Differences in perceived popularity and social preference between bullying roles and class norms

Autoři: Eva M. Romera aff001;  Ana Bravo aff001;  Rosario Ortega-Ruiz aff001;  René Veenstra aff002
Působiště autorů: Psychology Department, Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain aff001;  Sociology Department, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223499


The aim of this study was to examine differences in perceived popularity and social preference of bullying roles and class norms. In total, 1,339 students (48% girls) participated: 674 primary school (M = 10.41 years, SD = 0.49) and 685 secondary school students (M = 12.67 years, SD = 0.80). Peer nominations and perceptions of class norms were collected. The results showed the highest perceived popularity among aggressors and defenders, except in anti-bullying primary school classes, where aggressors had low levels of popularity. In pro-bullying secondary school classes school, female victims had the lowest popularity levels. These findings suggest that class norms and personal variables as gender and school levels are important to understand bullying roles. Practical implications are discussed to guide teachers and practitioners according to the importance to adapt antibullying programs to the characteristics of the group in each school level and gender.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Collective animal behavior – Collective human behavior – Schools – Social research – Social status – Teachers – Sociometry


1. Olweus D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 1993.

2. Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Björkqvist K, Österman K, Kaukiainen A. Bullying as a Group Process: Participant Roles and their Relations to Social Status Within the Group. Aggress Behav. 1996;22:1–15.

3. Zych I, Ttofi MM, Llorent VJ, Farrington DP, Ribeaud D, Eisner MP. A Longitudinal Study on Stability and Transitions Among Bullying Roles. Child Dev. 2019;

4. Saarento S, Salmivalli C. The Role of Classroom Peer Ecology and Bystanders’ Responses in Bullying. Child Dev Perspect. 2015;9(4):201–5.

5. Cillessen AHN, Mayeux L, Ha T, de Bruyn EH, Lafontana KM. Aggressive Effects of Prioritizing Popularity in Early Adolescence. Aggress Behav. 2014;40:204–13. doi: 10.1002/ab.21518 24338722

6. Pouwels JL, van Noorden THJ, Lansu TAM, Cillessen AHN. The Participant Roles of Bullying in Different Grades: Prevalence and Social Status Profiles. Soc Dev. 2018;1–16.

7. Berger C, Caravita SCS. Why Do Early Adolescents Bully? Exploring the Influence of Prestige Norms on Social and Psychological Motives to Bully. J Adolesc [Internet]. 2016;46:45–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.10.020 26584218

8. Sentse M, Veenstra R, Kiuru N, Salmivalli C. A Longitudinal Multilevel Study of Individual Characteristics and Classroom Norms in Explaining Bullying Behaviors. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2015;43(5):943–55. doi: 10.1007/s10802-014-9949-7 25370007

9. Lindenberg S. Social Rationality, Semi-Modularity and Goal-Framing: What Is It All About? Anal Krit. 2008;30(2):669–87.

10. Huitsing G, Snijders TAB, Van Duijn MAJ, Veenstra R. Victims, Bullies, and Their Defenders: A Longitudinal Study of the Coevolution of Positive and Negative Networks. Dev Psychopathol. 2014;26:645–59. doi: 10.1017/S0954579414000297 24762337

11. Arsenio WF, Lemerise EA. Varieties of Childhood Bullying: Values, Emotion Processes, and Social Competence. Soc Dev. 2001;10:59–73.

12. Reijntjes A, Vermande M, Olthof T, Goossens FA, van de Schoot R, Aleva L, et al. Costs and Benefits of Bullying in the Context of the Peer Group: A Three Wave Longitudinal Analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013;41(8):1217–29. doi: 10.1007/s10802-013-9759-3 23686239

13. Hawley PH. Prosocial and Coercive Configurations of Resource Control in Early Adolescence: A Case for the Well-Adapted Machiavellian. Merrill Palmer Q. 2003;49:279–309.

14. Reijntjes A, Vermande MM, Olthof T, Goossens FA, Vink G, Aleva L, et al. Differences Between Resource Control Types Revisited: A Short Term Longitudinal Study. ocial Dev. 2018;27(1):187–200.

15. Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Zijlstra BJH, De Winter AF, Verhulst FC, Ormel J. The Dyadic Nature of Bullying and Victimization: Testing a Dual-Perspective Theory. Child Dev. 2007;78(6):1843–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x 17988325

16. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM, Ortega-Ruiz R. Multidimensionality of Social Competence: Measurement of the Construct and Its Relationship With Bullying Roles. Rev PSicodidáctica (English ed). 2017;22:37–44.

