EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 37(3), 151163 Copyright 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE PELLEGRINI SCHOOL

Bullying, Victimization, and Sexual Harassment During the Transition to Middle School
A. D. Pellegrini
Department of Educational Psychology University of Minnesota

Bullying, in the form of physically, verbally, relationally, or sexually aversive behaviors, increases as youngsters make the transition to middle school. To date, however, policy and research in education and educational psychology has attended only minimally to the social dynamics of school organization or peer groups that may underlie this crisis. We argue that a combination of school- and peer-level factors contribute to bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment. We suggest that adolescents exploration of new social roles and their quest for status among peers are factors motivating aggression, especially as students make the transition from primary to middle school. More disturbing, and less studied, is the finding that adults in schools have a hand, either directly or indirectly, in perpetrating these acts. Suggestions for future research to guide policy are made.

The problem of aggression in schools across the industrialized world is all too visible (see Olweus, 1993a, and Roland, 2000, for Sweden; Pepler, Craig, & Roberts, 1998, for Canada; Rigby, 1997, for Australia; Smith & Brain, 2000, for a review of European research; Smith & Sharp, 1994, for the United Kingdom). The most visible variants of aggression are those presented on the evening news and on the front pages across the nation. The problem is particularly acute in junior high and middle schools, relative to primary and high schools (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1995b). These violent episodes seem to be embedded in a more subtle culture of adolescent aggression during a developmental period characterized by some as brutal (Cairns & Cairns, 1986). For instance, early adolescence witnesses an abrupt increase in aggression as youngsters make the transition from primary to middle school both in the United States (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000a) and across much of the industrialized world (Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999). Correspondingly, children in early adolescence have less negative views of aggression than younger children (Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000b), and more readily accept and affiliate with aggressive peers (Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcombe, 2000; Espelage & Holt, in press; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999).

Requests for reprints should be sent to A. D. Pellegrini, Department of Educational Psychology, 214 Burton Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: pelle013@tc.umn.edu

Despite the magnitude of the problem, the developmental or school contextual factors contributing to the increase and acceptance of aggression are not well understood. Interestingly, little guidance seems to be forthcoming from the American educational research community. In the program for the 2000 meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA; 5 full days of meetings), for example, there were no entries in the subject index for any of the following: aggression, bullying, victimization, or sexual harassment. There was one session on violence prevention (AERA Annual Meeting Program, 2000). Clearly the educational research community needs to get involved. Educational policy should be guided by our best research. If we do not take the leadership in this very serious and highly publicized area, others will. In this article, we argue that research in this area is desperately needed. To stimulate this effort, we offer a preliminary model. Our model presents a combination of peer- and interrelated school-level factors unique to the period of early adolescence and associated forms of schooling, and shows how they contribute to bullying and sexual harassment. Further, the models posits that youngsters quest for dominance or leadership in the peer group leads to initial increases and subsequent decreases in bullying with the transition to middle or junior high school. Dominance, and its aggressive and affiliative components, may be implicated in heterosexual relationships at this time. In some cases, dominance is also implicated in sexual harassment. In keeping with our developmental orientation, we, like others (e.g., Eccles & Midgely, 1989), stress the idea that

152

PELLEGRINI

specific types of middle and junior high school environments can be especially harmful during early adolescence given the increased peer orientation in this period. In the next section we document the ways in which aggression and bullying vary across childhood and adolescence. We explain changes in developmental patterns in terms of the particular demands of most middle and junior high schools, and the quest for peer status characteristic of early adolescence.

AGGRESSION DURING EARLY ADOLESCENCE: BULLYING, VICTIMIZATION, AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT In this section we discuss one form of aggression, bullying, because much of the aggression in schools during early adolescence involves bullying (Boulton, 1994; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Perry, Willard, & Perry, 1990). We do not, however, address broader issues of aggression during adolescence. Our thesis is that bullies victimize their peers in the service of dominance. Further, some youngsters also bully as part of their initial explorations of heterosexual relationships. In this section we will first define bullying and victimization. Next, we examine the possible connections between bullying and later aggression in the form of sexual harassment and aggression in heterosexual relationships.

Bullies and Victims Bullying is defined as a form of social aggression that persists over time. It is also characterized by imbalance, in that a more dominant, and typically bigger and tougher, individual repeatedly victimizes a smaller and weaker subordinate individual. Bullying can be direct and physical, based on physical intimidation (e.g., either hitting or threatening to hit) or indirect and based on relational or social aggression (e.g., using rumors or innuendo to damage a peers reputation). Boys engage in bullying more frequently than girls (e.g., Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Boulton & Smith, 1990; Olweus, 1993b; Smith & Sharp, 1994). Bullying in early adolescence typically takes the form of boys victimizing other boys, and less frequently, boys victimizing girls, either directly or with sexually aversive behaviors (Pellegrini et al., 1999; Pellegrini, 2001). Further, girls have more negative attitudes toward bullying than boys (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000b), especially toward relational aggression (Galen & Underwood, 1997). Nevertheless, when girls are involved in bullying, they, more than boys, use relational, indirect, or social aggression (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick, Nelson, Morales, Cullerton-Sen, Casas, & Hickman, 2001). Bullying, viewed as a form of proactive aggression, is motivated to achieve some end. In early adolescence, bullying is

often motivated by issues associated with peer status, and effective bullies (i.e., individuals who get their way with peers) are often leaders of peer cliques (Pellegrini et al., 1999; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Prinstein & Cohen, 2001; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Thus bullying can be a deliberate tactic used to achieve peer status. Some youngsters are both bullies and victims. These provocative, or aggressive, victims tend to be more emotional than their peers and, unlike bullies, their aggression is reactive rather than proactive (Olweus, 1993a; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993; Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001). Specifically, aggressive victims, unlike bullies, have been shown to be emotionally hot. That is, they tend to loose their tempers quite easily and act, often aggressively, before thinking about the consequences of the act. Aggressive victims are also ineffectual aggressors to the extent that their violent acts are typically provoked by and in reaction to their peers (Schwartz et al., 2001). As a result of this combination of volatility and ineffective use of aggression, aggressive victims are disliked by most of their peers and have low status. Indeed, when these youngsters are targets of violent acts by their peers, they receive little if any peer sympathy or condemnation of the perpetrators (Perry et al., 1990). Some news media portrayals of perpetrators of extreme cases of school violence are consistent with those of aggressive victims. Taking perhaps the most visible example, in Littleton Colorado the perpetrators of the school violence may have targeted Jocks because the Jocks were perceived to have excluded and repeatedly picked on others. The lack of sympathy for certain victims seems to be part of a larger problem in early adolescence, in that aggression is viewed less negatively in many peer cultures during middle school years relative to earlier and later periods of development (Cairns & Cairns, 1986; Coie, Terry, Zabriski, & Lochman, 1995; Espelage & Holt, in press; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Moffitt, 1993; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001).The typically negative and significant correlations between bullying and peer status during childhood are attenuated during early adolescence (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990). In some cases the relations actually reverse, becoming positive and significant (Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Luther & McMahon, 1996; Pellegrini et al, 1999). Correspondingly, some evidence suggests that aggressive adolescents are central members of peer networks (Cairns, Cairns, Neckeman, Gest, & Gariepy, 1988), even among popular youngsters (Prinstein & Cohen, 2001). Ordinarily good kids may use or tolerate aggressive behavior and affiliate with bullies in limited ways to explore new social roles and challenge adult-endorsed social norms (Moffitt, 1993). Thus, aggressive youngsters at this point have relatively high peer status. Clearly, more research is needed to explicate the attractiveness of aggressive youth during early adolescence. We also need to know what differentiates those youngsters who

