University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS 1

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early
adolescence
Sarah Malamut
Master’s Thesis
University of Southern California

Faculty Advisor: David Schwartz, Ph.D.
Master of Arts (PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2016

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

2
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................4
Introduction......................................................................................................................................5
Dyadic Victimization...........................................................................................................6
Popularity and Crowd Affiliation within Victimization Dyads...........................................8
Gender Differences..............................................................................................................9
The Present Study..............................................................................................................12
Methods..........................................................................................................................................13
Overview............................................................................................................................13
Participants.........................................................................................................................13
Procedure...........................................................................................................................14
Measures............................................................................................................................15
Dyadic Victimization…………….........................................................................15
Popularity, victimization, and aggression..............................................................15
Bully popularity.....................................................................................................16
Crowd affiliation....................................................................................................17
Results............................................................................................................................................18
Overview............................................................................................................................18
Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Relations...................................................................18
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

3
Relation between Dyadic Victimization and Global Reputations as a Victim…...……...19
Associations between Bullies’ Popularity and Victims’ Social Status and
Reputation……………………………………………………………………………..…20
Gender Composition of Victimization Dyads....................................................................20
Discussion......................................................................................................................................22
Dyadic Victimization……………………………………………….................................23
Distribution of Social Status within Victimization Dyads……………………………….24
Gender Differences……………........................................................................................24
Limitations and Future Directions……………………………………………………….28
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................29
References......................................................................................................................................30
Tables.............................................................................................................................................38

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

4
Abstract
The current study examined the impact of social standing (i.e., popularity and crowd
affiliation) in the composition of bully-victim dyads in a highly aggressive, gang-impacted
environment. Bully-victim dyads identify youth involved in victimization that may be missed by
alternative measures. Achieving and maintaining high social standing becomes a priority in early
adolescence, and may be have particular implications for victimization dyads in this gang-
impacted environment where high levels of aggressive, antisocial behaviors are linked to
popularity. The sample was 285 8
th
graders (148 males, 137 females) from an urban area in
Southern California. Results indicate that gender played a key role in the distribution of social
status within bully-victim dyads. Both popular male and female peers target unpopular males;
however, popular males also appear to victimize popular, attractive females. Our findings
highlight the importance of popularity and gender in the formation of bully-victim dyads, and
emphasize the need to further explore victimization from a dyadic perspective.
Keywords: Early adolescence, dyadic victimization, social status, gender

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

5
The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early
adolescence
Introduction
In the current study we will examine the distribution of social status within dyadic bully-
victim relationships. The extant literature on peer victimization has overwhelmingly identified
bullies and victims in the larger peer group by assessing youths’ global reputations. However, an
alternative way to assess peer victimization is to identify aggressor-victim dyads. As Card and
Hodges (2010) argue, it is beneficial to study victimization within the framework of dyads, as
victimization inherently involves at least two individuals: an aggressor and a victim. Though
some research has investigated victimization from a dyadic perspective, there is much still
unknown regarding the composition of victimization dyads.
There are several advantages to studying victimization from a dyadic perspective. Dyadic
victimization identifies youth who are bullies or victims that may not have overall reputations as
such. For example, consider a child who is victimized regularly by only one peer. This child may
not have a reputation as a victim, as he is not victimized by many peers. Likewise, the peer who
victimizes this child may not bully other children, and therefore may not have a reputation as a
bully. The inclusion of these children is important because youth may experience negative
outcomes of victimization regardless of whether he or she is known as a victim, or whether his or
her aggressor is considered a bully. A dyadic framework moves beyond children’s reputations as
bullies or victims by identifying who specifically bullies whom. This allows more refined
questions to be asked regarding characteristics of the bully-victim dynamic. The dyadic
perspective can identify whether or not certain types of victims have different bullies, rather than
solely assessing which traits are linked with being a bully or victim.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

6
The current study focused specifically on the configuration of dyadic victimization
during early adolescence. In middle school, the peer group broadens as youth begin to change
classes and interact with additional peers (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000). As youth no longer spend
all of their class periods with the same peers, there may be an increase in dyadic victimization
unknown to the larger peer group. For this study, we were interested in a gang-impacted
environment, where high levels of aggression are common and are associated with popularity
(Schwartz, Hopmeyer, Luo, Ross, & Fischer, 2015). The relation between social status and the
formation of victimization dyads is particularly relevant in this context, as these youth may have
increased motivation to demonstrate aggressive behavior to establish or maintain their social
status.
This study had three main goals. First, we assessed how the popularity of the aggressor
was related to the social standing (i.e., popularity and crowd affiliation) of his or her victim
within a dyad. Second, we examined the role of gender in aggressor-victim dyads. Lastly, we
explored the dyadic victimization construct, specifically the relation between dyadic nominations
of victimization and global reputation as a victim.
Dyadic Victimization
Past research on dyadic relationships has considered some characteristics of bully-victim
dyads, such as popularity (Rodkin & Berger, 2008), social preference (Rodkin & Berger, 2008),
aggression (Veenstra et al., 2007) and social rejection (Veenstra et al., 2007). The current study
aims to focus more specifically on the distribution of social status within bully-victim dyads, and
how this distribution varies as a result of the gender composition of the dyads. Insofar as we are
aware, only one study (Rodkin, Hanish, Wang, & Logis, 2014) has looked at a similar question,
but during childhood using a peer-nomination dyadic measure (Who bullies Whom?). As Rodkin
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

7
and colleagues (2014) acknowledge, a peer-nomination dyadic measure excludes children whose
victimization is less known in the peer group. We intend to expand on this work by using a
measure that assesses dyadic victimization from the perspectives of bullies and victims during
early adolescence (8
th
grade).
Social status is more salient for early adolescents than pre-adolescent children (Gavin &
Furman, 1989; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986; Sullivan, 1953). LaFontana and colleagues (2010)
found preoccupation with peer status peaked in late middle school and early high school.
Subsequently, status differentials in bully-victim dyads may be more relevant during early
adolescence, when social status has increased importance. Early adolescence may also be a key
period to delve deeper into the gendered aspects of victimization, as peer interactions become
less gender segregated (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 2004; Crockett, Losoff, &
Peterson, 1984; Furman & Wehner, 1997).
The current study moves beyond previous research on dyadic victimization in several
ways. First, we use dyadic nominations from youth involved in victimization dyads, which can
identify bully-victim pairings that may be missed by peer nominations. Furthermore, we examine
the distribution of social status in bully-victim dyads, and how gender impacts this distribution,
during early adolescence when social status becomes more salient and gendered interactions are
more prevalent. We also examine dyadic victimization within an environment where youth are
already at high risk for negative trajectories (e.g., gang involvement, low academic
achievement). Few studies have examined dyadic victimization and, to our knowledge, none
have studied it within high-risk environments. There is increased motivation to engage in
aggressive behaviors in this setting, as aggression is rewarded with high status (Schwartz et al.,
2015). Additionally, victimization in this context may exacerbate negative outcomes already
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