17. Veenstra R, Dijkstra JK, Kreager DA. Pathways, Networks, and Norms: A Sociological Perspective on Peer Research. In: Bukowski WM, Laursen B, Rubin KH, editors. Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford; 2018. p. 45–63.

18. Romera EM, Casas JA, Gómez-Ortiz O, Ortega-Ruiz R. Moral Domain as a Risk and Protective Factor Against Bullying. An Integrating Perspective Review on the Complexity of Morality. Aggress Violent Behav [Internet]. 2019;45:75–82. https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1105493171

19. Salmivalli C, Voeten M. Connections Between Attitudes, Group Norms, and Behaviour in Bullying Situations. Int J Behav Dev. 2004;28(3):246–58.

20. Salmivalli C. Bullying and the Peer Group: A Review. Aggress Violent Behav [Internet]. 2010;15(2):112–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007

21. Peets K, Pöyhönen V, Juvonen J, Salmivalli C. Classroom Norms of Bullying Alter the Degree to Which Children Defend in Response to Their Affective Empathy and Power. Dev Psychol. 2015;51(7):913–20. doi: 10.1037/a0039287 25961871

22. Duffy AL, Penn S, Nesdale D, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ. Popularity: Does It Magnify Associations Between Popularity Prioritization and the Bullying and Defending Behavior of Early Adolescent Boys and Girls? Soc Dev. 2017;26(2):263–77.

23. Pouwels JL, Lansu TAM, Cillessen AHN. Participant Roles of Bullying in Adolescence: Status Characteristics, Social Behavior, and Assignment Criteria. Aggress Behav. 2016;42:239–53. doi: 10.1002/ab.21614 26350031

24. Pouwels JL, Lansu TAM, Cillessen AHN. A Developmental Perspective on Popularity and the Group Process of Bullying. Aggress Violent Behav. 2018;43:64–70.

25. Brañas-Garza P, Capraro V, Rascon-Ramirez E. Gender Differences in Altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and Actual Behaviour. Econ Lett. 2018;170:19–23.

26. Capraro V. Gender Differences in Lying in Sender-Receiver Games: A Meta-Analysis. Judgm Decis Mak. 2018;13:345–55.

27. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC. Analyzing Social Networks. 2nd editio. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 2018.

28. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic T; 2002.

29. Freeman LC. Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Soc Networks. 1978;1(3):215–39.

30. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992;1(3):98–101.

31. Moffitt TE. Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy. Psychol Rev. 1993;100(4):674–701. 8255953

32. Pöyhönen V, Juvonen J, Salmivalli C. What Does It Take to Stand Up for the Victim of Bullying?: The Interplay Between Personal and Social Factors. Merrill Palmer Q. 2010;56(2):143–63.

33. Laninga-Wijnen L, Harakeh Z, Garandeau CF, Dijkstra J., Veenstra R, Vollebergh WAM. Classroom Popularity Hierarchy Predicts Prosocial and Aggressive Popularity Norms Across the School Year. Child Dev. 2019;90:e637–53. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13228 30825397

34. Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Huitsing G, Sainio M, Salmivalli C. The Role of Teachers in Bullying: The Relation Between Antibullying Attitudes, Efficacy, and Efforts to Reduce Bullying. J Educ Psychol. 2014;106(4):1135–43.

35. Dijkstra JK, Gest SD. Peer Norm Salience for Academic Achievement, Prosocial Behavior, and Bullying: Implications for Adolescent School Experiences. J Early Adolesc. 2015;35(1):79–96.

36. Wright JC, Giammarino M, Parad HW. Social Status in Small Groups. Individual-Group Similarity and the Social “Misfit”. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;50(3):523–36.

37. Herrera M, Romera EM, Ortega-Ruiz R, Gómez-Ortiz O. Influence of Social Motivation, Self-Perception of Social Efficacy and Normative Adjustment in the Peer Setting. Psicothema. 2016;28:32–9. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.135 26820421

38. Kärnä A, Voeten M, Little TD, Alanen E, Poskiparta E, Salmivalli C. Effectiveness of the KIVA Antibullying Program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. J Educ Psychol. 2013;105(2):535–51.

39. Yeager DS, Fong CJ, Lee HY, Espelage DL, Scott D, Fong CJ, et al. Declines in Efficacy of Anti-Bullying Programs Among Older Adolescents: Theory and a Three-Level Meta-Analysis. J Appl Dev Psychol [Internet]. 2015;37(1):36–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005

40. Sentse M, Kretschmer T, Salmivalli C. The Longitudinal Interplay between Bullying, Victimization, and Social Status: Age-Related and Gender Differences. Soc Dev. 2015;24(3):659–77.

41. Gini G, Pozzoli T. The Role of Masculinity in Children’s Bullying. Sex Roles. 2006;54:585–8.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10