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL

153

continue to affiliate with aggressive peers from those who do not. It may be, as suggested by Coie and Dodge (1998), that disaffection with school and its social norms leads to youngsters alienation from normative peer groups. Aggressive students become an alienated adolescents peer group by default (Coie & Dodge, 1998).

BULLYING, HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND SEXUAL HARRASSMENT Increases in bullying and youngsters concerns with peer affiliation, status, and role definition in early adolescence correspond to increases in interest in heterosexual relationships, in the form of increased informal contact in school, as well as at parties, dances, and in dating (Maccoby, 1998). For example, youngsters first sexual experiences often occur at ages 14 to 15 years (Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1989). Also at this time we witness high rates of sexual harassment, defined as any deliberate and repeated physical or verbal sexual behaviors that are not welcomed by and are deleterious to the recipients (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 1993; Fitzgerald, 1993). Relations between bullying and sexual harassment, as we explicate in more detail below, may be due to the fact that both boys and girls use physically rough strategies, such as pushing, poking, and shoving, in their initial heterosexual encounters (Maccoby, 1998). Some aggressive boys may continue to use these strategies in a less than playful, harassing way (Craig, Pepler, Connolly, & Henderson, 2001). The educational implications of sexual harassment are negative. According to the AAUW (1993) report, most frequently (in some 40% of cases) being sexually harassed results in not going to school or to specific classes. In extreme cases (including one heard by the U.S. Supreme Court) victims consider suicide (AAUW, 1993; Fitzgerald, 1993). In school settings, perpetrators of sexual harassment can be either students or adults (AAUW, 1993; Fitzgerald, 1993). In close to 50% of the cases of reported sexual harassment in school, the harassment is proactive (e.g., to get a date, to exhibit power; AAUW, 1993). In terms of its proactive nature, then, sexual harassment resembles bullying. This leads to our speculation that in some cases, bullying in early adolescence may take the form of sexual harassment. Preliminary evidence from a multi-method, multi-agent longitudinal study suggests that the male perpetrators of sexual harassment at the end of middle school were bullies in elementary school and during the first year of middle school (Pellegrini, 2001). The role of bullying in predicting sexual harassment, however, is qualified by the high interests these students have in heterosexual relationships. That is, males who are both bullies and have high, relative to low, interests in heterosexual relationships are likely to sexually harass their female peers. Further, consistent with the view that ef-

fective aggressors are peer group leaders at this point in development is the finding that some females actually find aggressive boys attractive, at least at a hypothetical level (Bukowski et al., 2000; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001). This issue will be explored in greater depth later. In short, bullying, in the form of physically, verbally, or sexually aversive behaviors, increases as youngsters make the transition to middle school. In some cases, schools and peer groups seem to be supporting this behavior. The persistence and seriousness of both bullying and sexual harassment has recently (in 1998 and 1999) lead the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that schools were liable for damages to victimized and sexual harassed students. Justice Sandra Day O Connor, noted that sexual harassment in school can be so severe that it denies victims equal access to education. In the next section of this paper we describe the onset of bullying in early adolescence and demonstrate the degree to which it varies according to the school context in which it is embedded.

INCREASES IN BULLYING AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT DURING THE TRANSITION FROM PRIMARY TO MIDDLE OR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Overall bullying, like other forms of aggressive and violent behavior, decreases across the school years (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998; Olweus, 1993a; Smith et al., 1999). Decreases continue, even during the period of early adolescence. However, these decreases must be qualified, as school organization influences them.

Changing Schools During Early Adolescence The rate and stability of bullying during early adolescence varies systematically according to school organizational factors. Specifically, declines in aggression continue across the school years, except in those cases in which youngsters make the transition from primary to middle school during early adolescence. When youngsters change schools at this point there is first an increase in bullying, and then the decline resumes following the transition. In cases where youngsters of the same age do not change schools, the decline continues without the brief spike seen in cases where children change schools. That this trend is more robust for boys than girls (as evidenced in Smith et al., 1999), is consistent with the view that aggression is more important for boys status with their peers (Maccoby, 1998). We present data from a number of large scale studies to document these claims. The data presented in Table 1, for the most part are based on large, often nationally representative, samples. The questionnaires used with children are typically

154

PELLEGRINI TABLE 1 Percentages of Boys Reporting They Were Bullied From Several Studies in the United States and Abroad by Age, School, and Country Country Australia 1 Australia 2 Sweden and Norway United States Ireland England End Primary Years 24 19 11 10 12 years old 10 14 Enters Secondary School 22 21 11 12 13 years old 9 13 Remainder Secondary School 16 11 6 14 years old 5 10

Note. Sample sizes for each group are as follows: Australia 1 and 24,000 and 5,500 (Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999); Sweden and Norway83,211 (Olweus, 1993); United States24,060 (NCES, 1995a); Ireland20,000 (Smith et al., 1999); England7,000 (Smith et al, 1999).

