorsed messages (Ferguson, 2000; Fordham &Ogbu, 1986; McFarland, 2001). The functionof peer groups as vehicles of defiance and non-conformity is perhaps mostly clearly seen inadolescence but has roots in middle childhood.

Children with similar levels of aggres-sive and antisocial behavior are likely to affili-ate with one another (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel,2003; Haselager, Hartup, Van Lieshout, &Riksen-Walraven, 1998; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). However, it is not safe toconclude that aggressive children affiliate onlywith other aggressive children in easily visiblegroups of troublemakers. Groups are heteroge-neous in nature, and many aggressors are ingroups with both aggressive and nonaggressivemembers. Farmer et al. (2002) questioned thecomprehensiveness of the deviant peer grouphypothesis, which suggests that aggressiveyouth are members of small, peripheral groupson the outskirts of the peer ecology. In a studyof fourth to sixth graders, they found that ag-gressive boys were well-connected to others.Two-thirds of aggressive boys and one-half ofaggressive girls affiliated in groups whosemembers were over 50% nonaggressive.Farmer et al. (2002) recommended that vio-lence prevention programs extend beyond ag-gressive youth and deviant groups to addressnonaggressive peers who may support antiso-cial behavior. Aggressive girls were more likelythan aggressive boys to fit the deviant peergroup framework, possibly because aggressionis less normative among girls and hence is morelikely to be segregated away from the main-stream peer ecology.

Using Farmer et al.'s (2002) sample,Rodkin, Pearl, and van Acker (2003) exam-ined children who nominated aggressors asamong the three "coolest" kids in their school.According to a similarity view, children nomi-nating aggressors as cool will be aggressivethemselves. However, if bullying and aggres-sion work via group processes, children in ag-gressive groups should perceive aggressivechildren as cool, even if nominators are them-

selves nonaggressive. Results confirmed thishypothesis. Analogously, aggressive childrenin predominantly nonaggressive groups tendedto nominate nonaggressive children as cool.These results held for boy and girl same-sexcool nominations. Interestingly, aggressiveboys were disproportionately nominated ascool by girls (see also Bukowski, Sippola, &Newcomb, 2000). Taken together, the cool analy-ses suggest that some aggressive boys have awide base of reputational support that drawsfrom but extends beyond children like them-selves. Consistent with Farmer et al. (2002),aggressive girls had a narrower base of sup-port consisting mostly of girls like themselves.

Among older children, adolescentfriends engage one another in "deviancy train-ing" where norms favoring aggression are es-tablished and nourished over time, contribut-ing to the development of substance use (e.g.,tobacco, alcohol, marijuana) in young adult-hood (Dishion & Owen, 2002). Recent socio-logical investigations emphasize the groupcontexts in which delinquency processes oc-cur. Haynie (2001) found that the nature of thegroups in which friendships are embedded(e.g., their cohesiveness, adolescents' statuswithin the group) conditioned friendship-de-linquency associations. Peer influence on de-linquency was most pronounced when groupswere cohesive (see also Kiesner, Cadinu,Poulin, & Bucci, 2002), and when target ado-lescents had high social status. McFarland(2001) stressed the role of social networks ineveryday forms of student defiance of author-ity, downplaying the importance of individualtraits, or distal macrosocial features such asrace or class. According to McFarland (2001),many students with advantaged positions in thepeer ecology undermine classroom affairswhenever possible. Children on the peripheryof the peer ecology may also attempt to dis-rupt class activity, but they usually fail and arerejected by teachers and peers alike.

Research focused specifically on bulliespoints clearly to the importance of group con-texts. Peer groups where norms favor bullyinginfluence individual levels of bullying for boysand girls over the middle school years(Espelage et al., 2003). Bullies tend to be

386

-------i

Page 4: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

friends with other bullies (Pellegrini, Bartini,& Brooks, 1999). Bullies engage their peerecology (using both aggressive and prosocialbehaviors) at higher rates than nonaggressivechildren, and interact with aggressive andnonaggressive children alike (Pepler, Craig, &Roberts, 1998). During middle childhood, therelationship between bullies and victims in-volves much of the elementary classroom(O'Connell, Peplar, & Craig, 1999; Pierce &Cohen, 1995). Some children who are notthemselves aggressive validate bullies withapplause, or play supporting roles in bully-ledpeer groups (O'Connell et al., 1999; Salmivalli,Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997). Bullies whouse proactive or instrumental aggression areoften popular within their groups (Pellegriniet al., 1999) and their groups tend to be largerthan those of nonbullies (Boulton, 1999).Salmivalli et al. (1997) reported that bullyingwas a group activity in which group membershad different, distinct roles (e.g., leading theattack, assisting, reinforcing) and where bul-lies relied on their network of supporters, sub-ordinates, and scapegoats to establish and ex-ercise influence. Hawkins, Peplar, and Craig(2001) suggest that just as peers can enablebullies, they can also be successful at inter-vening in a bullying episode. These studiesshow that bullies preferentially affiliate withone another but are not segregated from theirnonaggressive peers.

Vertical structure. Child psychologistshave been warned for years not to assume thatall popular children are prosocial, or that allrejected children are aggressive (Rubin et al.,1998). There are more than a few exceptionsto the general trend between aggression andrejection. Bierman and Wargo (1995) studiedthe characteristics of nonrejected-aggressivechildren, but mainly as a comparison group tobetter focus on the unique characteristics ofrejected-aggressive children. French (1988,1990) found that only one-half of rejected boyswere aggressive and could not uncover a stableconfiguration of rejected-aggressive girls. Coieand Koeppl (1990) reported that only one-thirdof aggressive children were rejected. Otherresearch directed towards creating taxonomiesof rejected or unpopular children (Boivin &

Begin, 1989; Cillessen, van IJzendoorn, vanLieshout, & Hartup, 1992) found that althoughsome rejected children were aggressive, oth-ers were more withdrawn, and still othersshowed a combination of externalizing andinternalizing characteristics.

How did the linkage between low statusand aggression become so strong in the firstplace? Why were aggressors who engaged theirpeer ecology overlooked? As Olweus (2001)notes, methodology is at the heart of the prob-lem. The connection between rejection andaggression depends on a definition of statusthat includes likeability (plus the absence ofdislikeability) and excludes other constructs,such as influence, dominance, and control overothers, with which status and power are typi-cally associated (e.g., Hawker & Boulton,2001; Hawley, 1999; Pellegrini, 2002; Rodkinet al., 2003). The most commonly used proce-dure for measuring childhood social statusequates status with likeability by asking somevariant of two questions of children: (a) Whoare the three kids in your class who you likethe most? (LM), and (b) Who are the three kidsin your class who you like the least? (LL).These questions are combined to form two newvariables: (a) social preference, or LM minusLL ratings and (b) social impact, or LM plusLL ratings. Popular status is assigned to chil-dren with high social preference and impact.Rejected status is assigned to children with lowsocial preference and at least average socialimpact (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982).Thus, popular children are liked most by manyand liked least by few, and rejected childrenare liked most by few and liked least by many.Under this system, aggressive children rarelyattain popular (i.e., high) status, sometimesentering an understudied controversial statusclassification generally described as a hybridof popularity and rejection.