8
faced by these youth. It is imperative to understand diverse dynamics of victimization,
particularly in high-risk contexts, as victims in these environments are especially vulnerable
(Schwartz et al., 2008).
Popularity and Crowd Affiliation within Victimization Dyads
Youths’ social standing in the peer group likely influences who bullies whom. Popularity
amongst peers has been linked to aggression and reputation as a bully (Cillessen & Mayeaux,
2004; Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004; Vaillancourt, Hymel, &
McDougall, 2003). Likewise, Olweus’ (1993) definition of bullying identifies power asymmetry
as a key component of bullying. As such, we would expect bullies to generally have higher status
than their victims. However, there is evidence that not all bullies have similar levels of social
status (Vaillancourt et al., 2003). Likewise, there may be differences amongst victims. For
example, Schwartz (2000) found two types of victims: aggressive and non-aggressive.
Additionally, research has found that high-status youth may also be targets of aggression (Faris
& Felmlee, 2014; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), further suggesting that not all victims are alike.
Bully-victim dyads provide information regarding which bullies target which victims, as bullies
and victims are heterogeneous groups.
Although popularity is one indicator of youths’ standing in the peer group, there are other
indicators that can be examined. Youths’ crowd affiliations consist of peers’ perceptions of their
general social reputation (Brown & Klute, 2006). While peer nominations assess the extent
certain traits are associated with youth, crowd affiliations represent youths’ overall social
identity. Crowd affiliations may be related to status (e.g., “elite”, Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Vialle,
2008; “nerd”, Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993), whereas some crowd affiliations
are based on other identifying traits (e.g., “athlete”, “girly”). Crowd affiliation is more
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

9
multifaceted than popularity, as it encapsulates attributes beyond high status and serves as a
marker of youths’ social identity (Sussman, Pokhrel, Ashmore, & Brown, 2007).
By assessing bully-victim dyads, we identified whom youth report victimizing, as well as
whom they report as bullies. We examined the distribution of popularity across the bully-victim
dyads. Furthermore, as another marker of social standing, we examined how victims’ crowd
affiliation was related to their bullies’ popularity. However, as we discuss next, we expected that
both of these relationships would be moderated by gender.
Gender Differences
Gender plays a key role in youths’ relationships and interactions with peers. Several
aspects of bullying, such as prevalence, function, and specific targets, vary by gender (see
Rodkin et al., 2014 for a brief review). Prior research emphasizes the importance of
understanding the role of gender in the dynamics of victimization, particularly in the one-on-one
context of dyadic victimization (Rodkin et al., 2014; Veenstra, Lindenberg, Munniksma, &
Dijkstra, 2010). All gendered combinations of bully-victim dyads are found in the peer group;
however, they occur at different frequencies (Rodkin et al., 2014; Veenstra et al., 2010). Beyond
disparities in prevalence, the relation between a bully and victim likely varies across different
gendered dyads.
There may be lower rates of cross-sex bully-victim dyads in childhood as peer
interactions during this period are generally gender-segregated. As youth transition from
childhood to adolescence their relationships become less gender-segregated (Connolly et al.,
2004; Crockett et al., 1984; Furman & Wehner, 1997) and they begin to pursue romantic
courtship and dating (Collins, 2003). Though some propose that males aggress against other
males more often than they target females (Pellegrini, 2007; Russell & Owens, 1999; Sainio,
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

10
Veenstra, Huitsing, Salmiavalli, 2012), increased interaction between girls and boys may lead to
a greater prevalence of cross-gender victimization (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012;
Pepler, Craig, Connolly, & Jiang, 2006). Rodkin and Berger (2008) found that unpopular males,
but not popular males, bullied popular girls. However, their sample consisted of fourth and fifth
graders, and this effect may change once youth begin to seriously pursue romantic and sexual
relationships. There is some evidence that interest in romantic relationships is related to males
engaging in cross-gender victimization (e.g., Pepler et al., 2006).
The formation of cross-gender relationships is also linked to social status, as high status
youth develop cross-gender friendships and romantic relationships earlier than their peers (Adler,
Kless, & Adler, 1992). Male-female victimization may result from real romantic interest as well
as a desire to illustrate one’s masculinity. Males are held more stringently to gender norms than
females and are often subject to “gender policing”; subsequently, males who do not fit masculine
stereotypes and/or exhibit traits considered feminine are at greater risk for victimization
(Espelage, Basile, De La Rue, & Hamburger, 2014; Stein, 2003; Tolman, Striepe, & Harmon,
2003). The pressure to conform to masculine standards may underlie certain cross-gender
victimization, such as sexual harassment (Robinson, 2005; Stein, 2003). Males’ sexual
harassment of girls may bolster their reputations as masculine and protect against being the target
of homophobic slurs (Espelage et al., 2012; Robinson, 2005). Furthermore, these behaviors are
associated with popularity and may demonstrate ones’ power and dominance (Robinson, 2005).
Though any female could be a target of this type of victimization, popular girls are likely
at the highest risk. In addition to earlier and more numerous cross-gender relationships, high
social status is associated with greater social visibility and social impact (Adler, Kless, & Adler,
1992, Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), sexual activity (de Bruyn, Cillessen, & Weisfeld, 2012;
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

11
Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008), and physical attractiveness (Lease, Kennedy, &
Axelrod, 2002). As Pellegrini (2002) discusses, dominance is related to access to the most
desired resources, including mate selection. Females who are considered popular and attractive
are more likely to be on popular males’ radar (Buss, 1989), which may make high status females
targets of high status males’ victimization more often, regardless of whether or not males
perceive their behavior as an expression of interest (Robinson, 2005; Stein, 2003). Subsequently,
we predicted that male-female victimization would occur between popular male bullies and
popular female victims. We also expected that popular males would bully females with crowd
affiliations consistent with high status and attractiveness (i.e., “elite” and “pretty”).
In contrast to this dynamic, there is much evidence that high status male bullies target
low status male victims. As aforementioned, males who do not conform to stereotypical
masculine behavior or who appear “girly” are targets for victimization. Males may target less
powerful males to exert dominance (Pellegrini, 2002), consistent with the typical portrayal of a
powerful bully and socially rejected victim (Olweus, 1993; Rodkin & Berger, 2008; Rodkin et
al., 2014). In keeping with previous findings, we expected that high status males would bully low
status males. We also expected males whose crowd affiliations were associated with low power
(i.e., “nerd”) or lack of masculinity (i.e., “girly”) to be victimized by popular males.
Unlike male-male victimization, less is known regarding female-male victimization.
Rodkin and colleagues (2014) found some cases of female-male victimization, but acknowledge
that aspects of this dynamic remain ambiguous. Female aggressors tend to employ relational
(Crick, 1997), indirect (Lagerspetz & Björkqvis, 1994), social (Xie, Swift, Cairns, & Cairns,
2002), and reputational (Xie et al., 2002) aggression. These forms of aggression generally
function to damage a peer’s reputation or place in the social hierarchy, retaliate in a conflict, or
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

