doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00484.

Peer Groups, Social Identity, and Childrens Bullying Behavior

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale, Grifth University

Abstract Drawing on social identity theory, this study explored the impact of the peer group on childhood bullying. Participants were 351 students, aged 8 to 13 years. Involvement in bullying, friendship group membership, norms of particular groups, and intra-group positions (prototypical vs. peripheral) were determined using peer reports. Results revealed within-group similarities in bullying behaviors. In addition, bullying was found to be greater when it was endorsed by group norms and when children were prototypical vs. peripheral members of bullying groups. The implications of the ndings for the conceptualization of childhood bullying are discussed. Keywords: childhood bullying; social identity theory; group norms; intra-group position Introduction Although systematic research into school bullying did not begin until the late 1970s, there has since been a rapid expansion of interest in the area. Bullying, dened as the repeated delivery of aversive stimuli to weaker, less powerful persons (Nesdale & Scarlett, 2004, p. 428), can take many forms, including physical, verbal and relational aggression. Prevalence studies have consistently shown a signicant number of elementary school-aged children to be involved in bullying (e.g., Fekkes, Pijpers, & VerlooveVanhorick, 2005; Olafsen & Viemero, 2000; Olweus, 1991; Rigby & Slee, 1991; Solberg & Olweus, 2003; Wolke, Woods, Stanford, & Schulz, 2001). Up to 45 percent of students engage in bullying (OMoore & Hillery, 1989) and as many as 60 percent of students are the victims of such behavior (Borg, 1999; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Wardrop, 2001). In an effort to understand why children become involved in bullying, researchers have concentrated on identifying the individual attributes that characterize bullies and their victims (e.g., Andreou, 2000, 2001; Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Karatzias, Power, & Swanson, 2002; Kaukiainen, Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Tamminen, Vauras, & Maki, et al. 2002; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts, & King, 1982; Olweus, 1978) and specifying the family characteristics typical of these children (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 1998, 2000; Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1992, 1994; Flouri & Buchanan, 2003; Olweus, 1980;
Correspondence should be addressed to Amanda Duffy, School of Psychology, Gold Coast Campus, Grifth University, Queensland 4222, Australia. Email: a.duffy@grifth.edu.au
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

122

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

Rigby, 1993). Although such research has provided important insights into the bullying phenomenon, it has been limited by its tendency to focus on the individual, with less attention being given to social aspects of the problem. In recent years, the role of the peer group in school bullying has received increased attention. Observational studies by Atlas and colleagues (Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000) have shown that peers are involved in approximately 80 percent of bullying episodes, often actively joining in the bullying or providing a passive audience for the bully. OConnell, Pepler, and Craig (1999) also found that the length of the bullying incident was positively related to the number of peers present. Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Kaukiainen (1996) have taken the focus on peers further, identifying six participant roles that children can take during bullying incidents (i.e., bully, assistant to the bully, reinforcer to the bully, defender of the victim, outsider, and victim). In combination, these studies highlight the importance of considering bullying within a social context. A Social Identity Perspective of Bullying Despite increased interest in the peer groups role in bullying, the studies conducted thus far have been largely descriptive, detailing the behavior or roles of peers in bullying situations, but not proposing any theoretical basis for understanding their behavior. Consequently, the current study sought to extend understanding of the peer groups involvement by drawing upon social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Briey, SIT is a theory of inter-group behavior, which proposes that individuals are motivated to achieve and maintain a positive social identity. According to SIT, this goal is accomplished by gaining membership in, and identifying with, groups that are perceived to be positively distinctive or comparatively superior to other groups. To date, only one known study has applied a social identity perspective to the problem of childhood bullying. Boulton (1995) explored whether a focus on inter-group dynamics could help to explain bullying between British-Asian and White children. He proposed that children would categorize themselves and others based on race, leading to the formation of stereotypes/negative attitudes towards the outgroup and avoidance of positive intergroup contact (p. 279). Boulton consequently predicted that children would be more likely to bully people belonging to a different racial group, rather than their own racial group. While this prediction was not supported by the results of the study, a number of ndings did highlight the relevance of group processes to bullying. Firstly, both Asian and White students were more likely to be excluded from games by other-race children, rather than own-race children. Secondly, when children were teased about their race, this teasing was typically perpetrated by other-race children. The current study built on Boultons (1995) work, providing a further test of SIT. Rather than focusing on racial groups, the present research investigated the role of friendship groups in bullying. More specically, the research explored whether SITs concepts of within-group similarities, group norms, and intra-group position could contribute to our understanding of bullying behavior among elementary school-aged children. Within-group Similarities SIT proposes that people form groups by categorizing themselves with similar others and contrasting this category against out-groups from which they differ (Tajfel &
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