self-reports, asking them questions such as, How often have you taken part in bullying other students in school? Do you think its fun to make fun of other students? and, How often have you been bullied in school this term? In Olweuss (1993a) pioneering large scale studies in Norway and Sweden, he reported that the decline is most marked for primary school children, and that at junior high school, relative to primary school, the slope of the decline is less steep. Olweuss data, as presented in Table 1, shows a small but significant (although he does not provide significance tests) increase in boys self-reported victimization from primary school (10.7%) to junior high school (11.3%). Other data also support the finding that the decrement in bullying is reversed with the initial transition to middle school and then resumes its decline. In two Australian studies (Rigby, 1996; 1997, cited in Smith et al., 1999) bullying decreased across the primary school years, increased with the transition to secondary school, and then after the transition resumed its decline. In two American studies, similar trends were reported. In the National Household Education Survey (NCES, 1995b), a national sample of students in grades 6 through 12 was surveyed, and rates of bullying increased from primary to middle or junior high school, and then declined in high school. In another study with American youngsters, using a multi-method longitudinal design, Pellegrini and Bartini (2000b) found that boys bullying scores increased significantly from the end of primary school to the start of middle school, and then decreased significantly at the end of the first year of middle school (p <. 02). This pattern changes, however, if students stay in the same schools during this same age period. Specifically, if one examines the data in Table 1 during the period of early adolescence (12 to 13 years of age) for youngsters who stay in the same school during this time (in English and Irish schools), we find in both cases continued decreases in self-reported bullying (although no tests of significance were calculated on these data). The trends reported in Table 1 appear to be robust. The data have been replicated in different countries with different research teams. In most cases, the sample sizes were large and

nationally representative. One possible limitation to the national survey data is that we do not know the extent to which response bias may have affected the results. This likelihood, however, seems low given the large sample sizes and the similar findings across sites. In what follows, we analyze factors that may be causing the increases in bullying when early adolescents move from primary to middle or junior high school. Our discussion centers on youngsters being embedded in peer groups which are, in turn, embedded in schools (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Eccles & Midgely, 1989). There are many specific features of middle and junior high schools which may be responsible for the documented increases in bullying presented in Table 1. It has been suggested that characteristics of most middle and junior high schools, relative to primary schools, are partially responsible for these increases in bullying. These characteristics include large and impersonal classes (Simmons & Blyth, 1987; United States Department of Education [USDE], 1998), stress on competition and social comparisons between peers (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; USDE, 1998), and teachers attitudes toward bullying (e.g., Its part of life and kids have to learn to deal with it; Eslea & Smith, 1998). Additionally, a lack of school community characteristic of secondary schools relative to primary schools, such as youngsters not having a consistent cohort of individuals in their classes across the day, and having a number of different teachers, can encourage subtle forms of bullying by peers (e.g., denigrating peers efforts or honesty) because it suggests that students do not support each other (Eccles et al., 1998; USDE, 1998). The effects of increased competition and school size on bullying have been studied directly in Norway and Sweden by Olweus (1993b), and he reported no relation between these factors and bullying. Correspondingly, Rutter (1983) found no relations between school size and aggression among high school students. How can the disparate results be reconciled? Effects of school characteristics vary with the type of school and the age group under study. The results presented by Olweus (1993a) are for aggregates across primary and secondary schools. The Rutter (1983) results are for high schools. It may be that a competitive school ethos and school

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL

155

size effects are dependent on whether or not adolescents change schools or stay in the same school, as indicated by the data in Table 1. Archival data, such as those compiled by the NCES, might be used to further examine relations between school size and aggression in different types of schools during early adolescence. Assuming that school characteristic effects can be documented in the transition year, one question becomes, what might there be about small and cooperative schools that minimizes bullying? It may be that youngsters are less likely to be aggressive when they are with peers with whom they are familiar and close. Familiarity and, subsequently, closeness, is facilitated by keeping youngsters in physical proximity (Hartup, 1983). Repeated contact between youngsters, in turn, leads to their becoming friends (Hartup, 1996). Organizationally, this can be accomplished by keeping youngsters in intact cohorts during a school year, and in some cases, across years. This is in contrast to many secondary schools where childrens classmates change numerous times across the day. That familiarity and closeness of peers should maximize cooperation and minimize aggression is consistent with the theory of reciprocal altruism. The theory posits that cooperation and aggression between individuals is determined by the costs and benefits to each participant associated with using each strategy. In a group that is stable (membership does not change rapidly or repeatedly), an aggressive or a cooperative act will elicit a similar act from a peer, quid pro quo: Aggression elicits aggression and cooperation elicits cooperation. The former strategy is costly to both parties (e.g., injury, sanction) and has fewer benefits (only one or neither may attain their goal) relative to the costs. Cooperation has fewer costs (no injury or sanction), and greater benefits (higher likelihood than both parties will attain their goals; cooperative acts are reciprocated). Consequently, cooperative acts are generally used more than aggressive acts in stable groups. This quid pro quo logic only works if individuals meet repeatedly across time. In cases where individuals do not meet repeatedly, there is a correspondingly low likelihood that the costs associated with aggression will be reciprocated, thus it pays to be aggressive and it costs to be cooperative in transient but not in stable groups. Support for the theory of reciprocal altruism exists at a number of levels. First, computer simulations, based on the Prisoners Dilemma, provide support for the ways in which cooperation develops in the context of anticipating repeated interactions (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). On the other hand, antisocial behavior occurs and is supported in single-encounter scenarios. Specifically, when individuals know that they will meet repeatedly, they are more likely to cooperate with each other than if they know they will only meet once. Any costs incurred with cooperation, such as being exploited, will be minimized as they reap the benefits of partners cooperative acts. By the same logic, they will not be aggressive in this context because they know aggression will be reciprocated with repeated meeting. The assumptions here is that cooperative acts

will be reciprocated and each actor benefits accordingly. With reciprocated aggression, costs outweigh benefits for both actors. Aggression is more likely to pay off when actors only meet once, so that initial aggressive acts are not reciprocated. There is also experimental support from a study of primary school children (Pellegrini, Melhuish, & Jones, 2002). In this experiment, 192 initially unfamiliar children were asked to interact on each of four occasions. Two conditions were established. Pairs of children were either told they would play together for four sessions, or that they would meet a new playmate for each of four sessions. Children in the former condition resolved more conflicts than those in the latter group in three out of the four observations, and these results were significant using analyses of variance at the .05 probability level. That familiarity results in cooperation is also consistent with the social psychological literature showing that mere exposure enhances attractiveness (Zajonc, 1980) and increases the probability of receiving help (Baer, Goldman, & Juhnke, 1977). Lastly, smaller, relative to larger, schools may inhibit bullying because of the amount of direct supervision afforded in smaller schools (USDE, 1998). Data from a number of sources document effects of supervision on bullying. Olweus (1993a), Pellegrini and Bartini (2000b), and Smith and Sharp (1994) all found the inhibiting effect of adult supervision of students on rates of bullying. Olweus (1993a) found a negative and significant relation (r = .45, based on data from 700 schools, p value was not reported) between the number of adults supervising students free time and occurrence of bullying in both primary and secondary schools. Similarly, Boulton (1994) reported the inhibiting effects on bullying of adult supervision on the school playground. Specifically, training playground supervisors reduced rates of various bullying behaviors by an order of 40% to 50% (the decreases were noted as statistically significant using analyses of variance, though p values were not reported). The USDE (1998) also stressed the role of supervision in reducing bullying. More work is needed on teachers and other school personnels roles in bullying. Teacher self-reports of the problem may bias results. Social desirability and workplace pressures to conform to local norms probably underrepresent the problem. Use of student questionnaires as well as long term direct observations of teacherstudent interactions by neutral third parties are necessary to obtain objective data. Where objective data exist, as with Boultons (1994) work in Sheffield England, reductions in child-reported bullying were documented after lunch-time supervisors attended awareness training sessions. It may be, as noted above, that an initial step in the process of reducing bullying involves changing teachers attitudes toward bullying. PEER-LEVEL FACTORS Peer groups are embedded in schools, and peer group configurations in different sorts of schools are implicated in bully-

