Content uploaded by H. Colleen Sinclair
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by H. Colleen Sinclair on Oct 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Reaching Out versus Lashing Out: Examining Gender
Differences in Experiences with and Responses
to Bullying in High School
Megan Stubbs-Richardson
1
&H. Colleen Sinclair
1
&
Rebecca M. Goldberg
1
&Chelsea N. Ellithorpe
1
&
Suzanne C. Amadi
1
Received: 27 July 2017 /Accepted: 27 July 2017
#Southern Criminal Justice Association 2017
Abstract The present study examines gender differences in bullying in high school.
Unique contributions include comparisons of both victimization and perpetration rates
across four subtypes of bullying: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Further, as we
conceptualize bullying within the larger framework of literature on social rejection, we also
address whether there are gender differences in experiencing social rejection–in the form of
bullying–and responding with aggression, as opposed to asocial or prosocial behavior. The
literature yields mixed findings across these three questions (i.e., gender differences in
experiences with victimization and perpetration and responses to those experiences),
suggesting sample variations (Archer Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322,
2004; Archer & Coyne Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9,212–230, 2005;
Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little Child Development, 79,1185–1229, 2008). Thus, we
explored experiential differences in our sample, and hypothesized based on the tend and
befriend model (Taylor et al., 2000) that girls would be more likely than boys to respond to
bullying with prosocial behaviors. With regard to victimization and perpetration
differences, we found that male students both experienced and perpetrated significantly
more physical bullying. Boys were also significantly more likely to report experiencing
verbal bullying than girls. No significant differences emerged for relational or cyber
bullying. With regard to responses, social withdrawal was more common than aggressive
responding, but consistent with the tend and befriend model, girls chose prosocial responses
significantly more than boys, whereas boys were just as likely to choose anti-
social responding as prosocial responding. These results suggest that gender should be
Am J Crim Just
DOI 10.1007/s12103-017-9408-4
*Megan Stubbs-Richardson
megan@ssrc.msstate.edu
1
Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, 1 Research Boulevard, Suite 103,
Starkville, MS 39759, USA
considered in studies addressing the question of when experiences with rejection–in its
many forms–results in antisocial versus prosocial behavior.
Keywords School safety.Bullying .Aggression .Rejection .Gender differences
Reflecting both empirical and societal interest, the past decade has yielded a surge in
research on bullying. A search of an online scholarly database, Scopus, reported approx-
imately 185 publications on bullying in 2005,which largely originated in the US and UK,
whereas 2015 records noted over 1200 publications across 55 different countries. The
1990s yielded alarming headlines and the introduction of the term Bschool shooting^into
cultural parlance (Borum, Cornell, Modzeleski, & Jimerson, 2010; Burns & Crawford,
1999; Muschert, 2009). As research revealed histories of chronic or acute rejection within
the experiences of these shooters (Hutchinson, Wilkes, Vickers, & Jackson, 2008;Leary,
Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003; Vossekuil, Reddy, Fein, Borum, & Modzeleski,
2000), interest piqued and has not abated. Researchers (Kalish & Kimmel, 2010;
Kimmel & Mahler, 2003;Klein,2005) have also identified the social construction of
gender (e.g., masculinity and aggrieved entitlement) to be present in the majority of school
shooting cases, with boys being more likely to be perpetrators of school violence than
girls. Gender is a primary frame for organizing social relations (Ridgeway, 2009);
therefore, a better understanding of gender differences in perpetration, victimization,
and responses to rejection (i.e., types of bullying) in schools is warranted.
The purpose of the present research is to add to this burgeoning literature; advocat-
ing for an integration of literature on social rejection and bullying, while arguing for the
importance of examining gender as a moderator across the bullying spectrum (e.g.,
physical, verbal, relational, and cyber; PVRC). Specifically, we explore gender differ-
ences in perpetration and victimization across all four bullying subtypes (i.e., PVRC),
while also moving beyond the question of whether differences exist regarding experi-
ences with bullying by examining responses to those experiences. The responses that
we examine include addressing a persistent question within rejection literature: namely,
when does rejection–in this case in the form of bullying–lead to antisocial responding,
as opposed to prosocial behavior or asocial withdrawal (Hutchinson et al., 2008;
Richman & Leary, 2009)? We integrate the tend and befriend model (Taylor et al.,
2000;Taylor,2006) to argue for why gender might be an important moderator
regarding responses to bullying experiences.