123

Turner, 1979). In this situation, relative differences become important, in that the differences between the groups need to be bigger than the differences within them. Although this comparative process implies that within-group similarity is not the sole basis for categorization, some degree of similarity is still required. Thus, in relation to bullying, it follows that children belonging to the same friendship group are likely to engage in similar levels of bullying behavior. To date, research supports such a proposition. For instance, studies have revealed similarities in bullying behavior within both reciprocated friendships (Pelligrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999) and wider friendship groups (Esplage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003). Salmivalli and colleagues (Salmivalli, Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997; Salmivalli, Lappalainen, & Lagerspetz, 1998) have also found signicant intra-group homogeneity not just for the role of bully, but for the ve other participant roles as well. Nevertheless, these studies have focused only on general bullying behavior, and further research is required to determine whether intra-group similarities are also apparent when specic subtypes of bullying are distinguished. The importance of making such a distinction is highlighted when studies in the broader area of aggression are considered. These studies have suggested that within-group similarities might only occur for specic types of aggression. Grotpeter and Crick (1996), for example, found that similarities were more apparent for overt rather than relational aggression. Specically, friends tended to engage in overt aggression (i.e., physical aggression or threat of physical aggression) together, targeting someone outside their group, whereas children who were relationally aggressive (i.e., who harmed others by manipulating their peer relations) targeted their friends. The rst aim of the present study was therefore to explore the extent of within-group similarities for several subtypes of bullying. A newly developed scale, the bullying questionnaire (BQ; Duffy, 2004), was utilized for this purpose. Drawing on Salmivalli et al.s (1996) distinction between participant roles, this scale was designed to include items relating to the roles of bully, assistant, and reinforcer. More specically, for each of these roles, items describing physical, verbal, and relational forms of bullying were developed. The resulting questionnaire consisted of four subscales assessing (1) direct involvement in bullying, (2) harming of friendships, (3) physical presence during bullying, and (4) direct support for bullying. The current study aimed to determine the degree of within-group similarity for each of these behaviors. Group Norms According to SIT, once individuals categorize themselves as belonging to a particular social group or category, the group begins to exert inuence on them via group norms (Turner, 1991). Group norms express important aspects of a persons social identity and, consequently, group members are motivated to behave in accordance with them. In terms of bullying, this means that children should engage in greater levels of bullying when such behavior is normative, rather than anti-normative, within their friendship group. The small number of studies that are available in this area have found that norms are relevant to understanding childrens aggressive and bullying behavior. For example, Henry, Guerra, Huesmann, Tolan, VanAcker, and Eron (2000) found that injunctive norms (i.e., classmates normative beliefs about aggression) predicted aggression both directly and indirectly through individual normative beliefs. That is, if classmates were thought to approve of aggression, children were more likely to engage in such behavior.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

124

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

Stormshak, Bierman, Bruschi, Dodge, and Coie (1999) also reported that childrens attitudes toward their peers were related to the extent to which peers conformed to classroom norms. Aggressive behavior was more likely to be associated with low peer preference when such behavior was anti-normative. In relation to bullying, Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) found that children in Grades 5 and 6 were less likely to bully or reinforce the bully when classroom norms were anti-bullying. Overall, these ndings indicate that classroom norms are associated with childrens attitudes toward, and involvement in, aggressive and bullying behavior. However, given the existing focus on the classroom in bullying research, there is a need to shift research attention to the level of the peer group. This move is necessary because, within a single classroom, a variety of attitudes toward bullying may be present, with children most strongly inuenced by the attitudes of their friends. Thus, classroom-level analyses may obscure the full impact of group norms on behavior. Although two studies have revealed a signicant impact of peer group norms on childrens ethnic prejudice (Nesdale, Grifths, Durkin, & Maass, 2005; Nesdale, Maass, Durkin, & Grifths, 2005), only one experimental study has thus far focused on the inuence of small group norms on childrens beliefs about bullying (Ojala & Nesdale, 2004). Participants in that study (boys aged 10- to 12-years) were asked to read a story about two boys and the groups to which they belonged. Within this story, information regarding group norms (bullying vs. fairness), out-group similarity to in-group (similar vs. dissimilar), and the behavior of one of the boys (bullying vs. helping) was systematically varied. Results revealed that when the in-group member helped an out-group member, he was less likely to be retained as a member when the in-group norm was bullying than when it was fairness. Further, when the group member bullied, he was more likely to be retained in the bullying, rather than fairness, norm condition. In other words, children recognized that, to be retained as a group member, an individual needs to act in accordance with the norms of their group, even if these norms support bullying. The current research expanded on Ojala and Nesdale (2004) in two main ways. Firstly, while the focus remained on small group norms, the present study utilized a naturalistic, rather than experimental, design. Secondly, whereas Ojala and Nesdales study assessed attitudinal outcomes (i.e., childrens desire to retain a group member), the current study concentrated on behavioral outcomes. Thus, the present study aimed to identify friendship groups that approved of bullying and to compare the behavior of members of these groups to that of groups in which bullying was anti-normative. Intra-group Position Another variable that is central to SIT is that of intra-group position (or prototypicality). According to SIT, the more a person differs from out-group members, and the less he or she differs from in-group members, the more prototypical is that person (Turner, 1991). Tajfel (1978) argued that intra-group position is inuential in determining group members attitudes and behaviors toward both the in-group and outgroup. He proposed that when people are facing uncertainty about acceptance into a desirable in-group, they might try to present themselves to others as holding especially favorable and prototypical attitudes toward the in-group and negative attitudes toward the out-group. In other words, those on the periphery of a group might try to become more prototypical by favoring the in-group and derogating the out-group.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