Sociometric methods are powerful tech-nologies. They are superb at identifying theirintended target of low-status children. They arecritical for assessing children's enemies, a re-lationship that often develops into victimiza-tion (see Question 2). We note in our conclu-sions that greater adoption of sociometric tech-niques among researchers and schools would

387

Page 5: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

go a long way towards making visible the so-cial currents of peer ecologies. One challengefor the newest generation of sociometric meth-ods is to improve assessments of children withhigh levels of social status so that aggressiveand nonaggressive children are accurately iden-tified. The presence of popular-aggressive chil-dren, particularly boys, has recently been un-covered in a number of studies using bothqualitative and quantitative methods, and overa variety of ages ranging from middle child-hood (if not before) to adolescence.

A common theme of many school eth-nographies is that popular elementary (Adler& Adler, 1998; Ferguson, 2000) and middleschool (Eder, Evans, & Parker, 1995; Merten,1997) children, whether male or female, arerebellious, ruthless, and Machiavellian in es-tablishing and maintaining their high socialpositions. Conversely, boys who are "nice,"who strive for academic success, or who areoverly sensitive to the needs of others are of-ten tagged as effeminate and as a result risklosing or not achieving popular status. Adlerand Adler (1998) portray middle childhoodpeer groups as highly stratified by social sta-tus. Children are acutely aware of their ownand others' placement on the status hierarchy,often deferring to higher status classmates andridiculing lower status ones. Children in popu-lar and/or dominant groups form an exclusivesocial circle and have disproportionate influ-ence over the classroom as a whole, and mayalso be disproportionately subject to group in-fluence (Haynie, 2001). Conversely, childrenin low status groups suffer degradation, exclu-sion, rejection, and ostracism. A very similarportrait of the haves and have-nots and the re-lationships between them has been drawn byEder et al. (1995) in their analysis of middleschool peer culture.

Turning to quantitative work, Luthar andMcMahon (1996) determined that 24% of in-ner-city ninth graders could be characterizedas having a mix of popular and prosocial char-acteristics, but another 20% had a mix of popu-lar and aggressive characteristics. Parkhurstand Hopmeyer (1998) found that most eighthand ninth graders who were prosocial and wellliked were not perceived to be popular by peers,

and most students who were seen as popularwere not prosocial or well liked. LaFontanaand Cillessen (1998) used hypothetical picture-stories to assess how fourth and fifth gradersexplained the actions of main characters de-scribed as either popular, unpopular, or neitherpopular nor unpopular (i.e., neutral-popular).These characters acted in ways that had eithernegative or positive outcomes. Participatingchildren were asked whether story charactersmeant to cause these bad or good outcomes(i.e., had hostile or prosocial intent). As com-pared to their judgments of neutral-popularcharacters, children gave popular charactersmore hostile intent for negative actions, but notmore prosocial intent for positive actions.Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, and Van Acker (2000)examined subtypes of popular fourth to sixthgrade boys in a diverse sample of urban andrural children. Popular-prosocial ("model")boys were perceived as cool, athletic, leaders,cooperative, studious, not shy, andnonaggressive. Popular-antisocial ("tough")boys were perceived as cool, athletic, and anti-social. Rodkin et al.'s (2000) findings sug-gested that highly aggressive boys (if they arealso attractive and/or athletic) can be amongthe most popular and socially connected chil-dren in elementary classrooms. Rodkin et al.'s(2000) basic finding has been replicated in avariety of samples. There is evidence for tough,popular-aggressive boys in third grade, subur-ban communities (Estell, Farmer, Van Acker,Pearl, & Rodkin, in press) and for older ado-lescent children the connection between popu-larity and aggression seems to become evenstronger (e.g., Gorman, Kim, &Schimmelbusch, 2002; LaFontana & Cillessen,2002; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003).

Implications for psychologists. Bul-lies who are also victims, who predominantlyaggress in reaction to provocation, face rejec-tion. Their segregation from most of their peersmakes them easy to detect. Bullies may also beactive participants in the construction of peerecologies, enjoying social connections and sta-tus. It is important to identify type of bully whendealing with a concrete victimization problem,keeping in mind that groups can be a primaryvehicle through which aggression is propa-

Page 6: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

gated and valued. Not all groups containingaggressive children are deviant. Educators whoexclusively target peripheral antisocial cliquesas the engine of school violence problems mayleave intact other groups that are responsiblefor mainstream peer support for bullying. Somebullies use peers as allies, and this is often dif-ficult to isolate or label as an adjustment diffi-culty. Also, children with high levels of socialstatus have more input into the emerging normsof the peer ecology than children with low sta-tus. When children with high status engage inor endorse bullying, they send a message toall children that conflicts, sometimes drasti-cally, with the values that adults espouse.

Farmer's (2000) implications for inter-vention are particularly instructive. Farmer(2000) deals with aggression among studentswith disabilities, but the message generalizes:The variety of ways that children who aggressintegrate into their peer ecologies has beenoverlooked. Psychologists and educators canusefully ask the kinds of questions that Farmer(2000) examines in depth, such as: Is the bullya member of a group? Has the bully's groupformed a coalition with other groups? Is thebully a group leader, a "wannabe"? Research-ers face an exciting if difficult challenge ofmeasurement and assessment. Peer group re-structuring may be a promising model for in-tervention, but children's natural groups mustfirst be reliably identified and measures of so-cial status improved. We suspect that untrainedobservations from teachers and other adultsabout students with high social status under-estimate the proportion of popular-aggressiveboys and girls and distort other relevant aspectsof peer ecologies in which bullying occurs.

Question 2: How Do Victims Fit IntoTheir Peer Ecologies?

Many children at one time or anotherexperience some form of victimization fromtheir peers at school (Nansel et al., 2001). Thiscommon experience may explain, to some de-gree, why adults, including school personnel,often diminish the effect such experiences mayhave on social and personality development.However, for the sizable minority (about 10%of the school population) who are verbally and/

or physically assaulted at school consistentlyovertime (Kochenderfer, 1995; Olweus, 1993;Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988), the negative ad-justment consequences cannot be overlooked.Indeed, longitudinal research indicates thatchronically victimized children, relative tononvictimized children, are more likely to in-creasingly evidence behaviors of an internal-izing (e.g., anxiety, depression, withdrawal)and externalizing nature (e.g., aggression,argumentativeness, dishonesty); to show dropsin self-esteem; to become less well-liked andmore disliked by their peers; and to feel agreater dislike of school that likely leads toincreases in skipping or absenteeism (Boivin,Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Egan & Perry,1998; Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski,1999; Hodges & Perry, 1999; Juvonen,Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Kochenderfer &Ladd, 1996; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993;Vemberg, 1990). Perhaps most disturbing isthat chronic harassment by peers has been con-sistently linked to suicidal ideation in severalconcurrent studies (Rigby, 2000; Slee, 1994;cf. Camey, 2000).

