The Social-Emotional Competencies of Elementary School Bullies:
“Thugs” or “Thinkers”?
Deborah I. Neft and Maurice J. Elias
Based on the Doctoral Dissertation, Social and emotional profiles of bullies and victims: Implications for school-based prevention programs, by Deborah I. Neft, 2006.
Advisor: Elias, Maurice J. School: Rutgers The State University of NJ - New Brunswick
ISBN: 9780542954580
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1251849201&Fmt=7&clientI d=79356&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Bullying among American students has recently been recognized as an important issue deserving of research, intervention, and prevention efforts. In a study examining bullying behaviors in a nationally representative sample of U.S. youth, Nansel, Overpeck,
Pilla, Ruan, June, Simons-Morton, and Scheidt (2001) concluded that bullying is a
“serious problem for U.S. youth” (p. 2100) due to the substantial prevalence rates and the behavioral and emotional difficulties, as well as the potential negative long-term consequences, for those students involved in bullying.
Examining key influences on bullying is essential to inform intervention and prevention efforts. Currently, researchers are debating whether bullies bully because they are deficient in basic social and emotional skills (causing them to behave in an antisocial manner, e.g. Crick & Dodge, 1994), or if they possess adequate or even superior social and emotional skills (allowing them to be skilled social manipulators, e.g. Sutton, Smith,
& Swettenham, 1999). These choices were framed by Jon Sutton (2001) as the “thug vs. thinker” debate.
We undertook a study to test the hypothesis that both “thug” and “thinker” types of bullies exist, with the important distinguishing factor relating to reactive aggression.
Reactive aggression is characterized as a hostile, angry reaction to perceived frustration
(Price & Dodge, 1989). It was predicted that low-to-moderate reactive aggressive (LR) bullies would look more like “thinkers” and score higher on most measures of social and emotional intelligence than high reactive aggressive (HR) bullies, who would resemble
“thugs” and would score lower on most measures of social and emotional intelligence.
Teacher and self-report data were collected from 1,306 2 nd
and 3 rd
grade students from 10 elementary schools in an urban “special needs” school district during the 2000-
2001 academic year. The social and emotional skills of students were measured by teachers using Gresham and Elliott’s Social Skills Rating System – Teacher Form and by the student self-report on the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale and the BarOn
Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version Short Form.
Teachers identified 24% (314) of the students as bullies (those who “sometimes” or “often” bully or threaten others). Of the bullies, 30.9% (97) were female and 69.1%
(217) were male. Bullies were then classified as “highly” reactive aggressive (HR) if their teacher rated them highly on two questions (“controls [his/her] temper in conflict situations with peers” and if he/she “responds appropriately when pushed or hit by other children”). Of non-bullies, 96.3% were classified as LR and 3.7% were classified as HR.
Among bullies, 50.5% were classified as LR and 49.5% were classified as HR.
To compare the students on measures of social and emotional skills, t-tests were performed and revealed significant differences between non-bullies and bullies,

regardless of LR or HR status, with bullies exhibiting more problem behaviors and fewer social skills (p’s < .001). Discriminant analyses revealed that self-control was the best predictor of non-bullies and hyperactivity was the best predictor of bullies (Λ = 0.59, χ 2 =
406.880; df = 8; p < .001). Among bullies, those classified as LR demonstrated greater self-control than HR bullies but they still reported more problem behaviors and an inability to perspective-take and empathize as compared with non-bullies. Discriminant analyses showed stress management (i.e., stress tolerance, impulse control) was the best predictor of LR bully membership and hyperactivity was the best predictor of HR bully membership (Λ = 0.73, χ
2
= 58.404; df = 6; p < .001). In addition, the impact of gender on the findings was investigated and comparisons revealed that among bullies, female LR bullies scored significantly higher on some social-emotional variables than male LR bullies; however, no significant differences were found by gender among HR bullies.
The results of this study support the theory that bullies bully because they lack certain social and emotional skills. Specifically, it was shown the bullies were less able than non-bullies to behave in a prosocial manner, to regulate and control their behaviors and emotions, to understand and read the emotions of others, and to empathize. A subset of bullies who exhibited less reactive aggression (more self-control) had fewer socialemotional deficits than highly reactive bullies, but only in areas that were closely related to the grouping variable (e.g. emotion regulation and hyperactivity). Overall, both HR and LR bullies showed deficits in the ability to act prosocially, to understand and read the emotions of others, and to empathize as compared with non-bullies. These findings suggest that perspective taking and empathy are key emotional intelligence variables that separate bullies from non-bullies. However, other emotional intelligence variables, such as emotional self-awareness (intrapersonal skills) and flexibility (adaptability skills) do not seem to play important roles. In addition, popularity and self-esteem did not stand out as central variables in identifying bullies. In fact, bullies reported less popularity and an overall more negative self-concept, which implies bullies are not broadly socially reinforced for their behavior and that bullying behavior does not increase a bully’s selfesteem. In general, gender comparisons showed female bullies to be slightly more prosocial than male bullies, though still significantly worse off than non-bullies. Are bullies “thugs” or “thinkers”? Regardless of LR/HR status or gender, bullies can be best placed toward the “thug” end of the spectrum.
These results have important implications for the design of bullying prevention and intervention programs. In general, they suggest that anti-bullying programs should focus on teaching bullies social and emotional skills to make them better able to engage in prosocial behavior. More specifically, an effective intervention would have to include some level of perspective taking and empathy training for bullies. In addition, these findings suggest that anti-bullying programs that focus solely on changing the outcomes for bullies without teaching them new skills, or that focus only on changes in school rules, are likely to be unsuccessful in decreasing bullying behavior.
References
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social informationprocessing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115 (1), 74-101.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W., June, Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt,
P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (16),
2094-2100.
Price, J. M., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood:
Relations to peer status and social context dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 17 (4), 455-471
Sutton, J. (2001). Bullies: Thugs or thinkers? The Psychologist, 14 (10), 530-534.
Sutton, J., Smith, P.K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 17 (3), 435-450.
Deborah I. Neft, Ph.D., received her doctorate at Rutgers University where she spearheaded research on bullying among elementary school children under the supervision of Dr. Maurice Elias. She currently works as a psychologist at the Center for
Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapies in New York City. She can be reached at debneft@yahoo.com
.
Maurice J. Elias, Ph.D., is
Professor, Psychology Department, Rutgers University,
Academic Director of Rutgers Civic Engagement and Service Education
Partnerships program, Coordinator of the Internship Program in Applied,
School, and Community Psychology, Past President of the international Society for Community Research and Action and Division of Community Psychology
(27) of the American Psychological Association, Director of the Rutgers Social-
Emotional Learning Lab, and
Founding Member of the Leadership Team for the
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (www.CASEL.org).
He can be reached at
RutgersMJE@AOL.COM
.
Among his writings are the new e-book, Emotionally Intelligent Parenting, and
Social Decision Making/Social Problem Solving Curricula for Elementary and
Middle School Students (www.researchpress.com);
Bullying, Peer Harassment,and Victimization in the Schools: The Next
Generation of Prevention (Haworth, 2003);
The Educator’s Guide to Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement:
Social-Emotional Learning in the Classroom (Corwin Press, 2006); and with D.
Neft, Urban Dreams: Stories of Hope, Character, and Resilience (2008, Hamilton
Books).