125

Studies involving adult participants have supported this proposition. For example, Peres (1971) conducted a study in Israel that involved participants from three ethnic groups: European Jews (i.e., Jewish people with European origins), non-European Jews (i.e., Jewish people with Middle Eastern origins), and Arabs. He found that, when compared with European Jews, non-European Jews expressed greater hostility and prejudice toward Arabs. One possible explanation for this effect is that non-European Jews, desiring greater acceptance into the dominant European Jewish community, used derogation of Arabs as a means of gaining this acceptance. In a further study, Noel, Wann, and Branscombe (1995) investigated the level of out-group derogation shown by prototypical and peripheral members, in both public and private conditions (i.e., the in-group either was, or was not, to be made aware of the participants responses). Whereas the responses of prototypical participants did not differ across the conditions, peripheral group members were found to derogate the out-group more in the public, rather than private, condition. Such results suggest that, for peripheral group members, publicly derogating an out-group is one strategy that is used to gain greater acceptance by more prototypical in-group members. Based on these ndings, intra-group position would appear to be a construct relevant to childhood bullying. In those groups in which bullying is normative, peripheral members wishing to gain acceptance might attempt to enhance their prototypicality by engaging in increased levels of bullying. Such behavior might improve the position of the children within the group because it displays their acceptance of the groups norms and/or it derogates the out-group. This does not necessarily mean, however, that peripheral members of bullying groups will engage in more bullying than prototypical members. The studies by Noel et al. (1995) and Peres (1971) focused on groups whose norms did not explicitly endorse out-group derogation. As a result, the prototypical position was not dened in terms of the extent of this behavior. In comparison, in groups where bullying is the norm, prototypical group members would, by denition, be expected to engage in high levels of normative (i.e., bullying) behavior. Thus, their level of bullying would generally be expected to exceed that of peripheral group members. Although the preceding discussion is consistent with a SIT perspective, no studies have directly assessed the impact of intra-group position on the behavior of adolescents or pre-adolescents. The present study consequently aimed to advance research by identifying natural friendship groups that had a norm of bullying and investigating the association between intra-group position and bullying behavior. In sum, the present study examined whether the social identity constructs of withingroup similarities, group norms, and intra-group position were helpful in explaining bullying within the naturally formed friendship groups of children. Since the peer group becomes increasingly important during late childhood and early adolescence (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998), the study focused on this age group, with participants recruited from Grades 4 to 7. Drawing on SIT, the following hypotheses were tested: (1) within friendship groups, there would be similarities in the levels of bullying behaviors that group members displayed; (2) children who belonged to friendship groups with a norm of bullying would engage in more bullying than members of groups without such a norm; and (3) within friendship groups with a norm of bullying, prototypical group members would display more bullying than peripheral members.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

126

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

Method Participants Participants (N = 351; 170 male children, 181 female children) were recruited from three schools located in middle-class, urban suburbs of South-East Queensland, Australia. They were enrolled in Grades 4 to 7 and ranged in age from 8.92 years to 13.92 years (M = 11.22, SD = .97). Approximately 90 percent of the children were White Anglo-Australians, with the remainder of the participants coming from a variety of other ethnic groups, including White Anglo-New Zealanders, Pacic Islanders, Japanese, and Chinese groups. To recruit these participants, permission from school principals was rst obtained, allowing their school to be involved in the research. Consent forms were then sent home to parents, with only children who received parental permission completing the questionnaires. Overall, a response rate of 61.2 percent was achieved.

Materials Bullying Questionnaire (BQ). The BQ (Duffy, 2004) is a 34-item measure designed to assess childrens involvement in bullying. Eleven items are ller items (e.g. Shares things with others), with the remaining 23 items assessing specic bullying behaviors (refer to Appendix for a full list of the items). Exploratory factor analysis of the bullying items showed that these could be separated into four subscales. The direct involvement in bullying subscale consists of 13 items that describe active involvement in bullying, as well as behaviors that encourage bullying (e.g., Joins in when someone is being teased or called nasty names). The harming friendships subscale consists of three items that describe behaviors intentionally aimed at hurting others relationships (e.g., Tries to ruin other peoples friendships). The physical presence during bullying subscale contains three items, each of which relates to being present when bullying is taking place (e.g., Is usually there when someone is being ignored or left out). Finally, the direct support for bullying subscale consists of four items. These describe situations in which the child assists another child to bully or in which bullying is perpetrated from a distance (e.g., Holds onto someone who is being hit or kicked, so they cant escape). Conrmatory factor analysis, utilizing the current sample, supported this fourfactor structure. In particular, all 23 bullying items were found to load signicantly on their designated factor and the goodness-of-t indices were generally acceptable (SRMR = .04, GFI = .83, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98). Analyses also revealed the fourfactor solution provided a signicantly better t than a single factor solution, Dc2(6) = 400.72, p < .001, and a ve-factor solution in which items were separated into the categories of physical, verbal, and relational bullying, as well as assisting and reinforcing the bully, Dc2(4) = 197.89, p < .001. To complete this questionnaire, participants rated the frequency with which three of their classroom peers engaged in the behavior described (0 = never to 4 = always). The rationale for asking children to rate only three peers was to ensure that the workload for participants remained manageable. The researcher was responsible for randomly selecting the children that peers were to rate. In order to ensure privacy, each child was assigned a code number, with participants subsequently given a separate piece of paper that listed the names and code numbers of the children that had been selected for them.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