156

PELLEGRINI

ing. Peer relations are especially important in the lives of early adolescents given their increased orientation to peers (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). While two dimensions of peer relations, the dyad and the group, have contributed to our understanding of bullying and victimization, most research has been concerned with the dyadic level. For example, bullyvictim relationships are often described (e.g., Coie & Christopoulos, 1989; Dodge & Coie, 1989). Further, a certain form of peer relationship, friendship, inhibits victimization (Perry et al., 2001, for a summary). Less research has been concerned with the larger peer group as a context for bullying and victimization (Bukowski & Sippola, 2001). In this section we discuss two different group level models of bullying and victimization. In the first model, Bukowski and Sippola (2001) theorize that victimization is a result of the conflict between group goals (in achieving cohesion, homogeneity, and evolution) and individuals goals. Cohesion is defined as the interconnection between individuals in the group. Homogeneity is defined in terms of the groups agreement on important issues. Evolution refers to changes within the group. To the extent that individuals facilitate or impede realization of these goals, they achieve positive leadership status or negative victimization status. From this view, leadership in a group is achieved by individuals who help the group, not themselves as individuals, achieve its goals. The groups goal attainment, and ultimately its survival, not that of the individual, is critical in this model. Individuals who impede the groups achievement of its goals are likely to be victimized. The goal of victimization, from this view, is to exclude or banish those who impede group goal attainment from the group. As goals of the group change, so too should those being victimized. To illustrate, take the case of aggressive victims. These youngsters will be victimized as they interfere with group cohesion. That is, aggression is often dispersive (McGrew, 1972), and thus weakens the links between individuals within the group. Aggressive victims also disrupt homogeneity to the extent that they promote their own views to the exclusion of the views of others. Lastly, that aggressive victims are unpredictable means that they often make group change very difficult. Bukowski and Sippolas (2001) model also accounts for high levels of bullying in early adolescence. As noted above, adolescence, relative to childhood, is a period during which youngsters become more oriented toward their peer group. It is also a time when there is great press for within-group homogeneity. Peer groups are becoming larger and more diverse in secondary schools. Bukowski and Sippolas model predicts that the confluence of these factors will result in the increases in bullying and victimization during the period of early adolescence. The second model, illustrated in Table 2, also recognizes the importance of group dynamics in bullying and victimization (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000a, 2001; see also Prinstein & Cohen, 2001, for independent support of this model). By way of preview, our model is a social dominance model of bully-

ing. It proposes that bullying increases as youngsters make the transition to middle school. They bully in response to their declining dominance status at the transition. Bullying is used as an initial strategy to increase dominance status. Bullying decreases after the transition to a new school and as dominance status increases. Victims are targets of bullies, and by having affiliates their victimization is moderated. That is, affiliates may protect youngsters from being victimized. Further, bullies do not want to victimize peers who have affiliates because it would harm the bullys social status. Like the Bukowski and Sippola (2001) model, the dominance model presented in Table 2 also suggests that group bullying and victimization should occur when groups and their goals change or are disrupted, as in the case of changing schools. Our model differs from Bukowski and Sippola most fundamentally to the extent that it stresses the importance of the individuals motives, not the individuals concern for the group goal. This is a position consistent with social dominance theory (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000), which considers the individual, not the group, as the unit of selection. From this view, groups are organized vertically, and individuals compete with each other for available resources using both aggressive and cooperative means. This process results in a dominance hierarchy. The most dominant individual has first claim on available resources. In adolescence, peer status and heterosexual relationships are important resources for which individuals compete. This is not to say that individuals are not concerned with reaching and maintaining group goals. Indeed, we argue that once dominance hierarchies are established, group-level aggression decreases and all members of the group benefit. Further, as long as group membership remains stable, cooperation, not aggression, should characterize group behavior. Cooperation, in turn, maximizes the likelihood that group members will reach their goals (Axelrod & Hamiltion, 1981). More specifically, leadership status, especially for adolescent boys, is often established by using physically aversive (e.g., hitting peers), verbally aversive (e.g., name calling), and affiliative strategies (e.g., reconciliation; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Vaughn, 1999; Vaughn & Waters, 1981). Our evidence for this claim is based on data from a study of 87 boys in the first year of middle school. At the beginning of the first year of middle school, we observed positive and significant correlations between two measures of aggression and dominance (r = .38, p < .001, and r = .26, p < .05). Relations between dominance and affiliation were not significant (rs ranged from .01 to .05). Towards the end of the year, the correlation pattern was reversed (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001). Aggression was not related to dominance (rs ranged from .13 to .19) but both measures of affiliation were related to dominance (r = .42, p < .01 and r = .26, p < .05). Boys used aggression to establish dominance at the beginning of the year, and once dominance was established they used affiliative strategies, possibly to consolidate power. For example, leaders often used an

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL TABLE 2 A Preliminary Model for Bullying, Dominance, and Heterosexual Relationships at the Transition From Primary to Middle or Junior High School As Middle School As Primary School Ends Bullying Dominance Victimization Peer affiliation Note. SH = senior high. Begins Increases Decreases Bullying and affiliation (Negative) affiliation (Negative) victimization Continues Decreases Increases Dating Victimization Victimization Ends SH (or possibility of SH) Stable Dating Victimization Victimization