Personal risk for victimization. Ef-forts to understand why certain children aremore likely than others to become the targetof abuse by their peers have focused on indi-vidual level characteristics and behaviors ex-hibited in the peer group that likely serve toreinforce and/or irritate bullies. Bullies appearto gravitate towards (or select as targets) chil-dren that are physically weak, exhibit internal-izing behaviors, lack prosocial skills, and havelow self-worth and perceptions of social com-petence. Indeed, longitudinal evidence indi-cates that each of these contribute to increasesin victimization overtime (Egan & Perry, 1998;Hodges, Boivin et al., 1999; Hodges & Perry,1999; Pellegrini, 1995; Vernberg, 1990). Lon-gitudinal studies have provided mixed evi-dence that externalizing behaviors serve asantecedents of victimization (see Boulton,1999; Egan & Perry, 1998; Hanish & Guerra,2000; Hodges, Boivin, et al., 1999; Hodges &Perry, 1999; Pellegrini, 1995; Schwartz,McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates,1999). However, it appears that hyperactivityand emotional dysregulation are especially

389

Page 7: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

likely to annoy peers and provoke potentialaggressors, thus leading to increases in victim-ization (Pope & Bierman, 1999; Shields &Cicchetti, 2001). It should be noted that het-erogeneity exists in the behaviors manifestedby victims. One group of victims (passive vic-tims) display primarily internalizing behaviorswhereas aggressive victims tend to becomorbid with respect to internalizing and ex-ternalizing behaviors (for a review, seeSchwartz, Proctor, & Chen, 2001).

Interpersonal risk for victimization.Overall, the picture of victimized children'speer relationships is quite bleak at the dyadic(friends and enemies) and group level (peerrejection and acceptance). We review each inturn and then highlight recent work indicatingthat positive peer relationships can inhibit theactualization of personal risk into victimiza-tion experiences.

Children who fail to establish a recipro-cated best friend (i.e., the peer they nominateas a best friend reciprocates the nomination)are more victimized than those who have a re-ciprocated best friend (Boulton, Trueman,Chau, Whitehand, & Amatya, 1999; Hodges,Boivin et al., 1999; cf. Kochenderfer & Ladd,1997; Ladd & Burgess, 1999). Research hasalso demonstrated that the number of friendsstudents have is negatively associated with vic-timization (Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Hodges,Malone, & Perry, 1997; Hodges & Perry, 1999;Pellegrini et al., 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1997;Slee & Rigby, 1993; Smith, Shu, & Madsen,2001). Friendships likely reduce victimizationbecause they pose additional risk to aggres-sors by increasing the likelihood of retaliation(Hodges, Boivin et al., 1999).

Not all friends are alike, however, andthe characteristics and qualities of friends needto be taken into account when gauging the like-lihood of a child becoming victimized. Theability of friends to provide a protective func-tion is especially important in warding off at-tacks from bullies (Hodges, Boivin et al.,1999). Unfortunately, when victims do havefriends, they often lack the characteristicsneeded to successfully play a protective func-tion. Specifically, friended victims tend to havefriends who are themselves victimized

(Haselager et al., 1998; Hodges et al., 1997;Pellegrini et al., 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1997),as well as who are physically weak and ex-hibit internalizing problems (Hodges et al.,1997). Victimization is also related to lowsupportiveness and companionship withinfriendships (Hodges, Boivin et al., 1999; Rigby,2000; Vernberg, 1990), as well as low protec-tion (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Smith et al., 2001;cf. Hodges, Boivin et al., 1999).

More recently, victimization has beenlinked to the quantity, context, and character-istics of enemy relationships (i.e., relationshipsbased on mutual dislike). First, victimized chil-dren have more enemies than nonvictimizedchildren (Card & Hodges, 2003; Parker &Gamm, in press; Schwartz, Gorman, Toblin,& Abou-ezzedine, in press; cf., Abecassis,Hartup, Haselager, Scholte, & van Lieshout,2002). However, it is unclear whether havingmany enemies causes victimization, as longi-tudinal data addressing issues of temporal pri-macy are lacking. It also appears that it is withinthe context of enemy relationships that aggres-sor and victim roles develop. Indeed, victim-ization occurs most frequently within enemyrelationships a$ compared to neutral peers,friends, or dyads where only one member dis-likes the other (Card & Hodges, 2003). More-over, the role each member of an enemy dyadtakes depends largely on the power differen-tial between the two, especially in terms ofaggression and physical strength (Card &Hodges, 2003; Card, Piedrahita, Isaacs, &Hodges, 2002).

At the group level, the situation for vic-timized children is just as grim. Victimizedchildren are clearly on the margins of the peerecology. They are widely disliked (and not wellliked) by their peers as evidenced by socio-metric nominations and these findings havebeen replicated across diverse ages, races, andcountries (e.g., Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton &Smith, 1994; Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Crick, Casas,& Ku, 1999; Forero, McLellan, Rissel, &Bauman, 1999; Hanish & Guerra, 2000;Hodges et al., 1997; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist,Berts, & King, 1982; Olweus, 1993; Pellegriniet al., 1999; Perry et al., 1988). Children likelyseek out targets that have been marginalized

390

------------------ ------------- . ................................................

Page 8: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

by the peer group because targeting low statusstudents is unlikely to be negatively evaluatedby the peer group. Longitudinal studies con-firm that children of low social status becomeincreasingly victimized over time (Boulton,1999; Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Hodges & Perry,1999; Vemberg, 1990; cf. Boivin et al., 1995;Pellegrini, 1995).

Fortunately, children with personalcharacteristics that signal vulnerability to ag-gressors (e.g., physical weakness, internaliz-ing behaviors) may be able to escape an esca-lating cycle of peer abuse by establishing posi-tive dyadic and group relations with their peers.Evidence is emerging that suggests that theactualization of personal risk into victimiza-tion by peers depends largely on the quantityand quality of interpersonal relationships. Con-current data indicate that the association be-tween physical weakness and victimization isstrongest for youths with negative peer rela-tions (high peer rejection, few friends, friendswho are unable to provide protection) but non-significant for those with positive peer rela-tions (Hodges et al., 1997). Further, longitudi-nal research has shown that physical weaknessfails to translate into victimization over time forthose who are not widely disliked by their peers(Hodges & Perry, 1999). Similarly, the positiveconcurrent associations of victimization withinternalizing and externalizing problems areminimized for youths who are not rejected,have many friends, or have friends who canprovide protection (Hodges et al., 1997; seealso Hanish & Guerra, 2000), and longitudi-nal evidence indicates that low peer rejectionand protective friendships eliminate longitu-dinal associations between internalizing behav-iors and increases in victimization (Hodges,Boivin et al., 1999; Hodges & Perry, 1999).

Implications for psychologists. Al-though it is clear that certain personal factorsplace children at-risk for victimization bypeers, by no means do we imply that the vic-tim is responsible for their own plight. Ulti-mately, school personnel are responsible forproviding a safe environment for all children.Importantly, the actualization of personal riskinto victimization appears to hinge criticallyon the quantity and quality of relationships with

peers at the dyadic and group level. At the dy-adic level, it may prove fruitful to promote thedevelopment of friendships with well-adjustedpeers or a buddy system in which at-risk chil-dren are paired with another child who canmodel more skilled social interactions. It is alsoimportant that paired friends or "buddies" arecapable of serving a protective function (e.g.,are physically strong, prosocial) for the vic-timized child. Victimized children may alsobenefit from interventions aimed at workingtowards resolving conflict with their mutualantipathies, because victimization frequentlyoccurs within this context.

Question 3: How Can Teachers ImpactBullying and Victimization?