127

This process resulted in each participant receiving three peer-ratings per item, with a mean peer-report score then calculated for each item. These mean scores were summed to obtain the four subscale scores. Each of the subscales displayed good internal consistency, with Cronbachs a coefcients for the direct involvement, harming friendship, physical presence, and direct support subscales being .96, .82, .79, and .85, respectively. Duffy (2004) also found that each of the BQ subscales correlated positively with the participant role questionnaires (PRQ; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004) pro-bullying subscale, which consists of items assessing the roles of bully, assistant, and reinforcer. Scores on the BQ subscales were also negatively correlated with scores on the PRQs subscales of defender and outsider. Social Network Assessment Measure. To determine childrens friendship groups, a social network assessment measure, based on that developed by Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, and Gariepy (1988), was used. This measure consisted of two questions: Are there people in your class who hang around together a lot? and Are there any people in your class who do not have a group? To answer these questions, participants were provided with a list of the names and code numbers of all students in their class. For the question regarding who hangs around together a lot, participants listed the code numbers for the members of each group they identied in the space provided. For the second question, participants listed the code numbers of students who did not have a group. When answering these questions, if participants were not aware of another students group membership, they were not required to mention that student. For each class, the responses from all participants in the class were analyzed to determine a nal set of social groups, using a computer program (Leung, 1994) that was based on the analytic procedure developed by Cairns, Perrin, and Cairns (1985). This program rst produces a co-occurrence matrix that lists all students in the class in both a row and a column. The values on the diagonal show the total number of times a participant was mentioned as belonging to any group, while the values in the off-diagonal of the matrix indicate the number of times two students (i.e., those identied by the row and column) were listed as belonging to the same group. Each column thus represents an individuals personal prole of co-occurrence with other students from their class. By inter-correlating these columns, a correlational matrix is produced, with the correlation coefcients indicating the degree of similarity between the proles of two students. Larger correlations indicate greater similarities between the two personal proles, suggesting that two students belong to the same social group. Cairns and Cairns (1994) recommended that participants be placed in the same group if a correlation coefcient above .40 was obtained. Using this criterion, 17 participants (or 4.8 percent of the sample) were identied as belonging to two social groups. As later analyses required participants to be placed in one group only, an additional criterion was employed in these cases. An average correlation was calculated for each of the two groups they had been nominated as belonging to, with the participant being placed in the group with which they had the higher average correlation. Measure of Social Group Constructs. This measure assessed two group constructs from social identity theory: group norms and intra-group position. To complete this form, participants were given a list of the groups in their class, identied via the social
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

128

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

network assessment measure. This information was provided on a separate sheet of paper, with both the names and code numbers for each group member listed. Group norms. This section of the measure was completed for each of the groups in the participants class. To assess the norms of each group, participants were provided with a list of 15 behaviors that children might display. Ten items that described involvement in bullying were selected from the BQ (the remaining ve items were ller items). Since the subscales of direct involvement and direct support were considered to be the most closely related to the construct of bullying, three items were chosen from each of these subscales. For the subscales of harming friendships and physical presence, two items from each were selected. To complete this measure, participants were provided with a list of the groups in their class and asked to consider each of the groups separately. For each item, they rated how happy the group would be if one of its members displayed the behavior described (1 = very happy to 5 = very unhappy). A total score for each of the four subscales was then calculated for each group. Firstly, a mean score for the group on each bullying item was computed by adding the responses from all raters and dividing by the number of raters. Responses from participants who belonged to the group in question were excluded from these calculations due to the possibility that group members would portray their group in a socially desirable way and consequently bias results. A total subscale score was then computed by summing the item means and dividing by the number of items on the relevant subscale. An overall total was also calculated by adding the means for all bullying items and dividing by 10. For all subscales, as well as the overall total, scores could range between 1 and 5. Lower scores indicated that the group displayed greater approval of bullying. Cronbachs a coefcients were .95 for direct involvement, .86 for harming friendships, .89 for physical presence, and .92 for direct support. The Cronbachs a for the total bullying scale was .97. Intra-group position. To assess intra-group position, participants again considered each group separately and were asked to rate how similar each group member was to other members of the group (1 = not at all the same to 5 = almost exactly the same). Children were not provided with any criteria on which to base their assessment of similarity, but rather were asked to make a general judgment. A mean intra-group position score for each participant was calculated by summing the scores provided by each rater and dividing by the number of raters. Again, ratings made by members of the group in question were not included in these calculations. The mean intra-group position score for each participant could range from 1 to 5, with more prototypical members being those with the highest scores. Procedure The three measures used in the study were administered to students in a classroom setting, with two half-hour sessions required to complete all questionnaires. During the rst session, students completed the BQ. Initially, each participant was given a questionnaire booklet and asked to ll in their demographic details. The instructions on the cover page were then explained and participants were each given a list of names and code numbers that indicated which peers they would be rating. It was emphasized that
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

129

they should not show their list to anyone or discuss it with other students. Before completing the questionnaire, participants were also instructed that no names should be written on the questionnaire booklets, but instead, the code numbers should be used to ensure privacy. After completing the BQ, participants were given the social network assessment measure, together with a list of all the names and code numbers of students in their class. Participants were told that they should list the members of each group they could think of in the boxes provided. They were also informed that they did not have to place all children in a group. Rather, if they were unsure of a persons group membership, they could simply not mention that person. In addition, it was explained that the nal question in the booklet asked participants to identify any students who did not have a group. Once all participants from a class had completed the social network assessment measure, responses were analyzed and the social groups in that class identied. The measure of social group constructs was then produced to reect the group membership in the class, with this measure administered during the second testing session. Since it was recognized that friendship groups would change over time, efforts were made to minimize the time that elapsed between the administration of the social network assessment and social group constructs measure, with this pair of measures administered within four weeks for all classes. To complete the measure of social group constructs, participants needed the questionnaire booklet as well as a list of the groups identied in their class. Participants were asked to read the list carefully, making sure they knew who was in each group. Using the rst group listed as an example, the questions regarding group norms and intra-group position were then explained. It was also explained that the procedure used to complete answers for the rst group needed to be repeated for all other groups on their list.