12
to climb the social ladder (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Xie et al., 2002). With these functions in
mind, it seems unlikely that high status female bullies would target high status males.
According to sexual selection theory (Darwin, 1871), youth will compete within gender
for desired resources (e.g., popular, dominant males; Pellegrini, 2008). Subsequently, if females
are targeting high status victims, then their targets will most likely be females that they consider
competition for resources. On the other hand, when female bullies target males, the male victims
may not be popular. Female bullies may target similar male victims as male bullies, because it is
a low-risk way to assert power as these male victims are already rejected and victimized
(Veenstra et al., 2010). Similarly, females may also target rejected, unpopular females simply to
maintain and assert status without risk (Veenstra et al., 2010). We predicted that popular females,
like popular males, would target low status males, and males considered “nerds” or “girly”,
whereas we predicted that popular females would target females of all status levels.
The Present Study
The present study had two main objectives. Our first goal was to determine the relation
between bully and victim social status. We predicted that generally bully-victim dyads would
consist of high status bullies who target lower status youth, and we expected this effect to be
moderated by gender. This brings us to our second goal, which was to identify the role of gender
in bully-victim dyads, as much research has highlighted important gender differences within
victimization. Based on prior research, we predicted that popular bullies, regardless of their
gender, would victimize low status males and males with a reputation as “nerd” or “girly”.
However, we predicted that the gender of the bully would be related to the status of female
victims. Specifically, we expected high status male bullies to victimize high status females;
whereas, we predicted high status females would target both high and low status female peers.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

13
We also explored whether youth identified as a victim by the dyadic construct also had global
reputations as a victim. Given the early state of the dyadic victimization literature, it is important
to understand how dyadic victimization is related to victimization in the group context.
Method
Overview
The current investigation was completed as part of a larger project examining academic
and social adjustment of adolescents living in risky urban environments in Southern California.
This project was conducted in an economically distressed community with high levels of gang
activity. Youth in this setting are at high-risk for negative outcomes (e.g., gang involvement, low
academic achievement: Schwartz et al., 2015). In addition to being at risk, these children also
tend exhibit high levels of aggressive and antisocial attributes. In this environment, aggression is
positively associated with popularity. Subsequently, examining the role of social standing in the
formation of victimization dyads is particularly relevant in this context. We recruited a cohort of
youths during their first year of middle school (T1), with annual follow-up for the next two
consecutive school years (T2 and T3). We focused our assessments on T3, as the dyadic measure
of interest was only available in the third year (8th grade).
Participants
All sixth-grade students in the participating school (N =450) were given permission
letters (in multiple languages) to be delivered to parents or legal guardians. Of these students,
405 (219 males, 186 females; M age = 11.51 years, SD = .61) returned positive parental
permission and written child assent to take part in the initial year of the project. At T3, 70% (148
males, 137 females) of the participants from the original sample were retained. Of these 285
participants, there were 210 students (101 males, 109 females) that students targeted with dyadic
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

14
victimization. Scores on variables from T2 were not systemically predictive of attrition from T2
to T3. Attrited and retained participants did not differ significantly on any variables.
Consistent with the larger school population, most participants were from Hispanic
American backgrounds with many from families that had only recently immigrated to the region.
The ethnic/racial composition of the sample, assessed via adolescents’ self-report at T1, was as
follows: 84% Latino, 9% Asian and 7% other or unclassified (e.g., Caucasian, Armenian, mixed
race/ethnicity, Native American). The ethnic composition of the sample was reflective of the
surrounding neighborhood. About one-third of the students were classified as “English learners”
by the school district.
The school was located in an area of Los Angeles targeted for special enforcement by the
police department and city attorney’s office as a result of aggressive conflicts between rival
street gangs, gang-oriented crime, and gun-related violence (Los Angeles Police Department
Gang and Narcotics Division, 2009). Adolescents who are identified or suspected gang members
are enjoined from interacting together in public. This community was also characterized by a
high degree of economic distress (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Poverty rates in the surrounding
neighborhoods (i.e., percentage of households at or below federal poverty levels) ranged as high
as 44%. Nearly all of the students (98%) attending the school were eligible for free or reduced-
cost lunch programs. Given the nature of the context, it is perhaps not surprising that the
participating school is characterized by highly aggressive behaviors.
Procedure
In the spring semester of each school year, the research team visited the school and
conducted focus groups and interviews with a subset of the consenting students. Trained research
assistants then administered a series of questionnaires to all participants in a group format,
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

15
including a peer nomination inventory and a battery of self-report questionnaires. The group
administration took place in two half-hour periods during the students’ homeroom class.
Measures
Dyadic victimization. Children were given a list of participating students and were asked
to report “Who do you bully?” and “Who bullies you?”. Each list contained the ID codes and
alphabetized names of all students with parental permission to participate in the project. The
students could nominate up to forty peers for both questions (“Who do you bully?” and “Who
bullies you?”), but they were not required to nominate anyone. The “Who do you bully?” item
provided us the perspective of students who acknowledged bullying specific peers. The “Who
bullies you?” item measured the perspective of students who reported being dyadic victims of
bullying.
We were interested in how certain characteristics (e.g., social status) influence who
bullies whom. In order to examine the status distribution within bully-victim dyads, we decided
to focus on the “Who do you bully?” item. By doing so, we are able to assess how the social
status of a self-identified bully is related to attributes of the peer(s) identified by that bully as his
or her victim(s).
Popularity, victimization, and aggression. We assessed popularity, victimization, and
aggression using a peer nomination inventory. With this methodology, adolescents are asked to
nominate peers on a roster sheet who fit specific descriptors. The rosters for the inventory were
constructed based on a random list strategy. Random lists have emerged as a de facto standard in
research with adolescents’ peer groups and are well-validated (e.g., Gorman, Kim, &
Schimmelbusch, 2002; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006). This procedure is ideal
for middle school students as they interact with peers in several classes throughout the day (e.g.,
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

16
Schwartz et al., 2006).
Each list contained the ID codes and alphabetized names of a random sub-sample of all
of the students that had parental permission to participate in the project, and a participant’s name
never appeared on his or her own list. The lists contained names alphabetized by first name
preceded by an ID code. Each participant was given one randomly selected list of his or her
grademates to serve as a stimulus for the peer nomination interview. The lists were distributed
such that each participant was evaluated by approximately 25% of the consenting participants in
his or her grade level.
The total number of nominations received by each participant is then summed as the
index of social reputation. Peer nomination approaches yield indices with very strong
psychometric properties, as multiple raters (i.e., a substantial portion of participating peers; see
Terry & Coie, 1991) identify youths who fit each descriptor.
The peer nomination inventory included items assessing popularity (“students who are
popular”), unpopularity (“students who are unpopular”), relational victimization (“students who
get gossiped about or have mean things said about them by other kids”), overt victimization
(“students who get hit or pushed by other kids”), relational aggression (“students who gossip or
say mean things about other kids”), and overt aggression (“students who hit or push other kids”).
Participants were asked to nominate peers from the random lists who fit these descriptors, and
nominations were unlimited (i.e., participants could identify as few or as many peers as they
chose for each item). We then calculated the total number of nominations received for each item,
standardized within list. We generated a summary victimization score from the total nominations
received across all victimization items.
Bully popularity. As aforementioned, we chose to assess bully-victim dyads identified
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