Other than the children themselves,teachers are a school's most valuable resourcefor combating bullying and victimization.Teachers lie just outside of the peer ecologyand help shape, intentionally or unintention-ally, the critical microsystems in which chil-dren at school interact. Successful teachersguide children toward higher levels of moralreasoning, show warmth, and anticipate inter-personal problems by knowing their students'social status, peer groups, friends, and enemies.Unfortunately, the little research that exists onthe role of the teacher in bullying and victim-ization indicates that many teachers may notbe realizing their potential in this area. Teach-ers often seem unaware of aggression amongtheir students, or are overwhelmed by its preva-lence. Many would benefit from assistance inhelping to understand social dynamics amongtheir students. Teachers who try to eradicatebullying without an appreciation of the com-plexity of peer ecologies invite resistance anddefiance that may worsen existing problems.

Differences in aggression betweenclassrooms. Even within the same school,classrooms differ widely in average aggressionlevels, Children in classrooms where aggres-sion is normative tend to become more aggres-sive themselves, even in future years. Henryet al. (2000) reported that children in third-grade classrooms where social norms sup-ported aggression became more aggressive

391

Page 9: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

themselves in fourth grade as compared tomatched children in classrooms where normsdid not support aggression. Kellam, Ling,Merisca, Brown, and lalongo (1998) found thaturban first-grade classrooms varied in theiraverage levels of aggression, and that childrenin high-aggressive classrooms were at greaterrisk for long-term adjustment problems thanmatched children in low-aggressive class-rooms.

Teacher practices and beliefs play a rolein classroom differences in aggression. Teach-ers vary dramatically in classroom manage-ment skills (Roland & Galloway, 2002) thathelp shape the structure and values of peerecologies. Chang (2003) studied over 4,600seventh through ninth grade children and their82 teachers in China, asking whether teachers'beliefs about aggression and overall warmthand caring were associated with how aggressivechildren viewed themselves and were acceptedby others. When teachers were warm and caringto everybody, children were less rejecting ofaggressive peers than when teachers had verynegative beliefs about aggression. However,when teachers had very negative beliefs aboutaggression the aggressive children in theirclassrooms perceived themselves as sociallycompetent and efficacious. Chang's (2003)findings are intriguing and suggest how teach-ers' best efforts at quashing aggression canunwittingly open the way for the creation ofalternative authority structures conducive to theemergence of high status aggressors. Chang's(2003) findings on teacher warmth suggest amechanism by which teachers can reducestratification along the social status dimension.

Awareness of bullying and sexualharassment. Teachers need to be more awareof same- and cross-sex aggression among theirstudents. Teachers underestimate the preva-lence of bullying, too often fail to stop bully-ing when they see it, and sometimes exacer-bate the problem by siding with perpetratorsand blaming victims. Olweus (1993) notes thatteachers' attitudes are of "major significancefor the extent of bully/victim problems" (p. 26)but teachers intervene in only one-third of thebullying cases that come to their attention (seealso Newman, Horne, & Webster, 1999;

O'Moore, 2000; Rigby, 2001; Smith & Brain,2000).

The situation is still more alarming whenbullying involves negative relationships be-tween boys and girls, implicating larger issuesof peer sexual harassment. Bully-victim dy-ads can emerge from children who are enemies(see Question 2), and a substantial proportionof enemy relationships are between boys andgirls. Rodkin, Pearl, Farmer, and Van Acker(in press) examined the enemies of childrenfollowed from the spring of third grade to thespring of fourth grade. They examined theproportion of enemy dyads that were composedof a boy and a girl, two boys, and two girls andfound that 52% of enemy dyads in the springof third grade were between boys and girls.Over the two fourth grade assessments, be-tween 41% and 42% of enemy dyads weremixed sex (see also Abecassis et al., 2002;Hodges & Card, in press).

The prevalence of boy-girl enemiesspeaks to the climate of gender relations be-tween children and is essential for teachers todetect. Similarly, enemy relationships betweenchildren of different ethnicities, or betweenchildren with and without special needs, canreflect deeper schisms within classroom cul-tures that require attention. Certainly, evidenceon how school personnel deal with peer sexualharassment is disappointing. Pellegrini (2002)concludes that educators are often unaware ofsexual harassment and can contribute to itsacceptance among children. Rodkin andFischer (in press) characterized the dynamicthat too often emerges between boys and girlsas a training ground for sexual harassmentwhere "even well-meaning school service pro-viders can unintentionally collaborate with peerculture dynamics that normalize or reinforcebehaviors that to the rest of us clearly suggestharassment." Rodkin and Fischer (in press)review landmark legal cases where teachersand school officials adopted "head in the sand"approaches, pupished victims, and failed topunish perpetrators appropriately.

Enforcing policies, avoiding resis-tance. Researchers have recommended thatteachers closely monitor bullying, play an ac-tive part in its elimination, and enforce zero-

----- - ------------------------

Page 10: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

tolerance policies in an authoritative manner.Olweus (1993) calls for teachers to closely su-pervise children's relationships during breaktimes; intervene "where there is only a suspi-cion that bullying is taking place" (p. 71); andhave children internalize school rules that theynot bully, aid children who are bullied, and in-clude children who tend to be left out of peeractivities. Olweus (1993) also recommends thatteachers participate in social milieu developmentprograms where problems concerning bullyingand victimization are explored and discussed. Acommon theme of many antibullying programsis that teachers need to demonstrate completenontolerance for bullying and get children todo likewise (e.g., Newman et al., 1999;O'Moore, 2000; Rigby, 2001).

Recommendations that stress schoolpolicies and active community responses de-mand high levels of involvement and sharedconsensus among a number of different par-ties (e.g., Limper, 2000). Newman et al. (1999;pp. 326, 328) caution that antibullying policiesrequire that "staff, pupils, and parents are com-mitted... everyone [must] believe in the policy"and assume a silent majority in the peer ecologywhose antibullying attitudes need to be bettervocalized, but not necessarily changed. Rigby's(2001) "whole school approach" is predicatedupon broad agreement involving the activecooperation of all teachers, children, and par-ents. These interventions have proven helpfulbut school psychologists must determinewhether their schools can meet the needed con-ditions. The American Association for Univer-sity Women's (2001) report on sexual harass-ment in schools provides a note of caution:Relative to 1993, students are much more likelyto report that their schools have policies re-garding sexual harassment, but the prevalenceof harassing behaviors has hardly decreased.

A related concern is how children reactto adult-driven change. Antibullying curriculashould account for opposition to school rulesand some applications of teachers' authority.At times, efforts to vanquish aggression mayhave negative side effects (cf. Chang, 2003).Children's acceptance of adult-generated rulesand prosocial traits (e.g., "I will not bully, Iwill include those usually left out") may not

reflect private internalization. Teachers needto work with knowledge of the peer ecologiesof their classrooms to head off resistance orridicule. The challenge is not trivial. Hymel,Bonanno, Henderson, and McCreith (2002)report that too many students are morally dis-engaged about interpersonal aggression, withsome reporting positive attitudes about bully-ing and blaming of the victim (see also Gra-ham & Juvonen, 2001). McFarland's (2001)study of high schools concluded that "thestruggle for identity and control is endemic toevery classroom" (p. 665). Resistance mayreach a peak during adolescence but can alsobe characteristic of elementary school children(Adler & Adler, 1998; Ferguson, 2000). Evenin early childhood, Corsaro and Eder (1990)note that child societies ofteh attempt to op-pose the authority of the teacher.

Implications for psychologists. Wholeschool approaches are effective when schoolshave the material and social capital to implementthem. In the current national climate of increas-ing demands and decreasing resources, our worryis that these superlative interventions will onlybe successful in schools where victimization hasalready reached crisis proportions, or whenschools face legal liabilities from previousmistakes (Rodkin & Fischer, in press).