Results Intra-group Similarities in Bullying Behaviors The extent of group members similarity in bullying behaviors was investigated using intra-class correlation coefcients. Specically, coefcients were calculated for each of the peer-reported BQ subscale scores. The signicance of the coefcients was determined using analyses of variance, where the independent variable was group membership and the dependent variable the subscale scores. In total, 105 groups were identied via the social network assessment measure and were available for use in the analyses. However, it was decided that only groups with 60 percent or more of their members participating in the research would be included. Groups with fewer than 60 percent of members participating were not considered adequately represented and thus conclusions about their within-group similarity might be misleading. This criterion led to 57 groups being included in the analyses. For these groups, the average percentage of members participating in the research was 77.81 percent. The groups ranged in size from 2 to 12 members and all but one consisted of same-gender members. Using these groups, intra-class correlation coefcients for the BQ subscales were calculated (see Table 1). Signicant within-group similarities were found for each. The greatest similarities were on the subscales of direct involvement, physical presence,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

130

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale Table 1. Intra-class Correlation (ICC) Coefcients for the Bullying Questionnaire Subscales BQ subscalea Direct involvement Harming friendships Physical presence Direct support
a

ICC .37*** .10* .38*** .35***

For these analyses, the sample consisted of 234 participants. The one exception was for the subscale of direct support, with missing data for one participant reducing the sample to 233. * p < .05, *** p < .001.

and direct support. Group members displayed the least similarity on the harming friendships subscale. The Selection and Description of Groups with a Norm for Bullying The present study also sought to identify groups with a norm of bullying and to determine whether members of these groups engaged in more bullying than members of groups without such a norm. To achieve the rst part of this aim, the scores obtained by each group via the group norm assessment were explored. If groups received an average score below the scale midpoint of 3.0 on two or more of the group norm subscales, they were considered to have a norm for bullying. This procedure led to 15 of the 105 groups being identied as having such a norm. In total, 53 participants belonged to these groups. Of these, 49 were male participants and only 4 were females. The average age of these participants was 11.65 years (SD = .83). In order to compare the bullying behavior of these groups with groups that did not have a bullying norm, the 15 groups with the highest total score on the group norm section of the measure of social group constructs were identied. These groups consisted of 46 participants, of which 15 were male and 31 female. The average age of these participants was 10.11 years (SD = .62). The mean group norm score for these anti-bullying groups was 4.29 (SD = .06), compared with a mean group norm score of 2.75 (SD = .27) for the 15 pro-bullying groups, t (15.55) = 21.25, p < .001. To compare the bullying behavior of children in groups with and without a norm for bullying, a two-group multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted. Two covariates, age and gender, were initially included because the groups differed on these variables. Male participants were found to be over-represented and females under-represented in the groups with a norm for bullying, c2(1) = 38.59, p < .001. Members of the groups with a norm for bullying were also signicantly older than members of groups without such a norm, t(97) = 10.35, p < .001. However, when the MANCOVA was conducted, gender was not a signicant covariate and was subsequently removed from the analysis. Age remained, with the dependent variables being the four BQ subscales. Results of the MANCOVA showed age to be a signicant covariate, F (4, 91) = 5.12, p < .01, partial h2 = .18. In addition, the multivariate effect for group
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

131

Table 2. Mean BQ Subscale Scores (and Standard Deviations) for Children Belonging to Friendship Groups with and without a Norm for Bullying Group norm Approves of bullying 18.54 1.85 5.17 3.28 (7.56) (1.61) (1.86) (2.16) Disapproves of bullying 5.56 1.11 2.54 .33 (5.07) (1.43) (1.35) (.52)

BQ subscale Direct involvement Harming friendships Physical presence Direct support

norm was signicant, F (4, 91) = 23.76, p < .001, partial h2 = .51. Follow-up univariate tests were then conducted. For these tests, a Bonferroni correction to the a level was made to control for Type 1 errors. That is, for each dependent variable, an a level of .0125 was employed. These analyses revealed that children who belonged to a group with a norm for bullying differed from those belonging to a group without such a norm on all four BQ subscales: direct involvement in bullying, F (1, 94) = 50.54, p < .001, partial h2 = .35; harming friendships, F (1, 94) = 6.60, p < .0125, partial h2 = .07; physical presence during bullying, F (1, 94) = 57.26, p < .001, partial h2 = .38; direct support for bullying, F (1, 94) = 32.71, p < .001, partial h2 = .26. A comparison of the means (see Table 2) showed that, as expected, children belonging to groups with a bullying norm engaged in more bullying behavior than children belonging to groups that did not have a bullying norm. Relationship between Intra-group Position and Bullying Behavior For the groups that had a norm of bullying, the association between intra-group position and bullying behavior was explored via hierarchical regression. Four separate analyses were conducted, with the dependent variables being the four BQ subscales. In each analysis, gender and age were controlled for by entering these variables on the rst step. On the second step, intra-group position was entered. For each regression model, the possible presence of outliers and inuential scores was explored before the nal analysis was conducted. One case was identied as being inuential for all four analyses. This case had a disproportionate impact on the regression models, with the removal of the case leading to an increase in R2 of between 3.5 and 12.8 percent for each model. Consequently, this case was removed from all analyses. Final regression results, based on data from 52 participants, are shown in Table 3. The rst regression analysis included direct involvement in bullying as the dependent variable. Overall, the model was signicant, F (3, 48) = 4.04, p < .05, explaining 20.2 percent of the variance in direct involvement in bullying. At the rst step, age and gender did not contribute signicantly, F (2, 49) = .003, NS, whereas the addition of intra-group position (Step 2) did produce a signicant increase in R2, F (1, 48) = 12.12, p < .01. Intra-group position explained 20.2 percent of the variance in the dependent variable, with children who were more prototypical engaging in higher levels of bullying.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