17
by the self-identified perpetrator; that is, students who reported bullying one or more peers. We
used the popularity nominations described above to assess bullies’ popularity. We calculated the
average popularity level of each peer who reported victimizing the same participant.
Crowd affiliation. We assessed crowd affiliation using the modified Social Type Rating
interview procedure described by Brown (1989). We held focus group meetings with groups of
students (n = 30) identified by school personnel as representative of a wide segment of the school
population. During the focus group meetings, an ethnically diverse group of trained research
assistants introduced the concept of a “crowd” to the participating students. Crowds were
carefully defined as reputation-based groups and were distinguished from more interactional
social systems (i.e., cliques or other friendship groups). That is, the participants were informed
that crowd membership was an indication of shared social reputations among peers. The students
were then asked to identify the main crowds at their school.
Most of the crowd labels provided by the students are similar to those that have been
identified in past studies (Brown et al., 1993). For example, the students described elite groups
characterized by high status and orientation toward appearance (“elites,” “popular kids,” or
“pretty boys/girls”), an athletically oriented group (“athletes” or “jocks”), a low status,
academically-oriented group (“nerds” or “school-boys/school-girls”), groups marked by
involvement in youth culture (“rockers” and “skaters”), and antisocial or deviant crowds
(“cholos” and “taggers”). For our analyses, we focused on crowds directly related to status (i.e.,
“elite”, “nerds”). We also included markers known to be associated with high status (i.e.,
“pretty”: (Lease et al., 2002); “athletes”: Sussman et al., 2007).
In the second step of the procedure, the students participating in the focus group sessions
were asked to identify grademates who were the leaders of each of the crowds (excluding the low
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

18
status or marginalized crowds) or who exemplified a certain crowd very well. These peer leaders
(n = 12) then served as expert raters in a series of one-on-one interviews. We presented the peer
experts with yearbook pictures of all of their participating grademates and asked them to identify
the crowds to which their grademates belonged (they could choose up to three crowds). For each
crowd, students received a proportion score based on the number of nominations they received
from the expert raters. This approach preserves more variability than categorical assignments
(see Brown et al., 1993; Brown, Von Bank, & Steinberg, 2008).
Adolescents who served as expert raters for the crowd proportion scores derived from the
Social Type Rating also took part in the peer nomination assessment, but we did not include their
nominations in the final calculations. Our goal was to minimize inflation of effects due to
correlated systematic error. As one step in this direction, we wanted to use different peer
informants for the crowd assessments and the peer nomination estimates.
Results
Overview
Our primary research objective focused on the relationship between bullies’ popularity
and victims’ social standing (i.e., popularity and crowd affiliation) within victimization dyads.
We were also interested in examining the gender composition of dyads, as several aspects of
bullying are known to vary across genders (e.g., Faris & Felmlee, 2011; Pepler et al., 2006;
Rodkin et al., 2014). We assessed these questions with bivariate correlations and multiple linear
regressions.
Descriptive Analyses and Bivariate Correlations
Means and standard deviations for all variables are presented in Table 1. We conducted a
series of pairwise comparisons between genders for all variables. Females had higher levels of
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

19
popularity than males, while males had higher levels of unpopularity than females. Males were
more likely to have a global reputation as a victim and to be relationally and overtly victimized
than females, whereas females were more likely to be relationally aggressive than males.
Females were more likely to be nominated as pretty than males, and males were more likely to
be nominated as an athlete than females.
Relation between Dyadic Victimization and Global Reputations as a Victim
One goal of this study was to explore the association between nomination as a victim
using the dyadic victimization construct and global reputation as a victim. To answer this
question, we conducted bivariate correlations comparing indicators of victimization and
individual characteristics of social status and reputation, which are summarized in Table 2. Three
different indicators of victimization were assessed: 1. bullies’ perspective of dyadic
victimization, 2. victims’ perspective of dyadic victimization, and 3. global reputation as a
victim. Global reputation as a victim was correlated with individual characteristics as one would
expect for peer nominations of victimization (e.g., de Bruyn, Cillessen, & Wissink, 2010).
Neither dyadic nominations from the bullies’ perspective nor the victims’ perspective were
significantly related to the individual characteristics. There were also no significant relations
between any of the three victim indicators. We chose to use dyadic nominations of bullying from
the bullies’ perspective, rather than the victims’ perspective, for our subsequent analyses of the
victimization dyads. Although self-reports of victimization may provide useful information as
they assess youths’ perceptions of being a victim (Graham & Juvonen, 1998), for the current
study we were more interested in youth whom bullies’ reported victimizing. By using the bullies’
perspective, we gain insight to how bullies’ social status is related to whom they report as their
victims.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

20
Associations between Bullies’ Popularity and Victims’ Social Status and Reputation
To examine the relation between bullies’ popularity and victims’ social status and
reputation within victimization dyads, we conducted bivariate correlations (shown in Table 3).
Bully popularity was positively correlated with victim unpopularity across the entire sample.
We hypothesized that gender would be a significant moderator of the relationship
between bullies’ popularity and victims’ social status and reputation. Bivariate correlations
(shown in Table 3) and multiple linear regressions were conducted to assess this relation. Bully
popularity was significantly associated with victim unpopularity and the social reputations of
“nerd” and “girly” for male victims. Multiple linear regression revealed a significant interaction
between reputation as a nerd and gender in predicting bully popularity, but the overall model was
only marginally significant. There were no significant interactions between gender and victim
unpopularity or “girly” reputation in predicting bully popularity.
Gender Composition of Victimization Dyads
To examine the role of gender composition of victimization dyads (F-F, F-M, M-F, M-M)
in the relation between bullies’ popularity and victims’ social status and reputation, we again
used a series of bivariate correlations and multiple linear regressions, as presented in Table 4.
Steiger’s Z-test for dependent correlations were conducted to assess whether the correlations
between dyads with the same gendered victim (i.e., F-F and M-F, F-M and M-M) were
significantly different. Steiger’s Z-test was used only to test correlations within genders, not
between genders. Separate multiple linear regressions were used to test whether the interaction of
gender and each variable significantly predicted female bully popularity and male bully
popularity.
First, we examined the relation between the gender compositions of victimization dyads
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

21
and victims’ social status, specifically victims’ popularity and unpopularity levels. Male bully
popularity was significantly predicted by an interaction of victim gender and victim popularity.
Male bully popularity was positively associated with female victim popularity, whereas it was
negatively associated with male victim popularity. The relation between male bully popularity
and male victim popularity was significantly different than the relation between female bully
popularity and male victim popularity. Of these two effects, only the individual effect of male
bully popularity and male victim popularity was significant. There were no significant
associations between the gender compositions of victimization dyads and victims’ unpopularity
levels.
Next we examined the role of the gender compositions of victimization dyads in relation
to victims’ social reputations. Female bully popularity was significantly predicted by the
interaction of victim gender and victim reputation as a nerd. Female bully popularity was
negatively associated with a reputation as a nerd for female victims, whereas it was positively
associated with a reputation as a nerd for male victims. Neither effect was individually
significant and the overall model of the interaction of victim gender and victim reputation as a
nerd did not significantly predict female bully popularity. Female bully popularity was also
significantly predicted by the interaction of victim gender and victim reputation as an athlete.
Female bully popularity was negatively related to a reputation as an athlete for female victims,
whereas it was positively related to reputation as an athlete for male victims.
Male bully popularity was significantly predicted by the interaction of victim gender and
victim reputation as elite. Male bully popularity was positively associated with female victims’
elite reputation and negatively associated with male victims’ elite reputation. The association
between male bully popularity and female victim elite reputation significantly differed from the
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