157

aversive strategy in an initial confrontation to establish status. After they won that encounter, they often attempted to reconcile defeated individuals and gain their support. As a result of a series of aversive and affiliative exchanges, as well as other factors, different role relationships between individuals formed. From this view, it is not surprising that some bullies are held in relatively high regard by their peers. Once leadership and status is established, aggression between individuals is minimized as all parties recognize their status in relation to each other. Consequently, lower status individuals do not usually challenge higher status individuals (except in cases of provocative victims) because of the high likelihood of defeat and humiliation relative to possible benefits. If a subordinate challenges an individual of higher status, the subordinate usually loses (e.g., Boulton & Smith, 1990). As noted earlier in our discussion of the theory of reciprocal altruism, the stability of relationships between individuals also supports subsequent cooperation, inhibits aggression, and maximizes the likelihood of goal attainment. FROM LEADERSHIP AND BULLYING TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT DURING THE TRANSITION TO MIDDLE SCHOOL We suggest that both the affiliative and aggressive dimensions of leadership should relate to heterosexual relationships at the end of middle school, as the use of both strategies is indicative of a more general social competence (Vaughn, 1999). Leaders use aggression where they deem necessary and then use affiliative strategies to repair any social damage done. This proposition has been supported empirically. Using a longitudinal model to predict dating in a sample of 138 middle school boys, we found that boys affiliative and bully status at the start of middle school predicted their being invited by girls to a hypothetical date at the end of the period (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001). Physical attractiveness across the middle school period, as a control variable, and peer affiliation (i.e., like most nominations and social network peer nomi-

nations) were entered into the predictive regression equation. Next, an aggregate measure of peer and self-reported aggression was entered. Aggression accounted for unique variance in heterosexual relations beyond that accounted for with physical attractiveness and peer affiliation (R2 = .18, p < .07). This finding is consistent with other work indicating that in early adolescence, and with the transition to middle school, Canadian girls become more tolerant of aggression in boys (Bukowski et al., 2000). Specifically, using a longitudinal design across a 12-month period, girls were more tolerant of aggression in boys after the transition to middle school than before. This tolerance is embedded in a context of increasing sexual harassment in middle school (McMaster, Connolly, & Craig, 1997; Pellegrini, 2001). These findings, in turn, support the idea that agonistic strategies with peers are both common and relatively acceptable in the period of early adolescence, unlike earlier periods in development. These results suggest that dating choices, at least in early adolescence, are probably determined by the partners status in the larger peer group rather than by personal commitment (Bukowski et al., 2000; Downey, Bonica, & Rincon, 1999). Further, heterosexual relationships at this point seem to serve as social status symbols among peers, not as a source of closeness and commitment. The lack of commitment in these early relationships is also supported by their relatively short duration (Downey et al., 1999). In light of this concern with status, it is not surprising that the aggressive dimension of dominance predicted dating. That the aggressive dimension of leadership predicted heterosexual relationships is important as well as troubling, and certainly merits future study. An important developmental question for further research concerns the extent to which these patterns change after early adolescence. It may be that during early adolescence, aggressive youth are accepted by their peers for a short period, as their nonaggressive peers search for independence and autonomy by associating with different groups (Moffitt, 1993). At what point, however, do girls avoid aggressive boys and vice versa? Are there ante-

158

PELLEGRINI

cedent conditions, such as peer rejection sensitivity, that predict girls selecting and staying with an aggressive partner (Graham & Juvonen, 1998)? Alternatively, is the use of aggressive strategies in heterosexual relationships a crude, and in some ways and immature, way of interacting with the opposite sex (Craig et al., 2001)? For example, in early stages of romantic relationships boys and girls both use what Maccoby (1998) has labeled pushing and poking courtship (p. 70). That is, they often hit at or poke their opposite sex peer as a strategy to initiate contact (Thorne, 1986). Certainly much more research is needed in this area, as the relations between bullying and heterosexual relationships and bullying and sexual harassment have been only recently studied. It is also important to consider the extent to which different sorts of conflict, including physical aggression, relate to individual relationships and dyadic cohesion. Some evidence suggests that conflict and subsequent reconciliation actually enhance dyadic cohesion. In support of this notion, Downey and colleagues (1999) reported that, in the context of romantic relationships, some adolescent girls commitment to relationships increased after conflict (though no levels of satisfaction or p values were presented). It would be interesting to examine the trajectories of different sorts of conflicts (e.g., physical fights and verbal disagreements over money) and the moderating role of reconciliations in these paths.

good information on the effect of specific variables on bullying. Further, in the cases of the Norwegian studies, information is provided on differential effects due to differences in implementation. Recommendations made in this section are based on the direct empirical evidence of the cited research. Some of this same evidence has also been used in a policy document produced by the U.S. Department of Education (1998b). Although this latter document does not rely exclusively on empirical evidence (p. 32), it does provide ideas that can be tested directly.

Naturalistic Studies Naturalistic studies of bullying and victimization suggest that at a very basic school-level, attitudes about and perceptions of bullying relate to frequency of bullying. We begin with the role of teachers.

INHIBITING BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Changing aggressive behavior is difficult, and correspondingly efforts to reduce bullying in schools are also very difficult. Indeed, and as we see in this section, many well-designed intervention programs have had only equivocal success. In an effort to maximize success, programs involve community members, families, and schools (e.g., USDE, 1998). Although we recognize the importance of such a wide scope, we concentrate here on two specific factors at the school- and peer-levels that inhibit bullying and victimization, because of their relative importance (e.g., Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000b; Perry et al., 2001; Smith & Sharp, 1994). This discussion is based on data drawn from both naturalistic and intervention studies documenting factors that inhibit victimization in middle school. The naturalistic studies documenting relations between school- and peer-level factors and bullying, while limited in terms of causal inferences allowed, provide interesting case studies of students and schools efforts to combat bullying. The intervention studies are drawn primarily from the nationwide antibullying programs in Norway and England (See Smith & Brain, 2000, for an overview). These studies were chosen for review because they are well-designed interventions and evaluations, so they provide us with reasonably

School-level factors. Research (e.g., OMoore, 2000; Olweus, 1993a, 1993b) suggests that some middle school teachers do not perceive bullying as a problem and consequently do not discourage it. Teachers are especially likely to ignore bullying if it involves indirect aggression, rather than physical and verbal aggression (Birkinshaw & Eslea, 1998). Using analyses of variance, Birkinshaw and Eslea found that teachers were more likely (p < .001) to rate physical and verbal aggression as bullying, compared to indirect aggression. Indeed, in many cases teachers assumed that students should be able to deal with harassment on their own. Teachers sometimes considered bullying to be part of growing up and felt the associated experiences may prove valuable in later life (Smith & Brain, 2000, p. 3)! This stance by teachers probably contributes to the fact that most victimized youngsters do not report problems with bullies to their teachers (e.g., OMoore, 2000; Smith & Shu, 2000). For example, in England Smith and Shu found that 30% of school children from 10 to 14 years of age did not tell anyone that they were bullied and this rate increased significantly with age (using analysis of variance, p < .01). Further, data on sexual harassment from a nationally representative sample of high school students in the United States suggest that adults in schools contribute to the culture of victimization, either implicitly (by tolerating it) or directly (as perpetrators; AAUW, 1993). For example, when youngsters reported being sexually harassed in school, in 18% of the cases from this study the perpetrator was an adult in the school, such as a teacher or janitor. Other research has shown that the problem is not so much that teachers tolerate or model bullying but that they are simply unaware of the problem. Teachers are among the last to know that youngsters are being bullied (49.7% reported not knowing), relative to peers (28.2% of whom reported not knowing). Even 46.6% of parents reported not knowing that