132

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Intra-group Position Predicting Involvement in Bullying Step Variable R2 DR2 B (SE) b sr2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

Direct involvement in bullying Gender .00 .00 -.01 (4.03) Age -.10 (1.31) Gender .20* .20** -2.69 (3.72) Age .53 (1.19) Intra-group position 5.90 (1.70) Harming friendships Gender .02 .02 .83 (.83) Age -.09 (.27) Gender .23** .21** .26 (.76) Age .05 (.24) Intra-group position 1.26 (.25) Physical presence during bullying Gender .03 .03 -.16 (.97) Age -.40 (.32) Gender .11 .08* -.57 (.96) Age -.30 (.31) Intra-group position .90 (.44) Direct support for bullying Gender .02 .02 .41 (1.10) Age .33 (.36) Gender .16* .14** -.21 (1.05) Age .47 (.34) Intra-group position 1.36 (.48)

.00 -.01 -.10 .06 .47** .14 -.05 .04 .03 .48** -.02 -.18 -.08 -.14 .29* .05 .13 -.03 .19 .39**

.000 .000 .008 .003 .202 .020 .002 .002 .001 .211 .001 .032 .007 .018 .078 .003 .017 .001 .034 .141

* p < .05 ** p < .01.

For the second analysis, harming friendships was the dependent variable. The overall model was found to be signicant, F (3, 48) = 4.88, p < .01, accounting for 23.4 percent of the variance in harming friendships. Gender and age, included in the rst step, again did not contribute signicantly to the model, F (2, 49) = .58, NS. After the second step, however, a signicant increase in R2 was observed, F (1, 48) = 13.19, p < .01, with intra-group position explaining 21.1 percent of the variance in harming friendships. In particular, group members displaying greater prototypicality more frequently engaged in behaviors aimed at hurting others friendships. For the regression analysis that included physical presence as the dependent variable, the overall model was not signicant, F (3, 48) = .98, NS. However, although the inclusion of age and gender at Step 1 did not contribute signicantly to the model, F (2, 49) = .80, NS, the inclusion of intra-group position at Step 2 did result in a signicant increase in R2, F (1, 48) = 4.23, p < .05. Intra-group position explained 7.8 percent of the variance in the dependent variable, with more prototypical group members being more likely to be present when bullying occurred.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

133

Finally, for the regression analysis that included direct support for bullying as the dependent variable, the model was signicant, F (3, 48) = 3.03, p < .05, accounting for 15.9 percent of the variance in direct support. As with the other analyses, gender and age did not contribute signicantly to the model, F (2, 49) = .46, NS. However, a signicant increase in R2 occurred at the second step, F (1, 48) = 8.03, p < .01. Intra-group position explained 14.1 percent of the variance in the dependent variable, with more prototypical group members displaying greater direct support for bullying. Discussion The present study sought to extend research on the inuence of peers on childhood bullying (e.g., Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Esplage et al., 2003; Salmivalli et al., 1996), with a particular focus on the possible application of concepts drawn from SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Consistent with this focus, ndings revealed that intra-group similarities in bullying occurred. Children belonging to groups with a norm for bullying were also found to display more bullying behaviors than those who belonged to groups with an anti-bullying norm. Further, within pro-bullying groups, involvement in bullying increased as the prototypicality of the group member increased. Within-group Similarities in Bullying Behaviors When considering the issue of within-group similarity, it was hypothesized that children who belonged to the same group would display comparable levels of bullying behavior. The results supported this prediction, with signicant intra-group homogeneity found for each of the BQ subscales. These ndings are consistent with the results of several previous studies (Esplage et al., 2003; Pelligrini et al., 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1997; Salmivalli et al., 1998). However, the current ndings extend this body of research by focusing on subtypes of bullying behavior. Whereas past results have shown within-group homogeneity to be apparent for general bullying (e.g., Esplage et al., 2003; Pelligrini et al., 1999), the current research indicates that more specic similarities also exist. That is, children belonging to the same group are comparable in terms of their direct involvement and support for bullying, their use of behaviors aimed at harming friendships, and the extent of their physical presence during bullying. The nding of within-group similarities for the harming friendships subscale of the BQ deserves additional discussion because it appears to conict with the results of an earlier study. Specically, Grotpeter and Crick (1996) assessed relational aggression, dened as behaviors that inict harm on others by manipulating their peer relationships (p. 2329), and found that, within friendship dyads, similarities in such behaviors were not apparent. Rather, relationally aggressive children directed such aggression toward their friends. Given the similarity between Grotpeter and Cricks concept of relational aggression and the current studys harming friendships subscale, the question arises as to why the results of the studies were not more similar. One possible explanation relates to the breadth of friendships that were assessed. Whereas Grotpeter and Crick focused only on friendship dyads, the wider friendship group was considered in the current study. At this broader level, it would seem that similarities in relational bullying are apparent. Nevertheless, this explanation does not rule out the possibility that other in-group members are the targets of relational bullying. Indeed, it might be that several group members join together in an attempt to hurt another members friendships. Such an
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