22
relation between female bully popularity and female victim elite reputation. However, only the
effect of male bully popularity and female elite reputation was significant. Male bully popularity
was also significantly predicted by the interaction of victim gender and victim reputation as
pretty. Male bully popularity was positively associated with female victims’ reputation as pretty
and negatively associated with male victims’ reputation as pretty. The association between male
bully popularity and female victim reputation as pretty was significantly different than the
relation between female bully popularity and female victim reputation as pretty. Of these two
effects, only the relation between male bully popularity and female victim reputation as pretty
was significant.
We assessed whether female bully popularity and male bully popularity were
significantly predicted by an interaction between victim gender and victim reputation as girly,
but neither model was significant. We also tested the interaction of victims’ gender and victims’
aggression levels. Neither male bully popularity nor female bully popularity was significantly
predicted by an interaction of victim gender and victim overt or relational aggression.
Discussion
Peer victimization has typically been studied in the context of the larger peer group, but
recently some research has begun to examine victimization within the context of dyadic
relationships (i.e., a bully and his or her victim). The current study’s objective was to further
expand our knowledge of dyadic victimization. We were interested in the distribution of social
status within bully-victim dyads in a high-risk, gang-impacted environment where youth are
especially vulnerable and prone to aggressive behaviors. Specifically, our goal was to understand
how a bully’s popularity was related to his or her victim’s social standing (i.e., popularity and
crowd affiliation). Furthermore, we were interested in how the gender composition of the dyad
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

23
impacted this relation. As a secondary goal, we examined the relation between nominations of
dyadic victimization and global reputation as a victim. Our results highlighted the key role of
gender in the distribution of social standing in victimization dyads during early adolescence.
Results showed that popular bullies tended to have unpopular victims; however, this power
distribution varied according to the gender of the bully and victim. Male bullies with higher
levels of popularity victimized “pretty”, “elite” females with higher levels of popularity, whereas
male bullies victimized males with lower social status.
Dyadic Victimization
Our findings suggested no significant relation between nominations as a victim in
victimization dyads and global reputation in the peer group as a victim. Additionally, dyadic
nominations of victimization were unrelated to the individual characteristics we assessed. On the
other hand, global reputation as a victim was negatively associated with popularity and
reputation as elite, pretty, and girly. Global reputation as a victim was positively associated with
relational and overt victimization, unpopularity, and reputation as a nerd. Interestingly, global
reputation as a victim was also positively associated with reputation as an athlete. We included
reputation as an athlete as a marker of high status (Sussman et al., 2007), and while it was
positively associated with other markers of status (i.e., popularity, elite reputation), in this
context, athlete reputation was also associated with reputation as a victim and as a nerd. While
aspects of a reputation as an athlete may be related to popularity, being an athlete indicates
engagement in school activities, which may be looked at negatively by aggressive, antisocial
peers in this unique, gang-impacted context.
The incongruence between global reputation as a victim and dyadic victimization
suggests that the dyadic victimization construct may identify victims who are unaccounted for
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

24
using other measures. It is important to identify any children who are victimized, regardless of
their individual characteristics or reputation, as they still are at risk for the negative
consequences of victimization.
Distribution of Social Status within Victimization Dyads
Power asymmetry has been identified as an important marker of bullying (Olweus, 1993).
Although this can include physical power, bullies who have higher social status than their
victims also possess psychological power (Olweus, 1993). Rodkin and colleagues (2014) found
that bullies tended to have more social power than their victims, despite the fact that not all
bullies possessed high social status in general. We were interested in the distribution of social
status within victimization dyads, and, as expected, popular bullies typically victimized
unpopular peers. When looking at the gender of victims, we found that male victims of more
popular bullies were generally unpopular and had reputations as a “nerd” and as “girly”. This is
consistent with the prototypical image of a popular bully victimizing a low powered male peer. It
also supports prior research that males who do not conform to masculine stereotypes may be at
risk to be targets of victimization (Espelage et al., 2014; Stein, 2003; Tolman et al., 2003). As
this finding and previous research indicates, unpopular males, as well as males considered nerdy
or feminine, are at high risk for victimization by popular peers. These youth may serve as “easy”
targets for victimization because of their low status (Veenstra et al., 2010), and because they do
not demonstrate typical masculine attributes valued by their peers.
Gender Differences
We were also interested in the role of the gender composition of victimization dyads.
Though gender differences in victimization have been explored extensively, there is less known
regarding the role of gender in dyadic victimization. Bullying is generally considered a primarily
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

25
male perpetuated phenomenon (Olweus, 1993; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999; Pellegrini,
2001; Seals & Young, 2003); however, some argue that this may be in part because initial
research on aggression primarily focused on physical aggression or lacked female participants
(Björkqvist, 1994; Crick & Rose, 2001; Espelage, Mebane, & Swearer, 2004). Espelage and
colleagues (2012) found an equal percentage of male and female participants (12%) to be
classified as bullies. Similarly, Peeters and colleagues (2010) identified participants who scored
in the top 15% of a standardized bullying score; of the 120 bullies identified, over half (n = 68)
were females. As both males and females may be perpetrators of bullying, it is essential to
comprehensively examine how the genders of both the bully and the victim are related to
victimization.
The current study builds off recent research (e.g., Rodkin et al., 2014; Veenstra et al.,
2010) that addresses this concern by prioritizing the role of gender in victimization, particularly
in the context of dyadic victimization. We expected that the relation between bullies’ social
status and victims’ social status and crowd affiliation would differ based on the gender
composition of the bully victim dyads (i.e., F-F, F-M, M-F, and M-M). As we predicted, the
gender composition of dyads played a significant role in the distribution of social status within
the dyads.
Consistent with our hypothesis and previous research, male bullies who were more
popular tended to victimize males who were low in popularity. Although our expectation that
popular male bullies would target low status male peers was supported, we did not find evidence
for our prediction that popular male bullies would also target males’ with a reputation as “nerdy”
or “girly”. Victimization between a popular male and a lower status male peer is likely a result
of males’ desire to easily exert dominance (Salmivalli, 2010). Targeting low status males is a
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