Well before a crisis, teachers have a vi-tal role to play in preventing bullying and vic-timization. As Pellegrini (2002) notes, teacherawareness and concern is a necessary first step.Teachers who are attentive to interpersonalaggression among their students should helptheir fellow teachers become more aware.Teachers should be well-informed about thesocial dynamics operating among their stu-dents, including groups that support and op-pose bullying, potential victims and appropri-ate friendships that can connect them to oth-ers, enemies that children have, and underly-ing hostilities between children in the same ordifferent groups. In part, teachers acquire thisinformation by being connected to all sectorsof the peer ecology: bullies, victims, and otherchildren (cf. Chang, 2003), but more objectivesociometric assessments are also very helpful.In sum, accurate understanding of a peer ecol-ogy is the platform from which intelligent deci-

393

Page 11: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

sions can be made about restructuring children'sgroups, encouraging feasible social relationships,and anticipating possible conflict.

Question 4: How Can Parents ImpactBullying and Victimization?

Our final question focuses on how fam-ily functioning can translate into the behav-ioral difficulties in the school context that con-tribute to the establishment and maintenanceof bully-victim relationships. Althoughmuch has been learned about how parent-child relationships affect aggressive devel-opment (for a review, see Hodges, Card, &Isaacs, 2002; Perry et al., 2001), relativelylittle research has been devoted to under-standing how parent-child relationships con-tribute to the likelihood of children becomingvictimized by their peers. Below, we reviewrecent research that focuses on two areas offamily functioning-attachment quality andparental child-rearing practices.

Attachment histories appear to play animportant role in establishing aggressive-vic-tim relationships. Aggressive-victim dyads aremore likely to be composed of individuals withhistories of insecure attachment with theirmother (Troy & Sroufe, 1987). Subtypes ofinsecurity (avoidant or preoccupied) also ap-pear to provide information regarding whetherindividuals adopt the bully or victim role withinthese dyads. Children with avoidant relation-ship stances toward their mother deny distressand affection regarding their mother, fail toseek comfort from their mother when upset,avoid their mother during reunion and explo-ration of their environment, and refuse to uti-lize their mother as a task-relevant resource.Children with preoccupied relationship stancesexperience an overwhelming need for theirmother when faced with novelty and stress-eliciting situations, trouble separating fromtheir mother, excessive concern over theirmother's whereabouts, prolonged upset follow-ing reunion, and trouble exploring their envi-ronment or meeting challenges. Avoidant at-tachment has been found to predict, concur-rently and over time, aggression and external-izing behaviors. Preoccupied attachment hasbeen found to predict victimization and inter-

nalizing behaviors (Finnegan, Hodges, &Perry, 1996; Hodges, Finnegan, & Perry, 1999).

Children are more likely to be victim-ized if their parents engage in practices thatimpede autonomy development or threaten theparent-child relationship (e.g., Finnegan,Hodges, & Perry, 1998; Ladd & Ladd, 1998),although gender specific linkages may exist.Maternal overprotectiveness and intensemother-child closeness are positively asso-ciated with victimization, especially amongboys (Finnegan et al., 1998; Ladd & Ladd,1998; cf. Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Rigby,Slee, & Cunningham, 1999). Intrusivedemandingness, coercion, and threats of rejec-tion are linked to victimization, especiallyamong girls (Finnegan et al., 1998; Ladd &Ladd, 1998). Child abuse, a more extreme formof coercive parenting behavior, has also beenconnected to victimization by peers(Duncan, 1999; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001).This relation has been accounted for by el-evated emotional dysregulation by abusedyouths (Shields & Cicchetti, 2001). Thissuggests that the process by which many ofthese familial correlates antecede victimiza-tion is through the fostering of personal fac-tors (e.g., emotional dysregulation or internal-izing difficulties; see also Finnegan et al., 1996)that may be transferred to, and expressed in,the peer group.

It is likely that family influences on vic-timization depend largely on whether childrenform quality peer relationships at school. How-ever, only one study, to our knowledge, hasdirectly examined this possibility. Schwartzand his colleagues (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit,Bates, & the Conduct Problems PreventionResearch Group, 2000) found that the relationbetween an early harsh environment (homescharacterized by high levels of marital conflict,stress, abuse, hostility, and harsh discipline)and victimization by peers was nonexistent forchildren with many friends and exacerbated forchildren with few friends. Other extraschoolcontext influences on victimization also appearto depend on children's relationships with peersat school. For example, Schwartz et al. (inpress) found that the effect of community vio-lence exposure on victimization was present

394

- -- -------

Page 12: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

only for those who had established relativelyhigh numbers of enemies.

Implications for psychologists. It isimportant to recognize that, although etiologi-cal factors may extend to the home context,children who are fortunate enough to establishquality interpersonal relationships and to avoidnegative interpersonal relationships are likelyto reduce or eliminate the associations of in-ept or low quality parent-child relations to peervictimization. One caveat to the literature re-viewed above, however, is that most studiesexamining linkages between the family andvictimization by peers have been concurrentin nature, limiting the ability to infer directionof effect. It may be possible, for example, thatchildren who are victimized by peers behavein ways that affect parents' choices of disci-pline strategies. Although there is a need forlongitudinal research that untangles the causaldirection of these effects, school psychologistsshould be hopeful in that they are empoweredto effect change in developmental trajectoriesarising from the home context by focusing on,and being sensitive to, children's peer relation-ships at school.

Conclusions

This review organized research on ag-gression and victimization from an ecologicalperspective. We introduced the concept of apeer ecology as the aspect of children's school-based microsystems consisting of children in-teracting with other children. Our review ofbullies indicates that aggressors can have twobroad stances toward the peer ecology: discon-nection and engagement. Some bullies are re-jected, but others have high social status. Somebullies are loners or hang out with deviantpeers, but others have a variety of relationships.The complex social roots of bullying whenbullies are engaged with peers may be immuneto traditional intervention techniques. For vic-tims, disconnection and estrangement is moreclearly the problem. The dangers of beingchronically victimized are severe, but peer re-lationships can serve as a lifeboat. When vic-timized children are appropriately integratedinto their peer ecologies, forming the right

friendships and heading off destructive antipa-thies, present and future risks can be reduced.

The peer ecology approach brings atten-tion to all children, not just those who are bul-lies or victims. Children who are neither bul-lies nor victims can be part of the solution orpart of the problem. Nonaggressive childrencan contribute to the social success of somebullies (Rodkin et al., 2003; Salmivalli et al.,1997), fail to intervene against bullying whenthey could (but seeHawkins et al., 2001), con-tribute to victim blame (Graham & Juvonen,2001; Hymel et al., 2002), and become moreaggressive themselves if aggression seemsnormative to them (Henry et al., 2000; Kellamet al., 1998). The implication of these findingsis that backgrourid conditions in the peer ecol-ogy can make bullying more or less accept-able to children, and even to school personnel(Rodkin & Fischer, in press).

The peer ecology can be influenced byoutside social factors, for example teachers inthe microsystem and parents in the mesosystem(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Teachers and parentsimpact childhood bullying and victimization,but too often their impact is negative. Teach-ers may contribute to bullying through a lackof awareness, by taking a nonchalant attitudetowards bullying, or through uninformed in-terventions. Parents who are insecurely at-tached to their children, or who are excessivelyoverprotective, intrusive, or coercive, can es-tablish in their children deep-seated vulner-abilities for victimization.