134

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

argument receives some support from a study by Adler and Adler (1995). Based on data collected via observations and interviews, they found that in-group members were often harassed by other, more powerful, group members. This study did not concentrate specically on relational bullying, however, and additional research that identies both perpetrators and victims of such bullying is required to investigate the issue further. Returning to the broader focus of the current study, the overall results regarding within-group similarities are consistent with a social identity perspective of bullying. SIT proposes that groups form so as to maximize intra-group similarities and between group differences, with the current ndings highlighting the fact that group members do resemble each other in terms of their involvement in bullying. Based on these results, however, it cannot be concluded that friendship groups actually form on the basis of such similarities. It is equally possible that similarities develop after group formation (e.g., via socialization). Consequently, longitudinal research is required to explore the extent to which involvement in bullying inuences childrens initial friendship selections. Group Norms and Bullying Based on SIT, a positive relationship between group norms and bullying was expected. The results were consistent with this prediction, showing that children belonging to groups with a norm of bullying were more likely to be involved in bullying than were those who belonged to groups that did not have a bullying norm. This difference between pro- and anti-bullying groups occurred for each of the four BQ subscales. This result builds on previous research that has explored the association between norms and childrens aggressive and bullying behaviors. Although Henry et al. (2000) and Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) found norms to be related to childrens behavior, their studies concentrated on classroom norms, whereas the present study focused more specically on the norms of friendship groups. This shift from classroom to peer group norms is important because children are likely to be most inuenced by their closest friends (i.e., those with whom they form a group). Accordingly, even if the general classroom norm is anti-bullying, children might become involved in bullying if they think their friends approve of such behavior. While this nding advances our understanding of bullying, two caveats should be noted. Firstly, when determining group norms, the current study relied on the reports of children who were not members of the group. Such a method was used in order to obtain a more objective view of group norms. However, the fact that group members might have a differing view of their own groups norms must be acknowledged. Secondly, it is important to recognize that the cross-sectional nature of the present study limits conclusions regarding causality. Although it might be inferred that group norms inuence group members behavior, it is also plausible that the behavior of group members inuences the norms that are established. Consequently, further research is needed to determine the exact nature of the relationship. Using natural groups, such research would require a longitudinal design. Alternatively, experimental studies could assist in clarifying the relationship via the manipulation of group norms. Intra-group Position and Bullying The nal social identity construct of interest in the present study was that of intra-group position, with the ndings revealing this construct to be relevant to the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

135

explanation of childhood bullying. In particular, for each of the BQ subscales, a signicant effect for intra-group position was found. When considering the results for the physical presence subscale, however, some caution should be used. Although intra-group position was found to contribute signicantly to the explanation of physical presence, the overall model for this subscale was not signicant. As a consequence, further research aimed at conrming the relationship between these variables is recommended. Nevertheless, when the overall pattern of results is considered, support for the prediction regarding intra-group position was obtained. That is, prototypical group members were more involved in bullying than were those on the periphery of the group. In attempting to understand why increased prototypicality was associated with increased bullying, it is important to keep in mind the norms of the groups that were being studied. Past research that has shown peripheral members to engage in greater out-group derogation than prototypical members (Noel et al., 1995; Peres, 1971) has concentrated on groups whose norms did not explicitly endorse out-group derogation. By comparison, groups were selected for analysis in the current study precisely because they did have a bullying norm. Since the prototypical position is dened as the position that best represents what the in-group has in common, as well as the differences between the in-group and out-group, prototypical members would be expected to engage in greater levels of normative (i.e., bullying) behavior than peripheral members. The results of the current study supported this argument. In addition to being relevant to understanding bullying behavior, intra-group position might also help to explain why certain children are victimized, particularly when relational forms of bullying are considered. Given that Grotpeter and Crick (1996) reported that relationally aggressive children typically directed such behavior toward their friends, those on the periphery of the group might arguably be at greater risk of being the targets of such behavior than those who are more central to the group. Although not focusing specically on bullying, research by Adler and Adler (1995) lends some support to this proposition. They found that, when harassment occurred within a friendship group, it was typically central members who harassed less powerful and less popular members. Further research is needed to explore whether this nding is replicated in relation to bullying. Conclusions and Implications Viewed together, the present ndings have important implications for the way in which bullying is conceptualized. Since research in the area began in the 1970s, the predominant focus has been on the individual bully and victim. Although the current results do not rule out the possibility that some children engage in bullying independent of any group, they add to the growing body of research that suggests that the peer group plays a signicant role in childhood bullying. When considering each of the four types of bullying involvement explored in the present study, a similar picture emerges for each. That is, children who are involved in bullying tend to belong to the same friendship groups. Moreover, within these groups, bullying is not aberrant, but rather constitutes the norm. Consistent with this, group members who engage in the most bullying behavior typically hold the most central, or prototypical, position within the group. While such a conceptualization is consistent with a social identity perspective of childhood bullying, condence in the utility of such a perspective would be increased if several additional avenues of research were explored. For instance, research in the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