26
low-risk way to exert ones’ status and masculinity (Pellegrini, 2008; Veenstra et al., 2010).
Furthermore, as we expected, females with higher levels of popularity targeted males with a
reputation as a “nerd”. Again, this subset of male peers may serve as an easy target group for
popular youths as they pose no serious threat of damaging retaliation (Boulton & Smith, 1990;
Pellegrini, 2002). Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no evidence that popular females bullied
males nominated as unpopular. Somewhat surprisingly, females with higher levels of popularity
targeted males with an “athlete” reputation. In this context, athletes were considered elite and
popular, as they are in most environments (Sussman et al., 2007), but were also nominated as
nerds and experienced high levels of overt victimization. This seemingly paradoxical finding
may be a result of the unique, highly aggressive environment of the study, as active participation
in school activities may be looked upon negatively (Schwartz, Kelly, & Duong, 2013).
During early adolescence, the increase in cross-gender interactions and interest in
romantic relationships results in a greater prevalence of cross-gender victimization (Espelage et
al., 2012; Pepler et al., 2006). Males’ desire to illustrate their masculinity may also underlie their
victimization of female peers (Robinson, 2005). However, as we expected, in contrast to male
targets of popular male bullies, female victims of popular male peers were highly popular and
had reputations in the peer group as “elite” and “pretty”. Whereas low power, unpopular males
are a subset of youth often identified as vulnerable, this finding identifies a subset of females at
risk for victimization who may not be on the radar of adults and teachers.
Being popularity provides youth with certain social benefits (Cillessen, Schwartz, &
Mayeux, 2011), but there is increasing evidence that popularity comes with certain costs.
Popularity is associated with certain risky behaviors, such as substance use and sexual activity
(Mayeux et al., 2008; Osgood et al., 2013; Tucker, Green, Zhou, Miles, & Shih, 2011).
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

27
Furthermore, recent findings suggest that high status youth may be at greater risk for certain
types of victimization (e.g., rumor spreading: Faris & Felmlee, 2014; Malamut, Dawes, & Xie,
2016; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). Our results indicate that popular females may be especially at
risk for victimization, by their popular male peers in particular.
Though beyond the scope of this study, previous research has found a link between male-
female victimization and sexual harassment/sexual bullying (Duncan, 1999; Shute, Owens, &
Slee, 2008). As popular and attractive female youth may be more likely to receive sexual
attention from their male peers, it is possible that they are at higher risk for sexual harassment
(Duncan, 1998). Furthermore, since popular females are actually more likely to date or engage in
sexual activity (de Bruyn et al., 2012), there may be more opportunities for them to experience
sexual bullying (e.g., Shute et al., 2008). Future research should investigate the association
between bully-dyads and sexual harassment, and whether certain variables (e.g., popularity)
moderate this relationship.
Previous research has identified high levels of victimization between females (Rodkin et
al., 2014). We predicted that popular females would victimize other females of high and low
status levels, but there were no identifiable patterns within the female-female bully-dyads. We
hesitate to interpret the lack of an association, but we suspect it may stem from the wording of
the measure (i.e., “Who do you bully?”). Certain females may engage in victimization within
friendships, and may not consider their behaviors as bullying (Daniels, Quigley, Menard, &
Spence, 2010). A measure assessing victimization specifically within friendships (e.g., Crick &
Nelson, 2002; Daniels et al., 2010) may be more suited to identify characteristics of dyadic
victimization between females.

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

28
Limitations and Future Directions
While this study examined a relatively underutilized context of victimization in a unique
environment, there are a few limitations to address. Most importantly, the correlational design of
our study inhibits us from making causal inferences. Future research should implement a
longitudinal design to explore any causal relations between social standing and bully-victim
dyads. In addition, as mentioned above, the measure of dyadic victimization used may not be an
effective way to assess victimization between females. Additionally, our measure did not assess
distinct types of victimization (e.g., physical, relational). It would be worthwhile for future
research to examine how subtypes of victimization vary across bully-victim dyads, as there are
known differences in how often males and females utilize different types of victimization (e.g.,
Xie et al., 2002).
One of our goals was to conduct a dyadic investigation of victimization in a unique, high
gang-impacted context where aggressive behavior is intertwined with status. While this study
provides insight into an understudied sample, we cannot make comparative statements regarding
characteristics of dyadic victimization in other settings. In particular, characteristics associated
with certain crowd affiliations (e.g., athlete) may be different in an environment less marked by
aggressive, antisocial behaviors.
A final concern of the current study is the sample size. For our final set of analyses, we
were limited to participants with complete data for dyadic victimization and peer nominations of
individual characteristics (e.g., popularity, crowd affiliations). This line of research would
benefit from a larger scale study, which would be better suited to detect distinct trends across
bully-victim dyads.

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

29
Conclusion
Past research on victimization in adolescence has primarily focused on the larger peer
group. However, recently research has begun to propose dyadic perspectives of victimization. A
dyadic framework allows examination of bully-victim dyads that may go unnoticed using other
measures. The current study is one of the first to utilize a dyadic measure assessing the
perspectives of youth actually involved in victimization dyads, some of who may not have been
identified as bullies or victims using peer nominations of victimization. Furthermore, this study
explores the role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads during
early adolescence, a developmental period where both social standing and cross-gendered
interactions have increased salience.
The results of this study emphasize the important role of gender in victimization during
adolescence, as the structure of bully-victim dyads varied by gender composition. Our findings
add to recent research that has identified popular females as a subset of youth at risk for
victimization that may go undetected by teachers and adults (e.g., Rodkin & Berger, 2008).
Future research should further explore the dyadic relation between male bullies and popular
female victims, and examine any associations between male-female bully-dyads and sexual
bullying. Further attention should also be given to the role of specific characteristics (e.g., social
status) in the composition of female-female bully-dyads.

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

30
References
Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among
elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169 – 187.
Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of
recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-188.
Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1990). Affective biases in children’s perceptions of dominance
relationships. Child Development, 61, 221-229.
Brown, B. B. (1989). The role of peer groups in adolescents’ adjustment to secondary school. In
T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 188–216).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Brown, B. B., & Klute, C. (2006). Friendships, cliques, and crowds. In G. R. Adams, & M. D.
Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 330-348). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer
group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.
Brown, B. B., Von Bank, H., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Smoke in the looking class: Effects of
discordance between self- and peer rated crowd affiliation on adolescent anxiety,
depression and self-feelings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1163-1177.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypothesis tested
in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Card, N. A. & Hodges, E. V. E. (2010). It takes two to fight in school, too: A social relations
model of the psychometric properties and relative variance of dyadic aggression and
victimization in middle school. Social Development, 19, 447-469.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

31
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental
changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75,
147–163.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105.
Cillessen, A.H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (2011). Popularity in the peer system. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Collins, W.A. (2003). More than a myth: The developmental significance of romantic
relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1-24.
Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (2004). Mixed-gender groups, dating, and
romantic relationships in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14,
185–207.
Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of aggression:
Links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 610–617.
Crick, N. R., & Rose, A. J. (2001). Toward a gender-balanced approach to the study of social-
emotional development: A look at relational aggression. In P. H. Miller & E. K.
Scholnick (Eds.), Towards a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 153-168). New
York: Routledge.
Crockett, L. J., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer group and
friendship in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 155-181.
Daniels, T., Quigley, D., Menard, L., & Spence, L. (2010). “My best friend always did and still
does betray me constantly”: Examining relational and physical victimization within a
dyadic friendship context. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 70-83.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