Defining and Conceptualizing Bullying
Diverse definitions of bullying exist. Although there is a large body of literature that
defines bullying as repeated aggressive acts with the intention to cause harm that are
characterized by power differentials among bullies and victims (see Boulton, Bucci, &
Hawker, 1999;Olweus,1991; Solberg & Olweus, 2003), another body of research has
noted how this definition leads to conceptual issues in reporting and recognizing
bullying when it occurs (Donoghue & Raia-Hawrylak, 2016;Harris,2009; Klages &
Wirth, 2014). This latter body of research argues that it is sometimes difficult to detect
power differentials and intention, and argues that aggression in schools should be
Am J Crim Just
examined more inclusively in order to research the types of aggressive behavior. Within
the present research, we conceptualize bullying as a form of aggressive social rejection
that consists of purposeful harassment that attempts to devalue the target (Harris, 2009;
Klages & Wirth, 2014).
Expanding beyond the traditional focus on physical bullying, researchers today have
included four subtypes of aggression (PVRC) in operationalizing bullying (Archer,
2004;Cardetal.,2008; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009).
Physical aggression includes harming another individual physically, such as by hitting,
kicking, or shoving (Olweus, 1991). Verbal aggression involves the intent to harm
another by calling names or threatening harm (Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen,
1992;Wangetal.,2009). Relational aggression is the intent to harm another’s
relationships or social status by targeting the victim indirectly, such as by spreading
rumors or encouraging social exclusion (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick,
1996). Cyber aggression is the intent to harm through electronic means, such as through
social media, text message, or digital media (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Marcum,
Higgins, Freiburger, & Ricketts, 2012; Wang et al., 2009).
Bullying victimization is common among middle and high school girls and boys
(Scheithauer, Hayer, Petermann, & Jugert, 2006). Empirical data supports that 25% of
middle and high school students experience aggression and bullying (Zimmer-Gembeck
et al., 2013). The school crime safety supplement to the US National Crime Victimization
survey of 2013 shows that 22% of students between ages 12–18 were bullied at least once
during the school year, and 7% reported being cyber bullied (Robers, Kemp, Rathbun, &
Morgan, 2014).Basedonextantresearch,12.8–27.8% of high school students report
experiencing physical aggression, 36.5–62.1% report experiencing verbal aggression,
23.8–43.4% report experiencing relational aggression, and 7–11% report experiencing cyber
aggression (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Robers et al., 2014;Wangetal.,2009). These
subtypes of bullying can also be classified as direct (e.g., physical, verbal) and indirect (e.g.,
relational, cyber) forms of aggression (Card et al., 2008).
The distinction in sub-types of bullying has allowed for a greater understanding of
less traditional forms of bullying, such as relational aggression (e.g., spreading rumors)
and cyber aggression (i.e., the use of electronic means to harm another person), which
are more difficult to detect because they tend to be more indirect or covert forms of
aggression. Traditional bullying such as verbal aggression (e.g., calling others mean
names and using verbal threats) and physical bullying (e.g., hitting, kicking, or shoving
someone), on the other hand, can been classified as overt/direct aggression and is
usually easier to identify. The classification of indirect and direct forms of aggression is
supported by several factor analyses (Björkqvist et al., 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995;
Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998;
Macgowan, Nash, & Fraser, 2002; Vaillancourt, Brendgen, Boivin, & Tremblay, 2003)
and meta-analyses (Archer, 2004; Card et al., 2008).