136

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

area could be advanced by considering the demographic variables of age and gender. Specically, the age range of participants should be expanded in order to explore whether the ndings of the current study can be generalized to younger and older age groups. Male and female partipants could also be studied separately so as to determine whether the group processes underlying bullying are analogous across the genders. In addition, although the present research emphasizes the role of the group in relation to bullying, past studies have shown that both individual variables (e.g., Andreou, 2000, 2001; Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Karatzias et al., 2002; Kaukiainen et al., 2002; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Olweus, 1978) and familial variables (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 1998, 2000; Bowers et al., 1992, 1994; Flouri & Buchanan, 2003; Olweus, 1980; Rigby, 1993) are signicantly associated with bullying behavior. Accordingly, efforts should be made to control for the more important of these variables in future studies. If this was achieved, and social identity constructs continued to contribute signicantly to the prediction of bullying, it would add further weight to the argument that bullying can be viewed as a group phenomenon. Furthermore, for the application of SIT to gain widespread acceptance, the theory must be shown to be relevant not only to those who are the perpetrators of bullying, but also to those who are victimized. A necessary step in future research would therefore be to explore whether a social identity perspective can aid in identifying victims of bullying. In conclusion, the current study adds to the emerging picture of bullying as a group phenomenon. It also comprises an important investigation into the relevance of a social identity perspective to childhood bullying. However, for the peer groups role in bullying to be fully understood, further research is needed to replicate the current results and extend investigations in the area. References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145162. Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological constructs in 8- to 12-year-old Greek schoolchildren. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 4956. Andreou, E. (2001). Bully/victim problems and their association with coping behavior in conictual peer interactions among school-age children. Educational Psychology, 21, 5966. Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 8699. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting inuences on bullying and victimization. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 237254. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1731. Berthold, K. A., & Hoover, J. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization among intermediate students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 21, 6578. Borg, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of bullying among primary and secondary schoolchildren. Educational Research, 41, 137153. Boulton, M. J. (1995). Patterns of bully/victim problems in mixed race groups of children. Social Development, 4, 277293. Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1992). Cohesion and power in the families of children involved in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 371387. Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 215232. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying

137

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815823. Cairns, R. B., Perrin, J. E., & Cairns, B. D. (1985). Social structure and social cognition in early adolescence: Afliative patterns. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 339355. Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 2236. Duffy, A. L. (2004). Bullying in schools: A social identity perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Grifth University, Gold Coast, Queensland. Esplage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205220. Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 8191. Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of mother involvement and father involvement in adolescent bullying behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 634644. Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 23282338. Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P., VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative inuences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 5981. Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., & Swanson, V. (2002). Bullying and victimisation in Scottish secondary schools: Same or separate entities? Aggressive Behavior, 28, 4561. Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M., Vauras, M., Maki, H., et al. (2002). Learning difculties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bullyvictim problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269278. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Wardrop, J. L. (2001). Chronicity and instability of childrens peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72, 134151. Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjorkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 4552. Leung, M.-C. (1994). Social cogntive map, version 3.2. Chapel Hill: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina. Nesdale, D., Grifths, J., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2005). Empathy, group norms and childrens ethnic attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 623637. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., & Grifths, J. (2005). Group norms, threat and childrens ethnic prejudice. Child Development, 76, 112. Nesdale, D., & Scarlett, M. (2004). Effects of group and situational factors on preadolescent childrens attitudes to school bullying. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 428434. Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity towards outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127137. OConnell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437452. Ojala, K., & Nesdale, D. (2004). Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 1935. Olafsen, R. N., & Viemero, V. (2000). Bully/victim problems and coping with stress in school among 10- to 12-year-old pupils in Aland, Finland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 5765. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Wiley. Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adolescent boys: A causal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644660. Olweus, D. (1991). Victimization among school children. In R. Baenninger (Ed.), Targets of violence and aggression (pp. 45102). New York: Elsevier Science. OMoore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1989). Bullying in Dublin schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 10, 426441.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

138

Amanda L. Duffy and Drew Nesdale

Pelligrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group afliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216224. Peres, Y. (1971). Ethnic relations in Israel. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 10211047. Rigby, K. (1993). School childrens perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer relations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 501513. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615627. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 619700). New York: Wiley. Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1997). Peer networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305312. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 115. Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change in connection with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 205 218. Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246258. Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239268. Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70, 169182. Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. London: Minority Rights Group. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social inuence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., & Schulz, H. (2001). Bullying and victimization of primary school children in England and Germany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 673696.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Peer Groups and Bullying Appendix The Bullying Questionnaire BQ subscale Direct involvement Items

139

Harming friendships

Physical presence

Direct support

Filler items

Joins in when someone is being teased or called nasty names Makes nasty jokes about others Passes on nasty rumours that other people have started Teases others in an unpleasant way Leaves others out of games and activities on purpose Comes to watch when someone is being pushed around Encourages people who push, punch or kick others by shouting or cheering for them Trips others on purpose Wont let others join their group Agrees to leave people out of activities, once someone else has suggested it Takes other peoples belongings and hides them Ignores other people when they try to join in Calls others mean or hurtful names Tries to ruin other peoples friendships Stops being friends with people when someone tells them to Tries to steal other peoples friends Is usually there when someone is being ignored or left out Is usually there when others are being teased or called hurtful names, even if they dont join in Is usually there when others are being pushed, hit or kicked, even if they dont join in Holds onto someone who is being hit or kicked, so they cant escape Makes nasty phone calls to other people Catches people so that others can punch, hit or kick them Tries to hurt others by throwing things at them Shares things with others Helps others when they are hurt Is friendly to others Helps others with their schoolwork Tries to cheer people up when they are upset Is nice to others Says nice things to others when they have done something well When playing games, lets others have a turn Asks others to join in games or activities Lets others borrow their things Gets along well with others
Social Development, 18, 1, 2009

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008