32
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
de Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Weisfeld, G. E. (2012). Dominance-popularity status,
behavior, and the emergence of sexual activity in young adolescents. Evolutionary
Psychology, 10, 296-319.
de Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Wissink, I. B. (2010). Associations of peer acceptance
and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 30, 543-566.
Duncan, N. (1998). Sexual bullying in secondary schools. Pastoral Care in Education, 16, 27-
31.
Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying: Gender conflict and pupil culture in secondary schools.
New York: Routledge.
Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., De La Rue, L., & Hamburger, M. E. (2014). Longitudinal
associations among bully, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among
middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-21.
Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., Hamburger, M. E. (2012). Bullying perpetration and subsequent
sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 50, 60-65.
Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying:
Moving beyond mean level differences. In D.L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.),
Bullying in American Schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and
intervention (pp..15-35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2014). Casualties of social combat: School networks of peer
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

33
victimization and their consequences. American Sociological Review, 79, 228-257.
Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental
perspective. In S. Shulman, & W. A. Collins (Eds.), New directions for child
development: Adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 21 – 36). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gavin, L. A. & Furman, W. (1989). Age differences in adolescents’ perceptions of their peer
groups. Developmental Psychology, 25, 827-834.
Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002). The attributes adolescents associate with
peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 143-165.
Graham, S. & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An
attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587-599.
Heaven, P. C., L., Ciarrochi, J., & Vialle, W. (2008). Self-nominated peer crowds, school
achievement, and psychological adjustment in adolescents: Longitudinal analysis.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 977-988.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of
perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130-147.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J. & Björkqvist, K. (1994). Indirect aggression in girls and boys. In L. R.
Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 131–150). New York:
Plenum.
Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of
popularity. Social Development, 11, 87-109.
Los Angeles Police Department Gang and Narcotics Division. (2009). Citywide Gang Crime
Summary. Retrieved from http://www.lapdonline.org.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

34
Malamut, S., Dawes, M., & Xie, H. (2016). Characteristics of rumors and rumor victims in early
adolescence: Rumor content and social impact. Manuscript in preparation.
Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J. , and Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Is being popular a risky
proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49-74.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford: Blackwell.
Osgood, D. W., Ragan, D. T., Wallace, L., Gest, S. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Moody, J. (2013).
Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: Influence and selection processes in adolescent
friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 500–512.
Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying
subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1041-1052.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). A longitudinal study of heterosexual relationships, aggression, and
sexual harassment during the transition from primary school through middle school.
Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 119-133.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to
middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151-163.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2008). The roles of aggressive and affiliate behaviors in resource control: A
behavioral ecological perspective. Developmental Review, 28, 461-487.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer
affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. Amercian
Educational Research Journal, 37, 699-725.
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). Bullies, victims, and aggressive victims:
Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 216-224.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

35
Pellegrini, A. D., Dupuis, D., & Smith, P. K. (2007). Play in evolution and development.
Developmental Review, 27, 261-276.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on
bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376-384.
Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression
associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310–342.
Robinson, K. (2005). Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment: Issues of
identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education, 17, 19-37.
Rodkin, P. C., & Berger, C. (2008). Who bullies whom? Social status asymmetries by victim
gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 473–485.
Rodkin, P. C., Hanish, L. D., Wang, S., & Logis, H. A. (2014). Why the bully/victim relationship
is so pernicious: A gendered perspective on power and animosity among bullies and their
victims. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 689-704.
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and
perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 378-387.
Russell, A., & Owens, L. (2001). Peer estimates of school-aged boys’ and girls’ aggression to
same- and cross-sex targets. Social Development, 8, 364-379.
Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Same- and other-
sex victimization: Are the risk factors similar? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 442–55.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
15, 112-120.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

36
Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Duong, M. T., & Nakamoto, J. (2008). Peer relationships and
academic achievement as interacting predictors of depressive symptoms during middle
childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 289-299.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & McKay, T. (2006). Popularity, social acceptance,
and aggression in adolescent peer groups: Links with academic performance and school
attendance. Developmental Psychology, 42, 116–117.
Schwartz, D., Hopmeyer, A. H, Luo, T., Ross, A., & Fischer, J. (2015). Affiliation with
antisocial crowds and psychological outcomes in a gang-impacted urban middle school.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 1-28.
Schwartz, D., Kelly, B. M., & Duong, M. T. (2013). Do academically-engaged adolescents
experience social sanctions from the peer group? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42,
1319-1330.
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender,
grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.
Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys:
Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477-489.
Stein, N. (2003). Bullying or sexual harassment? The missing discourse of rights in an era of
zero tolerance. The Arizona Law Review, 45, 783-799.
Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence.
Child Development, 57, 841-851.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

37
Sussman, S., Pokhrel, P., Ashmore, R. D., & Brown, B. B. (2007). Adolescent peer group
identification and characteristics: A review of the literature. Addictive Behaviors, 32,
1602-1627.
Terry, R., & Coie, J. D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among
children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 867-880.
Tolman, D. L., Striepe, M. I., & Harmon, T. (2003). Gender matters: Constructing a model of
adolescent sexual health. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 4–12.
Tucker, J. S., Green, H. D., Jr., Zhou, A. J., Miles, J. N. V., & Shih, R. A. (2011). Substance use
among middle school students: Associations with self-rated and peer-nominated
popularity. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 513– 519.
U. S. Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder: Panorama City, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.factfinder2.census.gov.
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-
based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157-176.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010). The complex relation
between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to
status, affection, and sex differences. Child Development, 81, 480-486.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B. J. H., DeWinter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J.
(2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual-perspective
theory. Child Development, 78, 1843–1854.
Xie, H., Swift, D., Cairns, B. D., Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behaviors in social interaction
and developmental adaptation: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during early
adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205-224.
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

38
Tables
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
Gender
Full Sample Male Victims Female Victims
Variable M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
# of peers who reported bullying participant 2.98 (2.10) 2.94 (2.23) 3.01 (1.98)
# of females who reported bullying participant 1.54 (1.34) 1.44 (1.40) 1.63 (1.28)
# of males who reported bullying participant 1.44 (1.54) 1.50 (1.62) 1.38 (1.47)
# of peers participant reported as bullies 0.94 (2.15) 0.95 (2.26) 0.91 (2.03)
Reputation as a victim 0.00 (0.99) 0.26 (1.08) -0.29 (.79)
***

Bullies’ popularity 0.37 (0.81) 0.36 (0.84) 0.37 (0.78)
Female bullies’ popularity 0.54 (0.96) 0.60 (1.04) 0.48 (0.89)
Male bullies’ popularity 0.09 (0.85) 0.06 (0.78) 0.12 (0.94)
Popularity 0.00 (0.99) -0.18 (0.90) 0.19 (1.06)
**

Unpopularity 0.00 (0.99) 0.12 (1.07) -0.13 (0.90)
*

Relational aggression 0.00 (0.99) -0.33 (0.89) 0.36 (0.98)
***

Overt aggression 0.00 (0.99) 0.11 (1.06) -0.11 (0.91)
Relational victimization 0.00 (0.99) 0.20 (1.08) -0.21 (0.85)
***