We encourage teachers to understandhow the critical social elements of status, peergroups, friendships, and enemy relationshipsare patterned in their classrooms. Bully-vic-tim relationships always involve a power im-balance (Olweus, 1993). Children react differ-ently to victimization depending on whetheraggressors have high or low social status. Somebullies maintain their social capital by partici-pating in groups that include popular,nonaggressive peers. Emerging and establishedenemy relationships give clues about wherebullying is likely to arise. Friendships cansometimes be created as a tonic to relieve vic-timization. These elements of children's peerecologies help reveal the context in which bul-

395

Page 13: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

lying unfolds and the social dynamics by whichit is maintained, giving school service profes-sionals specific information about the natureof the social problem they confront.

Teachers are not powerless when itcomes to bullying and victimization. Rather,they are the leaders and diplomats of theirclassrooms. Their goal is not only to enforcerules, but also to resolve conflicts and promotehealthy relationships. Teachers are in a uniqueposition to have a positive influence on child-hood social dynamics (Chang, 2003; Farmer,2000). It is unfortunate when adults give upon children who come from "bad families," orexpress futility at altering social patternslearned in the home over many years(Ferguson, 2000). Our review shows the im-portance of families but emphasizes the ame-liorative effects of appropriate interpersonalrelationships (Hodges, Boivin et al., 1999). H.S. Sullivan (1948/1953) took issue with thepsychoanalytic idea that personality wasformed early and at home, arguing that "dur-ing the juvenile era a number of influences ofvicious family life may be attenuated and cor-rected" (p. 247). Sullivan (1948/1953) wrotethat all children need to have a good, closefriend. With good friends, children flatten outthe "warps" of inferior parenting and can "lit-erally be put on the right road to a fairly ad-equate personality development" (p. 251).Current research finds Sullivan's (1948/1953)ambitious propositions still relevant. Skillfulteachers orchestrate positive peer relationshipsthat can offset adjustment risks incurred in thehome. Part of this involves knowing what re-lationships are feasible to maintain and howthe development of new friendships mightimpact and invite reaction from other studentsin the class.

Kurt Lewin (1943), a child psychologistwhose signature research harnessed socialforces for the public good, encouraged educa-tors to move beyond the "peculiar mixture ofphilosophy and instinct" (p. 143) that cansometimes be used to manage the social atmo-sphere of a classroom. Drawing from Lewin's(1943) insights, sociometric assessments wereonce routinely used in classrooms as practicalinstruments to prevent conflict and promote

successful socialization (Gronlund, 1959).Sociometric assessments continue to have anessential role to play in intervention, research,and teacher training. Modern research-basedsociometric technologies are increasingly ad-vanced, relatively unobtrusive, objective, in-formative for participants, and sensitive to ethi-cal issues (Cillessen & Bukowski, 2000;Rodkin, 2003). When children are asked abouttheir interpersdnal likes and dislikes, groupaffiliations, and perceptions of social status,their peer ecologies can be mapped and trackedin detail (e.g., Sherif, 1956). We urge greateruse of sociometric and social network tech-niques in anti-bullying curricula: They are sci-entifically validated and represent the valuable,confidential perspectives of children. Forschool service personnel without these re-sources, much can be gained by careful atten-tion to and informed engagement in children'speer ecologies. Nothing can be as powerful anobstacle or as effective a tool in preventingbullying as the forces children create by so-cializing one another.

References

Abecassis, M., Hartop, W. W, Haselager, G. J. T., Scholte,R., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (2002). Mutual antipa-thies and their significance in middle childhood andearly adolescence. Child Development, 73,1543-1556.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer powver: Preadoles-cent cultitre and tdentitg New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.

Allen, V. L. (1981). Self, social group, and social struc-ture: Surmises about the study of children's friendships.In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds.), The develop.nment of children ~sfriendships (pp. 182-203). New York:Cambridge University Press.

American Association of University Women EducationalFoundation. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teas-ing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC:American Association of University Women.

Asher, S., & Coie, J. D. (Eds.). (1990). Peer rejection inchildhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting thelongitudinal course associated with aggressive-re-jected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected(nonaggressive) status. Development and Psycho-pathology, 7, 669-682.

Boivin, M., & Begin, G. (1989). Peer status and self-per-ception among early elementary school children: Thecase of the rejected children. Child Development, 60,591-596.

Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences andsocial self-perceptions: A sequential model. Develop-mental Psychology' 33,135-145.

Page 14: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). Theroles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victim-ization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressedmood in childhood. Development and Psychopathol-ogy, 7,765-786.

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2001). To-ward a process view of peer rejection and harassment.In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment inschool: The plightof the vulnerableandvictimized(pp.263-289). New York: Guilford.

Boulton, M. J. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal rela-tions between children's playground behavior and so-cial preference, victimization, and bullying. ChildDevelopment, 70, 944-954.

Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim prob-lems in middle-school children: Stability, self-per-ceived competence, peer perceptions, and peer accep-tance. British Joumal of Developmental Psychology,12,315-329.

Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., &Amatya, K (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal linksbetween friendships and peer victimization: Implica-tions for befriending interventions. Joumal ofAdoles-cence, 22,461-466.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human devel-opment: Experiments by nature and design. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). Foreword. In R. B. Cairns, G.H. Elder Jr., & E. J. Costello (Eds.), Developmentalscience (pp. ix-xvii). New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as anantecedent of young children's social adjustment: Anexamination of mediating processes. DevelopmentalPsychology, 37,550-560.

Bukowski, W. M., & Sippola, L. K. (2001). Groups, indi-viduals, and victimization: A view of the peer system.In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment inschool: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp.355-377). New York: Guilford.

Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L. K., & Newcomb, A. F.(2000). Variations in pattems of attraction to same- andother-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmen-tal Psychology, 36, 147-154.

Caims, R. B., Xie, H., & Leung, M-C. (1998). The popular-ity of friendship and the neglect of social networks:Toward a new balance. In W. M. Bukowski & A.H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and noiv:Building on six decades of measuring children'sexperiences wvith the peer group (pp. 25-53). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2003). Implications ofdyadic mutual animosity for victimization by peers.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Card, N. A., Piedrahita, J., Isaacs, J., & Hodges, E. V. E.(2002, July). Adolescents' targets of aggression: Sta-bility and change in target identities and characteris-tics. Paper presented at the 15th World Meeting of theInternational Society for Research on Aggression,Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Camey, J. L. (2000). Bullied to death: Perceptions of peerabuse and suicidal behaviour during adolescence.School Psychology Intemational, 21, 213-223.

Chang, L. (2003). Variable effects of children's aggres-sion, social withdrawal, and prosocial leadership asfunctions of teacher beliefs and behaviors. Child De-velopment, 74,535-548.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bukowski, W. M. (2000). (Eds.).Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance andrejection in the peersystem. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cillessen, A. H. N., van lJzendoom, H. W., van Lieshout,C. F. M., & Hartup, W. W. (1992). Heterogeneityamong peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities.Child Development, 63, 893-905.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and anti-social behavior. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:Social, emotional, and personality development (5thed., vol.3, pp. 779-862). New York: Wiley.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Di-mensions and types of social status: A cross-age per-spective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.

Coie, J. D., & Koeppl, G. K. (1990). Adaptive interven-tion to the problem of aggressive and disruptive re-jected children. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.),Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 309-337). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Corsaro, W. A., & Eder, D. (1990). Children's peer cul-tures. Annual Reviev of Sociology, 16, 197-220.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H.-C. (1999). Relationaland physical forms of peer victimization in preschool.Developmental Psychology, 35,376-385.

Dishion,T. J., & Owen, L. D. (2002). A longitudinal analy-sis of friendships and substance use: Bidirectional in-fluence from adolescence to adulthood. Developmen-tal Psychology, 38, 480-491.

Duncan, R. D. (1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers:The relationship between child abuse, bully victim-ization, and psychological distress. Child Maltreat-ment, 4,45-55.

Eder, D., Evans, C. C., & Parker, S. (1995). School talk.Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.

Egan, S. K, & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regardinvite victimizadon? Developmental Psychology, 34,299-309.

Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003).Examination of peer-group contextual effects on ag-gression during early adolescence. Child Development,74,205-220.

Estell, D. B., Farmer; T. W., Van Acker, R., Pearl, R., &Rodkin, P. C. (in press). Heterogeneity in the relation-ship between popularity and aggression: Individual,group, and classroom influences. In S. C. Peck (Ed.),Use ofperson-centered apprvaches in the study of hu-man development in context. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Farmer, T. W. (2000). Misconceptions of peer rejectionand problem behavior: Understanding aggression instudents with mild disabilities. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 21, 194-208.

Farmer, T. W., Leung, M-C., Pearl, R., Rodkin, P. C.,Cadwallader, T. W., & Van Acker, R. (2002). Deviantor diverse peer groups? The peer affiliations of aggres-sive elementary students. Joumal of Educational Psy-chology, 94, 611-620.

397

Page 15: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in themakitng of black masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer-sity of Michigan Press.

Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1996).Preoccupied and avoidant coping during middle child-hood. Child Development, 67, 1318-1328.

Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998).Victimization by peers: Associations with children'sreports of mother-child interaction. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 75, 1076-1086.

Fordlham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students' schoolsuccess: Coping with the burden of acting White. Ur-ban Review, 18, 176-206.

Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999).Bullying behaviour and psychosocial health amongschool students in New South Wales, Australia: Crosssectional survey. Britisht Medical Joumal, 319,344-348.

French, D. C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys:Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child Devel-opinent, 59, 976-985.

French, D. C. (1990). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected girls.Child Development, 59, 2028-2031.

Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002).The attributes adolescents associate with peer popu-larity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psy-clhology, 40, 143-165.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2001). An attributional ap-proach to peer victimization. In J. Juvonen & S. Gra-ham (Eds.), Peer harassmenzt in school: The plight ofthe vulnerable and victimized (pp. 49-72). New York:Guilford.

Gronlund, N. E. (1959). Sociometry in the classroom. NewYork: Harper & Brothers.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). Predictors of peervictimization among urban youth. Social Development,9, 521-543.

Haselager, G. J. T., Hartup, W. W, VanLieshout, C. F. M.,& Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (1998). Similarities betweenfriends and nonfriends in middle childhood. ClhildDevelopment, 69, 1198-1208.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2001). Subtypes ofpeer harassment and their correlates: A social domi-nance perspective. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.),Peer harassment in school: The plight of thze vulner-ableand victimnized (pp. 378-397). New York: Guilford.

Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001).Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bul-lying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.

Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social domi-nance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. De-velopinental Reviewv 19, 97-132.

Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Doesnetwork structure matter? American Journal of Soci-ology 106, 1013-1057.

Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P., Van Acker,R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative influences on ag-gression in urban elementary school classrooms.American Journal of Coomnmnity Psychology 28 59-81.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W.M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection againstan escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmen-tal Psychology, 35, 94-101.

Hodges, E. V. E., & Card, N. (Eds.). (in press). The (un-wanted) cornpany they keep: Enemy relationships inchildhood and adolescence. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Hodges, E. V. E., Card, N. A., & Isaacs, J. (2002). Daserlernen von aggression in familie und peergroup. InW. Heitmeyer & J. Hagan (Eds.), Internzationaleshandbuch der gewvaltforschunlg (pp. 619-638).Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Hodges, E. V. E., Finnegan, R. A., & Perry, D. G. (1999).Skewed autonomy-relatedness in preadolescents' con-ceptions of their relationships with mother, father, andbest friend. Developmental Psychology, 35, 737-748.

Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997).Individual risk and social risk as interacting determi-nants of victimization in the peer group. Developmen-tal Psychology, 33, 1032-1039.

Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and inter-personal consequences of victimization by peers. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,677-685.

Hymel, S., Bonanno, R. A., Henderson, N. R., & McCreith,T. (2002, July). Moral disengagement and school bul-lying: An investigation of student attitudes and beliefs.In J. LeBlanc (Chair), Aggression in the school set-ting. Paper presented at the 15h World Meeting of theInternational Society for Research on Aggression,Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer ha-rassment, psychological adjustment, and social func-tioning in early adolescence. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 92,349-359.

Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, H. C., &lalongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggres-sion in the first grade classroom on the course andmalleability of aggressive behavior into middle school.Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185.

Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002).Group identification in early adolescence: Its relationwith peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peerinfluence. Child Development, 73, 196-208.

Kochenderfer, B. J. (1995, March). Peer victimization inkindergarten: Stability and its relation to schiool ad-justment. Poster session presented at the biennial meet-ing of the Society for Research in Child Development,Indianapolis, IN.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victim-ization: Cause or consequence of school maladjust-ment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). Victimizedchildren's responses to peers' aggression: Behaviorsassociated with reduced versus continued victimiza-tion. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 59-73.

Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the rela-tionship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, andaggressive/withdrawn children during early gradeschool. Cl(ild Development, 70, 910-929.

Ladd, G. W., & Ladd, B. K. (1998). Parenting behaviorsand parent-child relationships: Correlates of peer vic-timization in kindergarten? Developmental Psychol-ogy 34, 1450-1458.

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The na-ture of children's stereotypes of popularity. SocialDevelopmemt, 7, 301-320.

-------------------------- ----------

Page 16: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

Bullies and Victims

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen,A. H. N. (2002). Children'sperceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multi-method assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38,635-647.

Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bj6rkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King,E. (1982). Group aggression among school children inthree schools. Scandinavian Joumal of Psychology, 23,45-52.

Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of groupliving. Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 113-131.

Limper, R. (2000). Cooperation between parents, teach-ers, and school boards to prevent bullying in educa-tion: An overview of work done in the Netherlands.Aggressive Behaviour, 26, 125-134.

Lippitt, R., Polansky, N., Redl, F., & Rosen, S. (1952).The dynamics of power: A field study of social influ-ence in groups of children. In G. E. Swanson, T. M.Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in socialpsychology (rev. ed., pp. 623-636). New York: Holt.

Luthar, S. S., & McMahon, T. J. (1996). Peer reputationamong inner-city adolescents: Structure and correlates.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 581-603.

McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L.(2001). The consequences of childhood peer rejection.In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 213-247). New York: Oxford University Press.

McFarland, D. A. (2001). Student resistance: How the for-mal and informal organization of classrooms facilitateeveryday forms of student defiance. American Jour-nal of Sociology, 107, 612-678.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001).Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. An-nual Review of Sociology, 27,415-444.

Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popu-larity, competition, and conflict among junior highschool girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175-191.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J.,Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullyingbehaviors among US youth: Prevalence and associa-tion with psychosocial adjustment. Joumal of theAmerican MedicalAssociation, 285, 2084.

Newman, D. A., Home, A. M., & Webster, C. B. (1999).Bullies and victims: A theme of boys and adolescentmales. In A. M. Home & M. S. Kiselica (Ed.), Hand-book of counseling boys and adolescent males: Apractitioner's guide (pp. 313-340). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

O'Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer in-volvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for in-tervention. Joumal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What wve know andivhat we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer hamssment: A critical analysisand some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Gm-ham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight ofthe vulnerable and victimized (pp. 1-20). New York:Guilford.

O'Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teacher tminingto counter bullying and victimisation in Ireland. Ag-gressive Behaviour, 26, 99-111.

Parker, J. G., & Gamm, B. K. (in press). Describing thedark side of preadolescents' peer experiences: Fourquestions (and data) on preadolescents' enemies. In E.

V. E. Hodges & N. A. Card (Eds.), Enemies and thedarker side of peer relations, New Directionsfor ChildandAdolescent Development.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer,A. (1998). Sociometricpopu-larity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct di-mensions of peer status. Journal of EarlyAdolescence,18, 125-144.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). A longitudinal study of boys'rough-and-tumble play and dominance during earlyadolescence. Jourmal of Applied Developmental Psy-chology, 16,77-93.

Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, andsexual harassment during the transition to middleschool. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151-163.

Pellegrini,A. D., Bartini, M., &Brooks,FE (1999). Schoolbul-lies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating togroup affiliation and victimization in early adolescence.Joumal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216-224.

Pepler, D. J., Cmig, W. M., & Roberts, W. L. (1998). Ob-servations of aggressive and nonaggressive childrenon the school playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,44, 55-76.

Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). De-terminants of chronic victimization by peers: A reviewand new model of family influence. In J. Juvonen & S.Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plightof the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73-104). NewYork. Guilford.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victimsof peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24,807-814.

Pierce, K. A., & Cohen, R. (1995). Aggressors and theirvictims: Toward a contextual framework for under-standing children's aggressor-victim relationships.Developmental Review, 15, 292-3 10.

Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adoles-cent peer problems and antisocial activities: The rela-tive roles of aggression and dysregulation. Develop-mental Psychology, 35, 335-346.

Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms andfunctions of adolescent peer aggression associated withhigh levels of peer status. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 44310-342.

Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schoolsand perceived social support on adolescent well-be-ing. Joumal ofAdolescence, 23, 57-68.

Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying andits prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of thevulnerable and victimized (pp. 310-331). New York:Guilford.

Rigby, K., Slee, P. T., & Cunningham, R. (1999). Effectsof parenting on the peer relations of Australian ado-lescents. Joumal of Social Psychology, 139, 287-288.

Rodkin, P. C. (2003). Peer ecologies of aggression andbullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.),Bullying in American schools: A social-ecologicalper-spective on prevention and intervention (pp. 87-106).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R.(2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial andprosocial configuations. Developmental Psychology,36, 14-24.

399

Page 17: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

School Psychology Review, 2003, Volume 32, No. 3

Rodkin, P. C., & Fischer, K. (in press). Sexual harassmentand the cultures of childhood: Developmental, domes-tic violence, and legal perspectives. Journal ofAppliedSchool Psychology

Rodkin, P. C., Pearl, R., Farmer, T. W., & Van Acker, R.(in press). Enemies in the gendered societies of middlechildhood: Prevalence, stability, associations with so-cial status and aggression. In E. V. E. Hodges & N.Card (Eds.), The (unvanted) company they keep: En-emy relationships in childhood and adolescence. SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass.

Rodkin, P. C., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2003, April).They're cool: Ethnic and peer group supports for ag-gressive boys and girls. In A. Rose & A. H. N. Cillessen(Chairs), New perspectives on peer status: Advancesin the study ofperceived popularity. Paper symposiumat the Society for Research in Child Development,Tampa, FL.

Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2002). Classroom influenceson bullying. Educational Research, 44, 299-312.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (1998).Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W.Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Hand-book of child psychology: Social, emotional, and per-sonality development (5th ed., vol. 3, pp. 619-700).New York: Wiley.

Salmivalli, C., Huttunen,A., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1997).Peer networks and bullying in schools. ScandinavianJournal of Psychology, 38, 305-312.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). Theemergence of chronic peer victimization in boys' playgroups. Child Development, 64,1755-1772.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., &The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.(2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the path-way between early harsh home environment and latervictimization in the peer group. Developmental Psy-chology, 36, 646-662.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Toblin, R. L., & Abou-ezzedine, T. (in press). Mutual antipathies in the peergroup as a moderating factor in the association betweencommunity violence exposure and psychosocial mal-adjustment. In E. V. E. Hodges & N. A. Card (Eds.),Enemies and the darker side of peer relations, NewDirections for Child and Adolescent Development.

Schwartz, D., McFadyen-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A.,Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Early behavior prob-lems as a predictor of later peer group victimization:Moderators and mediators in the pathways of social risk.Joumal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 27. 191-201.

Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chen, D. H. (2001). Theaggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behav-ioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization bypeers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harass-ment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and vic-timized (pp. 147-174). New York: Guilford.

Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scien-tificAmerican, 195, 54-58.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatmentand emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullyingand victimization in middle childhood. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 30, 349-363.

Slee, P. T. (1994). Situational and interpersonal correlatesof anxiety associated with peer victimization. ChildPsychiatry and Human Development, 25, 97-107.

Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). Australian school children'sself appraisal of interpersonal relations: The bullyingexperience. Child Psychiatry and Human Develop-ment, 23, 273-282.

Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Les-sons from two decades of research. AggressiveBehaviour, 26, 1-9.

Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteris-tics of victims of school bullying. In J. Juvonen & S.Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plightof the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 332-351). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Sullivan, H. S. (1948/1953). The interpersonal theory ofpsychiatry (eds., H. S. Perry & M. L. Gawel). NewYork: W. W. Norton.

Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools:An ecological framework. Journal of EmotionalAbuse,2, 7-24.

Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization amongpreschoolers: Role of attachment relationship history.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ado-lescent Psychiatry, 26, 166-172.

Vemberg, E. M. (1990). Psychological adjustment andexperiences with peers during early adolescence: Re-ciprocal, incidental, or unidirectional relationships?Journal ofAbnormal Clhild Psychology, 18, 187-198.

Philip C. Rodkin is an Assistant Professor in the Child & Adolescent Development Divi-sion of the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Ph.D., 1994, Social Psychology, Harvard University). His research centerson children's peer relationships, particularly connections between aggressive behavior,social networks, and social status.

Ernest V. E. Hodges is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at St.John's University (Ph.D., 1996, Developmental Psychology, Florida Atlantic University).His research interests focus on the interplay between peer relationships, parent-child rela-tionships, and social cognitions, particularly how they affect the development and conse-quences of antisocial behavior and victimization by peers.

400

Page 18: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questions ... · for Psychologists and School Professionals Philip C. Rodkin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... back to Gestalt

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Bullies and Victims in the Peer Ecology: Four Questionsfor Psychologists and School Professionals

SOURCE: Sch Psychol Rev 32 no3 2003WN: 0300300759010

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.nasponline.org/index2.html

Copyright 1982-2003 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.