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL

159

youngsters are being bullied (Smith & Shu, 2000). Nevertheless, when youngsters do tell teachers that they are being victimized, teachers are perceived as trying to do something about it (Smith & Shu, 2000). Fifty- five percent of the students in Smith and Shus study reported that things got better when they told teachers, while 28% reported that nothing had changed and 16% reported that things actually got worse. Making teachers aware of the problem of bullying, and changing attitudes among some teachers, seems to be an important first step in reducing the problem (Roland, 2000; USDE, 1998). This is often accomplished by making public the negative repercussions of bullying and then examining corresponding changes in rates of bullying. Historical analyses support the notion that bullying is reduced after the negative impact of bullying is publicized (Smith & Shu, 2000). Again, when Smith and Shu surveyed a large sample of English youngsters (10 to 14 years of age) they found a decline in self-reported rates of bullying following nationally publicized anti- bullying campaigns. For example, self-reported rates of victimization and bullying in England were 16.3% and 10.5%, respectively, among all children before intervention, and 12.2% and 2.9% after intervention. The authors posit that the first step in countering bullying may involve stopping the culture of silence. That is, most victimized children tend not to tell others that they are being bullied. When they do, however, bullying is inhibited. Students themselves use a variety of strategies to avoid being bullied on school grounds. A national survey of American school children (NCES, 1995a), showed that for middle and junior high school students, staying away from certain locations at school accounted for 43% of the strategies students reported, a significant percentage. This finding is consistent with other research which suggests that bullying occurs in those parts of the schools which are poorly supervised (Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1998; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000b). The most commonly used strategy (mentioned by 49% of students who noted strategies) involved students staying in a group of peers. Being alone makes one more vulnerable to bullying. A number of naturalistic studies suggest that the peer group can be an important factor in bullying. This should not be surprising in light of our claim that bullying, especially in early adolescence, is used in the service of attaining and maintaining peer status.

ship nominations individuals received in fifth grade negatively and significantly predicted victimization at sixth grade, 2 after controlling fifth grade victimization, (R = .36, p < .002). Affiliation with a large number of peers may minimize victimization because of possible social sanctions. That is, victimizing youngsters with friends and acquaintances may result in bullies losing status with peers. As peer status is important during this period, children with peer affiliations should not be victimized. When a victim has a large number of affiliates, bullies risk social disapproval, as well as possible retaliation, for attacks on these youngsters. Support for this proposition can be found in cases where victimized youngsters tend to be those liked by few children (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000b). For example, victimization is negatively correlated with popularity (r = .48, p <. 01; Pellegrini et al., 1999). Further, when certain types of children are victimized by bullies, their peers do not see anything wrong with it (Perry et al., 1990). Similarly, affiliating with certain types of peers inhibits victimization. If a victim has an affiliate who is tough or a bully, retaliation on the victims behalf is likely (Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997; Pellegrini et al., 1999). For example, Hodges and colleagues (1997) found that victimization was negatively related to the strength ratings of victims friends (r = .27, p < .05). While having friends and affiliates inhibits victimization, not having friends and being rejected by peers contribute to victimization in the first place (Perry et al., 2001). The lack of social skills that contribute to youngsters not having friends and affiliates is also an antecedent to being victimized. As noted above in the discussion of aggressive victims, a hot temper and a lack of social skills leads to victimization. Thus, it may be the case that youngsters need social skills training to enable them to make friends (Boulton et al., 1999). Experimental and longitudinal work is needed to determine the role of social skills training on victimization.

Intervention Studies Intervention studies provide more direct evidence on causal factors involved in bullying. Although there are numerous interventions taking place (see Smith & Brain, 2000, for a summary), in many cases the results are only just becoming available. Results of the intervention studies in Scandinavia and England, however, are established and are thus most informative. The success of these studies has been mixed. Specifically, in one case (Olweuss project in Norway), bullying was reduced by 50% following the intervention (using a pretest, intervention, and posttest design; Olweus, 1993b). At the same time, and also as part of the same program in Norway, Rolands (2000) program had a very small impact, and in some schools bullying actually increased. Roland explains these differences in terms of the differences in the degree to

Peer-level factors. Two peer group factors have been implicated in the inhibition of victimization: Friendships and the size of affiliative peer groups. Friendships are dyadic relationships characterized by mutuality, reciprocity, and trust (Hartup, 1996). Having friends and being embedded in a larger peer network inhibit victimization (Boulton, Trueman, Chau, Whitehand, & Amatya, 1999; Hodges & Perry, 1999; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000b; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). For example, Pellegrini and Bartini (2000b) found that the number of like most and reciprocated friend-

160

PELLEGRINI

which the programs were implemented and monitored. Specifically, in Olweuss project there was a whole school support system established, monitored, and reinforced. In Rolands schools, they merely handed out materials to principals with little if any monitoring and follow-up. A whole school policy was adopted by Smith and colleagues (Smith & Sharp, 1994) in schools in Sheffield, England, and bullying was reduced 15% to 20%, a level substantially lower than that reported by Olweus (1993b). In the work by Smith and colleagues there were also cases where bullying increased (Eslea & Smith, 1998). These results point to the difficulty in reducing bullying. This should not be surprising in light of the fact that aggression is relatively stable (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Olweus, 1979), and is indeed valued by much of the adolescent culture. The cases with the greatest success utilize a whole-school policy, consistent with Rolands (2000) findings.