Overt victimization 0.01 (0.99) 0.23 (1.08) -0.27 (0.80)
***

Nerd 0.00 (0.99) -0.07 (0.99) 0.08 (1.00)
Elite 0.00 (0.99) -0.15 (0.86) -0.16 (1.11)
Athlete 0.00 (0.99) 0.42 (1.07) -0.45 (0.66)
***

Pretty 0.00 (0.99) -0.22 (0.87) 0.24 (1.07)
***

*p < .05. **p < .01. *** p <.001
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

39
Table 2
Correlations between Victim Indicators and Individual Characteristics

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
1. Bullies’ perspective of dyadic victimization ---
2. Victim’s perspective of dyadic victimization -0.09 ---
3. Global reputation as a victim -0.02 0.05 ---
4. Relational victim -0.05 0.05 0.82
***
---
5. Overt victim 0.01 0.06 0.83
***
0.38
***
---
6. Popularity 0.00 -0.09 -0.20
***
-0.15
*
-0.18
**
---
7. Unpopularity -0.02 0.03 0.48
***
0.51
***
0.31
***
-0.31
***
---
8. Nerd 0.06 0.01 0.34
***
0.24
***
0.33
***
-0.12
*
0.47
***
---
9. Elite -0.03 -0.07 -0.19
**
-0.15
*
-0.17
**
0.88
***
-0.27
***
-0.14
*
---
10. Pretty -0.01 -0.02 -0.15
*
-0.10 -0.15
*
0.76
***
-0.25
***
-0.11 0.77
***
---
11. Girly -0.03 -0.02 -0.22
***
-0.15
**
-0.21
***
0.43
***
-0.14
*
0.03 0.45
***
0.57
***
---
12. Athlete -0.05 -0.03 0.15
*
0.07 0.17
**
0.21
***
0.09 0.17
**
0.18
**
0.16
**
-0.23
***
---
*p < .05. **p < .01. *** p <.001
SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

40
Table 3
Bully Popularity and Individual Characteristics

Bully popularity
Gender
Variable Full Sample Male
Victims
Female
Victims
F
Popularity -0.03 -0.18 0.05 0.96
Unpopularity 0.17
**
0.24
*
0.09 1.73
Nerd 0.05 0.26
*
-0.16 2.55
†

Elite 0.00 -0.17 0.09 1.06
Pretty 0.01 -0.10 0.07 0.40
Girly 0.04 0.23
*
0.01 1.40
Athlete -0.01 0.04 -0.10 0.29
Relational aggression 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.36
Overt aggression -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 0.02
Note.
†
p < .08. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

41

Table 4
Victim Characteristics and Gender Predicting Bully Popularity
Female bully popularity Male bully popularity

Female
Victims

Male
Victims
F

Female
Victims

Male
Victims
F

Popularity -0.10 -0.04 0.23 0.40
**
-0.26
*
5.09
**

Unpopularity 0.09 0.21 1.21 -0.11 0.08 0.36

Nerd -0.19
a
0.17
a
1.48 0.11 0.14 0.59

Elite -0.06 -0.04 0.12 0.42
**,
-0.20 4.96
**
Pretty -0.06 0.07 0.20 0.38
**
-0.18 3.94
*
Girly -0.10 0.21 1.19 0.24 0.20 1.95

Athlete -0.21
a
0.16
a
1.49 0.13 -0.14 0.65

Relational aggression -0.02 0.14 0.47 0.24 -0.06 1.23

Overt aggression -0.05 -0.18 0.81 0.17 0.04 0.69

Note. Ns ranged from 116-133. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

SOCIAL STATUS IN BULLY-VICTIM DYADS

42

Table 5
Steiger’s Z Test for Dependent Correlations
Female Victims Male Victims

Female Bully
Popularity

Male Bully
Popularity

Z

Female Bully
Popularity

Male Bully
Popularity

Z
Popularity -0.10 0.40
**
-3.68
***
-0.04 -0.26
*
-3.672
***
Unpopularity 0.09 -0.11 1.40 0.21 0.08 1.05
Nerd -0.19 0.11 -2.11
*

0.17 0.14 0.24
Elite -0.06 0.42
** -3.57
***
-0.04 -0.20 1.29
Pretty -0.06 0.38
** -3.22
**
0.07 -0.18
1.99
*

Girly -0.10 0.24 -2.34
* 0.21 0.20 0.08
Athlete -0.21 0.13 -2.40
*

0.16 -0.14
2.38
*

Relational aggression -0.02 0.23 -1.77
†

0.14 -0.06 1.60
Overt aggression -0.05 0.17
-1.54 -0.18 0.04
-1.77
†

Note. Ns ranged from 53-71.
†
p < .08.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The current study examined the impact of social standing (i.e., popularity and crowd affiliation) in the composition of bully-victim dyads in a highly aggressive, gang-impacted environment. Bully-victim dyads identify youth involved in victimization that may be missed by alternative measures. Achieving and maintaining high social standing becomes a priority in early adolescence, and may be have particular implications for victimization dyads in this gang-impacted environment where high levels of aggressive, antisocial behaviors are linked to popularity. The sample was 285 8th graders (148 males, 137 females) from an urban area in Southern California. Results indicate that gender played a key role in the distribution of social status within bully-victim dyads. Both popular male and female peers target unpopular males

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Dynamics of victimization, aggression, and popularity in adolescence

PDF

Social status, perceived social reputations, and perceived dyadic relationships in early adolescence

PDF

The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization messages

PDF

Stigma-based peer aggression and social status in middle adolescence: the unique implications of weight-related aggression

PDF

Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

PDF

Couple conflict during pregnancy: Do early family adversity and oxytocin play a role?

PDF

Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups

PDF

Teacher bias in school discipline disparities: the roles of race and gender

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

Is affluence a developmental risk for Hong Kong Chinese adolescents?

PDF

Offline social functioning and online communication: how social competence translates to an online context

PDF

A family affair: the role of parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition as explanatory factors for bullying

PDF

Affirmation and majority students: Can affirmation impair math performance?

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

PDF

Internet-delivered eating disorder prevention: a randomized controlled trial of dissonance-based and cognitive-behavioral treatments

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Negative peer relationships and academic failures as predictors of depressive symptoms in early adolescence

PDF

Life on the sidelines: the academic, social, and disciplinary impacts of male high school sports participation in California

PDF

Evaluating a cultural process model of depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents

PDF

The articulated thoughts of heterosexual male college students in reaction to anti-gay hate speech

Asset Metadata

Creator Malamut, Sarah (author)

Core Title The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 06/26/2016

Defense Date 06/16/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag dyadic victimization,early adolescence,gender,OAI-PMH Harvest,social status

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), Huey, Stanley (committee member), Manis, Frank (committee member)

Creator Email sarah.malamut@gmail.com,smalamut@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-258108

Unique identifier UC11281562

Identifier etd-MalamutSar-4474.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-258108 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MalamutSar-4474.pdf

Dmrecord 258108

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Malamut, Sarah

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA