Do Peer-Relational and Normative-Contextual Schemas Predict
Bullying Perpetration Among Children and Adolescents?
Brian P. Gendron, Kirk Williams, Nancy Guerra
University of California, Riverside
Introduction
Results, cont.
Bullying continues to plague children and adolescents in our education system, despite extensive research
in this area. Those involved are at higher risk for many negative outcomes including academic decline, substance
abuse, and psychosocial maladjustment (Schwartz et. al, 2008, Kaltiala-Heino et. al, 2000, Veenstra et. al, 2005).
One of the strongest predictors of aggression and victimization among school-aged individuals may be the
cognitive representations they store for specific contexts. For instance, normative beliefs of aggression have been
shown to be positively associated with aggressive behavior (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). In a recent study,
Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpaa, and Peets found that elementary school children’s dual perceptions of themselves
and their peers, labeled peer-relational schemas, predicted their social goals and behavior (2005). Children with
positive self and negative other views (labeled dismissive) scored higher on reactive aggression than children with
positive self and positive other views (labeled secure). Still, reactive aggression in response to provocation has a
very different connotation than proactive bullying behaviors related to power imbalance and embedded in a social
hierarchy.
The purpose of the present study is to examine the longitudinal relationship between bullying behavior and
perceptions of self, others, and normative context with both quantitative and qualitative methods. Specifically, we
will address the following:
1. Are perceptions of self and others predictive of bullying and victimization?
2. Does normative approval of bullying behavior predict later bullying behavior and victimization?
3. Do the relationships between social perceptions and behavior differ by gender?
this schema and bullying behavior was stronger among males (B = .193, p < .05). Furthermore, self-perception
was a significant predictor of victimization (B = -.042, p < .01) and this relationship was stronger among males
as well (B = .219, p < .01). The main effect of Other-schema did not significantly predict victimization.
Compared to older children, those age 10-12 were involved in significantly less bullying (B = -.043, p <
.01) and non-Latino white participants were less likely to bully compared to ethnic minorities (B = -.038, p <
.01). Not surprisingly, males were involved in more bullying behavior than females (B = .071, p < .001). In
terms of victimization, those aged 10-12 were involved in significantly more victimization compared to older
participants (B = .051, p < .001), and no victimization differences were found between gender or ethnicity.
We next tested two additional models including normative approval of bullying in the prediction of
bullying and victimization. The results indicate that normative approval is a significant predictor of bullying
behavior at time 2 (B = .036, p < .05), and this relationship did not differ by gender. Normative approval had no
significant independent effect on victimization, but the gender interaction effect indicates that the effect is
significantly lower for males than females (B = -.140, p < .01).
Results from the focus group interviews indicated a similar pattern. Students were asked whether bullies
felt good or bad about themselves and others and perceived bullying as normative. Consistent with studies of
self-esteem and aggression, 90% of focus group responses indicated “it depends,” noting you could feel any
way about yourself and still bully. Finally, 95% of responses endorsed the view that bullies thought what they
were doing was acceptable.
Method
Overview
The data utilized in the present study were collected in 59 schools between 2005-2008 as part of a 3-year
bullying prevention initiative in the state of Colorado funded by The Colorado Trust, a private grant-making
foundation.
In addition, focus groups were conducted to corroborate and expand on findings from the survey. Interview
questions were structured to approximate closely information collected in the surveys, while allowing for studentgenerated ideas and insights.
Participants
•7,265 individuals in three age categories (32.5% age 10-12, 49.2% age 13-15, 18.3% age 16-19)
•47.7% male, 52.3% female
•59.1% Non-Latino white, 23.5% Latino, 3.7% African American, 2.9% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.8% Native
American, 9% other
•Focus groups: n = 115 participants approximately equally divided among age, gender, and ethnicity.
Procedure
Surveys were administered in English or Spanish as needed, and collected by trained assistants in schools
using a wireless response pad in classrooms. The data collectors explained the study, read the questions aloud,
and were available for help during survey administration. A small percentage of make-up administrations (less than
2%) were conducted using paper-and-pencil measures. No difficulties in administration for any formats were noted.
The same format and series of open-ended questions were used in each of the focus groups. The focus
groups lasted approximately one hour and were conducted during lunch time or after school on different days
(lunch or snacks were provided). All groups were conducted in private rooms. All comments were audiotape
recorded and later transcribed verbatim.
Results
The results of hierarchical regression analyses for bullying perpetration and victimization are listed in
Tables 1-4. Contrary to previous findings, we found no evidence for an interaction between peer-relational
schema in the prediction of bullying or victimization. There were, however, independent main effects of Selfand Other-schema. Perceptions of others was a significant predictor of bullying at time 2 (B = -.048, p < .01).
The main effect of Self-schema was not a significant predictor of bullying. However, the relationship between
Variable
Victimization (Pre)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
.520***
.506***
.506***
.505***
Age10-12
.051***
.059***
.060***
.060***
Gender
.001
-.002
-.002
-.194*
Non-latino white
.011
-
.013
.013
.013
-.042**
-.023
-.077***
.011
-.015
-
-.021
-
-
Self x Gender
-
-
-.042
-
.219**
Other x Gender
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
-
-
-
-.021
Variable
Bullying (Pre)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
.521***
.515***
.516***
.515***
Age10-12
-.052***
-.041**
-.040**
-.041**
Gender
.075***
.071***
.071***
-.036
Non-latino white
-.035**
-
-.038**
-.038**
-.037**
.002
.047
-.029
Self Schema Pre
Other Schema Pre
-
.026
-.27
Other Schema Pre
-
Self x Other
-
-.048**
-
-
Self x Other
Self x Gender
-
-
-.098
-
.193*
Other x Gender
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
-
-
-
-.084
Self Schema Pre
Tabl e 3. Hierarchica l regression results including Normative Approva l of Bullying predic ting
bullying behavior at time 2.
Tabl e 4. Hierarchica l regression results including Normative Approva l of Bullying predic ting
victimization at time 2.
Variable
Bullying (Pre)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
.521***
.515***
.498***
.498***
Variable
Victimization (Pre)
.520***
.506***
.500***
.500***
Age10-12
-.052***
-.041**
-.048**
-.048**
Age10-12
.051***
.059***
.060***
.061***
Gender
.075***
.071***
.067***
.133
Gender
.001
-.002
.000
.115**
Non-latino white
-.035**
-
-.038**
-.035*
-.034*
Non-latino white
.013
.015
.016
.002
.003
.003
.011
-
-.042**
-.036*
-.035*
Other Schema Pre
-
-.047**
-.048**
Other Schema Pre
-
-.021
-
.067**
Normative Approval
-
-
-
-.080
NormApp x Gender
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
-
-
.023
-
.075**
NormApp x Gender
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
.036*
-
-.021
-
-.020
Normative Approval
-.048**
-
Self Schema Pre
Materials
•Bullying perpetration: 8-item scale; (alpha = .85, e.g., “I pushed, shoved, tripped, or picked fights with students
I know are weaker than me;” Espelage, Holt, and Henkel; 2003)
•Victimization: 4-item scale (alpha = .80, e.g. “A particular student or group of students pushed, shoved, tripped,
or picked fights with me;” Espelage et al., 2003).
•Perceptions of self: 4-item scale (alpha = .796, e.g., “I feel I am just as good as other students”).
•Perceptions of others: 4-item scale (alpha = .804, e.g. “Students my age care about what happens to me”).
•Normative beliefs about bullying: 6-item scale (alpha = .89, e.g., “It is wrong or OK when students push, shove,
or pick fights with weaker students;” Huesmann & Guerra, 1997).
Tabl e 2. Hierarchica l regression results predicting vi ctimization at time 2.
Tabl e 1. Hierarchica l regres sion results predicting bullying behavior at time 2.
Self Schema Pre
-.140**
Discussion
In an attempt to partially replicate the findings of Salmivalli et al. (2005), we found no evidence for a
moderating effect among Self- and Other-schema in the prediction of social behavior. However, our results
suggest that individual social cognitive factors do add independent contributions to the model. Specifically, it
was found that among children and adolescents, a negative perception of others is an indicator of subsequent
bullying, while negative perceptions of one’s self predicted later victimization.
A notable addition of this study is the inclusion of a measure of normative approval of bullying, which was
a significant predictor of bullying perpetration. Endorsement of these beliefs had no independent effect on
victimization, but the relationship was significantly lower for males compared to females. These results indicate
that aggressive behavior may become an effective social currency when it is seen as acceptable within a
normative-contextual schema regardless of whether children feel good or bad about themselves or their peers.
In terms of intervention implications, these results indicate that school anti-bullying programs may benefit
from a focus on the functional use of bullying within a social context in addition to efforts aimed at bolstering
one’s self and other perceptions.
References
Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Adams, R. S. (2004). Empathy, caring, and bullying: Toward an understanding of complex associations. In D.L. Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in
American Schools (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408-419.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000). Bullying at school--an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23(6), 661-674.
Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). "I'm OK but you're not" and other peer-relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children's social goals. Developmental
Psychology, 41(2), 363-375.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2008). Friendships with peers who are low or high in aggression as moderators of the link between peer victimization and
declines in academic functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(5), 719-730.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, Bully/Victims,
and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 672-682.