School-level interventions. The whole-school policy, as used in Sheffield, England, is exemplary because it has a solid empirical base and makes an effort to match dimensions of the program to rates of bullying. It is also in many ways consistent with the advice provided by the U.S. Department of Education (1998). Although this program is school-based, it has peer and family components, each of which interact dialectically. The program has four components: Identifying a need for policy, policy development, policy implementation, and evaluation. The first component, identifying a need for policy, relates to the motivation of participants to change problem behavior. Participants must see the need for change if they are to commit resources to change. Need is typically established by documenting specific cases of bullying in schools. This entails not only providing general statistics relating to occurrence but also presenting individual and personal cases of the effects of bullying on individual students, teachers, and staff members. As noted above, making public the problem breaks the culture of silence which, in turn, helps to reduce bullying. Importantly, Eslea and Smith (1998) found that bullying did not increase in any school where victims told staff about being bullied. Policy development should involve all parties, as each may have a unique perspective on the problem. Although professional educators are sometime reluctant to engage with students and families as coequals in educational policy, such a collaboration is crucial for a number of reasons. For example, as noted earlier, students know about places in the school where bullying occurs. Also, when students do tell someone that they are being bullied it is unlikely to be a teacher; thus, all parties should be involved as they are all stake holders in the process. If change is to occur, inclusive participation is necessary. More pragmatically, having more people involved in the process helps with the massive amount of work re-

quired in policy development, implementation, and evaluation. After a policy is developed, it must be implemented. Minimally, all parties need to understand the nature of bullying. Next, and once a policy is established, it needs to be distributed throughout the community so that all stakeholders are aware of the policy to be implemented. Additionally, in most cases some sort of further training is necessary to implement programs. For example, teachers and students may need help in their efforts to counsel victimized students. Effective models have used in-house experts to train participants in different dimensions of the project. Lastly, evaluation is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the program. Program components which are effective should be accentuated and ineffective components either changed or eliminated. Whole-school policies are effective in minimizing bullying, but the task is a difficult one. Effective programs do, however, share some common attributes. First, and most basically, the whole process should be inclusive. As noted above, the reluctance to include certain parties in discussions of educational policy needs to be overcome. Second, leadership is important. In effective programs there is usually one individual, be it principal, teacher, counselor, parent, or a cadre of individuals, committed to taking a leadership role. Leaders are necessary to manage the multiple tasks and parties involved in this process. To restate an important finding, interventions are most effective when they create an atmosphere where victimized students feel comfortable in telling teachers about their problems.

Peer-level interventions. Whole-school interventions also have peer components. In this section, we will give some empirical support for peer-level interventions as they relate to the USDEs Guide to safe schools (USDE, 1998). Many of the recommendations of the USDE report are based on empirical findings, but some are not. In the latter cases, expert opinion is the basis for recommendations. These recommendations should be treated as hypotheses to be tested. As with the recommendations and findings of Eslea and Smith (1998), the USDE recommends that peers be encouraged and supported in sharing their concerns over being bullied. At that point, peers should encourage the victimized child to get help from a trusted adult in the school, such as a counselor, school psychologist, or teacher. Peer rejection and isolation are clearly risk factors in victimization (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1998; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000a; Perry et al., 2001; USDE, 1998). There have been numerous peer interventions to remediate this problem. For the most part, these interventions take the form of teaching youngsters social skills that should attenuate their rejection and isolation and increase their acceptance by peers (Coie & Koeppl, 1990). As noted above, friends and peer affiliates serve as buffers against victimization.

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL

161

A goal of some of these peer programs is to teach both rejected and friendless youngsters (typically primary school children) those social skills necessary to initiate and maintain positive social contact (Coie & Koeppl, 1990). Some of the skills taught through coaching sessions include teaching youngsters how to initiate contact, use clearer language with peers, and pay attention to what others are doing. The most successful programs (successful in terms of increasing observed positive social contacts with peers and increased peer ratings) involve training children to use and monitor their use of verbal strategies in asking questions, making suggestions, and supporting peers (Bierman, 1986, and Ladd, 1981, as cited in Coie & Koeppl, 1990). Experimental evidence from studies of these programs suggests that childrens interactions with and acceptance by peers can be improved by helping them learn a repertoire of positive social skills. For example, Bierman trained 42 boys and 42 girls to use positive conversational skills with peers. The youngsters use of these skills predicted both improved peer involvement and acceptance (significant rs ranged from .25 to .68). To conclude this section, school bullying can be reduced, though the process is an arduous one. Something as stable as aggression does not change readily. Solutions suggested by both naturalistic and intervention studies suggest that zero tolerance for bullying is a starting point. Further, public support of victims by peers and other members of the school community make bullying a less attractive way in which to achieve status. Most importantly, the intervention research suggests that in order to reduce bullying, a whole-school policy must be established, monitored, and evaluated. Youngsters should be encouraged by peers and school personnel to make public that they are being abused, to identify the perpetrator, and, if needed, to get help. CONCLUSION The problem of school violence, especially in middle and junior high schools, is visible and real in America, as it is in most countries in the industrialized world today. To date, policy makers and researchers have only minimally attended to the social dynamics of the peer group contributing to this crisis. In this article we presented one view of the problem. Our model suggests that a combination of school-level and peer-level factors contribute to bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment. We suggest that adolescents striving for leadership and status among their peers is an important factor motivating aggression. Most speculative in the model presented in this article is the connection between bullying and sexual harassment. Although there is theoretical and empirical evidence for the connection, clearly more work is needed here. More disturbing, and less studied, is the finding that adults in schools have a hand in perpetrating these acts. This certainly merits immediate attention. Clearly, there is need for both naturalistic longitudinal research and intervention research to identify peer- and

school-level factors responsible for aggression in schools. For example, comparative studies of middle and junior high schools where students stay in intact cohorts across the day or change peer groups with each class are needed. It is also crucial that objective observations be used to assess school climate as well as students and teachers behavior and attitudes. Social desirability and fear of repercussion from administrators may influence adults responses to self-report measures, even when anonymity is guaranteed. The study of bullying has been conceptually and methodologically limited and needs to be expanded. For example, bullying behavior of boys has been the focus of most research. More research is needed on the sorts of aggression and bullying perpetrated by girls, such as relational aggression. Relational aggression involves the malicious use of peer relations to damage someone else; for example, spreading rumors to damage a peers reputation (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Galen & Underwood, 1997). We need to know why girls use these strategies and to what ends. Do they, like boys, use them in the service of heterosexual relations during adolescence (Pellegrini & Long, 2003)? The issue of studying different types of bullying behaviors relates directly to methods. To date, most research on bullying has used self-reports or peer nominations. Although these methods provide important and complementary data (Pellegini & Bartini, 2000a), other methods are needed. Most importantly, direct observational methods and diary approaches would be useful. Direct observations provide objective and normative data on the occurrence of bullying, as well as on the possible functions of the behavior (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001). Further, when direct observations are used in conjunction with participants wearing of wireless microphones, the language used in relational aggression can be recorded reliably (Pepler & Craig, 1995). Of course, direct observations are expensive. Long periods of time are needed in the field to observe a relatively infrequently occurring behavior. For this reason, diaries are useful. Diaries have been effectively used with early adolescents to record their interactions (including bullying) with peers and adults (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000a). Diaries are most effective when they are used systematically (e.g., every Monday morning) across a sustained period (e.g., a whole school year). To conclude, we have documented the problem of bullying as youngsters make the transition form primary to middle school. Based on extant theory and data, a preliminary model was presented that can be used to stimulate future research in this area. If we, as educational psychologists, do not set the research and policy agenda in this field, someone else will. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by a grant from the W. T. Grant Foundation. I acknowledge the comments of anonymous reviewers as well as those of Lyn Corno and Philip H. Winne.

162

PELLEGRINI

REFERENCES
American Association of University Women. (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in Americas schools. Washington, DC: Author. American Educational Research Association. (2000). 2000 Annual Meeting Program. Washington, DC: Author. Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Behre, W. J. (1998). Unowned places and times: Maps and interviews about violence in high schools. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 342. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 13901396. Baer, R., Goldman, M., & Juhnke, R. (1977). Factors affecting prosocial behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 209216. Birkinshaw, S., & Eslea, M. (1998, September). Teachers attitudes and actions toward boy v. girl and girl v. boy bullying. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Psychological Society, Developmental Sections meetings, Lancaster, England. Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2000). Child development and evolutionary psychology. Child Development, 71, 16871708. Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior , 18 , 117127. Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behaviors in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 341362. Boulton, M. J. (1994). Understanding and preventing bullying in the junior school playground. In P. K. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying (pp. 132159). London: Routledge. Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1990). Affective biases in childrens perceptions of dominance relationships. Child Development, 61, 221229. Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., & Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 461466. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1989). Adolescent sexual behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 249257. Bukowski, W. M., & Sippola, L. K. (2001). Groups, individuals, and victimization: A view of the peer system. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 355377). New York: Guilford. Bukowski, W. M., Sipploa, L. K., & Newcomb, A. F. (2000). Variations in patterns of attraction to same- and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 36, 147154. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1986). The developmental-interactional view of social behavior: Four issues of adolescent aggression. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior. New York: Academic. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckeman, H. J. , Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior. Developmental Psychology, 24, 815823. Coie, J. D., & Christopoulos, C. (1989, April). Types of aggressive relationships in boys groups. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 779862). New York: Wiley. Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Kupersmidt, J. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 1759). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coie, J. D., & Koeppl, G. K. (1990). Adapting interventions to the problems of aggressive and disruptive rejected children. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 309337). New York: Cambridge University Press. Coie, J. D., Terry, R., Zabriski, A., & Lochman, J. E. (1995). Early adolescent social influences on delinquent behavior. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspective (pp. 229244). New York: Cambridge University Press. Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., Connolly, J., & Henderson, K. (2001). Developmental context of peer harassment in early adolescence: The role of puberty and peer group. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 242262). New York: Guilford. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710722. Crick, N. R., Nelson, D. A., Morales, J. R., Cullerton-Sen, S., & Hickman, S. E. (2001). Relational aggression in childhood and adolescence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 196214). New York: Guilford. Dodge, K., & Coie, J. (1989, April). Bullyvictim relationships in boys play groups. Paper presented at the Biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO. Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Rincon, C. (1999). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), Adolescent romantic relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139181). New York: Academic. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998), Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 10171096). New York :Wiley. Eslea, M., & Smith, P. K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primary schools. Educational Research, 40 , 203218. Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 2, 4962. Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (in press). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse. Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48, 10701076. Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589600. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). A social cognitive perspective on peer aggression and victimization. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. London: Jessica Kingsley. Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 103196). New York: Wiley. Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 113. Hodges, E. V., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 33, 10321039. Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677685. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence. American Psychologist, 53, 242259. Luther, S. S., & McMahon, T. J. (1996). Peer reputation among inner-city adolescents: Structure and correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 581603.

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McGrew, W. C. (1972). Aspects of social development in nursery school children, with emphasis on introduction to the group. In N. Blurton Jones (Ed.), Ethological studies in child behaviour (pp. 129156). London: Cambridge University Press. McMaster, L. E., Connolly, J., & Craig, W. M. (1997, April). Sexual harassment and dating violence among early adolescents. Poster presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674701. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1995a, October). Student victimization at school. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1995b, October). Strategies to avoid harm at school. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Olweus, D. (1979). Stability and aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852875. Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullies on the playground. In C. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds (pp. 85128). Albany: State University of New York Press. Olweus, D. (1993b). Bullying at school. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. OMoore, M. O. (2000). Critical issues for teacher training to counter bullying and victimization in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 99111. Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predicting delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pellegrini, A. D. (1994). The rough play of adolescent boys of differing sociometric status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 525540. Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). A longitudinal study of heterosexual relationships, aggression, and sexual harassment during the transition from primary school through middle school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 115. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000a). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 699726. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000b). An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 360366. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 142163. Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating top group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216224. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. A. (2002). A longitudinal study of bully, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary to middle school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259280. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. A. (2003, April). Sexual integration in early adolescence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Pellegrini, A. D., Melhuis, E., & Jones, I. (2002). The effects of diverse, familiar, and close relationships on childrens literate language. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 375389. Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic observations of aggressive behavior with remote audio-visual recording. Developmental Psychology, 31, 548553.

163

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W., & Roberts, W. (1998). Observations of aggressive and nonaggressive children on the school playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 5576. Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Risk and protective factors in peer victimization: A review and a new model of family influence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 73104). New York: Guilford. Perry, D., Willard, J., & Perry, L. (1990). Peers perceptions of the consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development, 61, 12891309. Prinstein, M. J., & Cohen, G. L. (2001, April). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation and overt, relational, and social aggression: Using aggression to protect ones peer status. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in school and what to do about it. Melbourne, Australia: ACER. Rigby, K. (1997). Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 202220. Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: Three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15 years. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135143. Rutter, M. (1983). School effects on student progress: Research findings and policy implications. Child Development, 54, 119. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization. Child Development, 64, 17551772. Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 147176). New York: Guilford. Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 19. Smith, P. K., Madsen, K. C., & Moody, J. C. (1999). What causes the age decline in reports of school being bullied at school? Toward a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educational Research, 41, 267285. Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). Bullying at school. London: Routledge. Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying. Childhood, 7, 193212. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Socially undesirable need not be incompetent: A response to Crick and Dodge. Social Development, 8, 132134. Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together But mostly apart: Gender arrangements in elementary school. In W. W. Hartup and Z Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 167184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. United States Department of Education. (1998). Early warning, timely response. Washington, DC: Author. Vaughn, B. E. (1999). Power is knowledge (and vice versa): A commentary on Winning some and losing some: A social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 215225. Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. (1981). Attention structure, sociometric status, and dominance: Interrelations, behavioral correlates, and relationships to social competence. Developmental Psychology, 17, 275288. Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 325 Zajonc, R. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151175.