Gender Differences in Bullying Perpetration
Recognizing the subtypes of bullying has resulted in researchers concluding that indirect
aggression is more common among girls, while direct aggression is more common among
boys (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). However, since the
1990s, research has revealed discrepancies regarding gender differences in bullying
Am J Crim Just
perpetration (Archer & Coyne, 2005;Cardetal.,2008). Some studies reveal that boys
engage in more indirect aggression (i.e., relational aggression) than girls (Orpinas,
McNicholas, & Nahapetyan, 2015; Tomada & Schneider, 1997; Underwood, 2002), where-
as others show no gender differences for indirect aggression (Archer & Coyne, 2005;Loflin
&Barry,2016;Salmivalli&Kaukiainen,2004). Researchers (Wang et al., 2009) also found
boys are more involved in physical, verbal, and cyber aggression and girls are more active in
relational aggression. Research findings on cyberbullying are inconsistent due to variations
in definitions and measurement, and thus the existence of gender differences remains a
question (Lapidot-Lefler & Dolev-Cohen, 2015;Li,2006; Marcum et al., 2012;Sincek,
2014;Wangetal.,2009). Further, results from a meta-analysis suggest that when it comes to
indirect aggression, boys and girls may be more similar than different (Card et al., 2008).
Few studies have attempted to resolve why the discrepant findings exist (Orpinas et al.,
2015; Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004;Wangetal.,2009), but the existence of the
discrepancies suggests that researchers examining bullying should test for gender differences
within their samples. Sample variations–age, locale, socioeconomic status–may help explain
differences between studies. Accordingly, in the present study, we aim to explore possible
gender differences within our dataset.
Gender Differences in Bullying Victimization
Similarly, a variety of research had demonstrated that boys are more likely to be victims
of physical and verbal aggression, whereas girls are more likely to be victims of
relational aggression (Donoghue & Raia-Hawrylak, 2016; Scheithauer et al., 2006;
Wang et al., 2009). When it comes to cyber aggression, however, studies have found
mixed results (Marcum, Ricketts, & Higgins, 2010;Marcumetal.,2012;Sincek,2014)
with one study finding no gender differences in cyber aggression victimization
(Donoghue & Raia-Hawrylak, 2016). However, other studies suggest that in general,
boys are more frequently bullied than girls (Olweus, 1991; Robers et al., 2014;
Scheithauer et al., 2006) which highlights the importance of expanding the definition
of bullying to move beyond physical or verbal aggression. Differences in research
findings regarding victimization may result from a number of factors similar to those
affecting reports of perpetration, including age (e.g., younger versus older children),
geographic region, culture, and the operationalization of bullying, to name a few.
Therefore, as with perpetration, it is important to include gender when examining
victimization across the different subtypes of bullying.
Bullying, Rejection, and Responses
Bullying is a targeted form of aggression that is not without consequences (Crick, 1996;
Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Rudolph, Troop-Gordon, & Flynn, 2009). In fact, though
boys frequently report victimization more than girls, neither boys nor girls are immune
to being victims of social rejection via aggression and bullying (Scheithauer et al.,
2006). Bullying contributes to an array of harmful outcomes including physical,
psychological, and social damage (Sigurdson, Wallander, & Sund, 2014). For example,
studies have documented adverse effects on adolescents’depression levels, cardiovas-
cular reactivity, school achievement, likelihood of suicide, and relationships (Boulton,
Trueman, & Murray, 2008; Farrington & Ttofi, 2011; Hawker & Boulton, 2000;
Am J Crim Just
Newman, 2014; Smokowski, Evans, & Cotter, 2014). Additionally, there is evidence of
changes at the neurological level (e.g., activity, stress hormone levels) due to peer
victimization that parallels findings on the neuroscience of social pain of rejection
(MacDonald & Jensen-Campbell, 2011; Vaillancourt, Clinton, McDougall, Schmidt, &
Hymel, 2010).
Just as bullying has an array of outcomes, so too does it elicit an array of responses.
Certainly, antisocial responses–such as retaliating against aggressors, lashing out at
others, or hurting oneself–have received the bulk of the attention (Reijntjes et al., 2010;
Williams & Zadro, 2001). However, there is an array of behaviors (i.e., prosocial,
asocial, antisocial) from which an individual can choose to respond to rejection
(Richman & Leary, 2009). Rejection causes almost immediate feelings of negative
affect (i.e., anger, sadness, and distress) and lowered self-esteem, which result in three
sets of motives that can occur simultaneously: (1) the need for social acceptance, (2) the
need to avoid further rejection, and (3) the need to defend oneself (Blackhart,
Baumeister, & Twenge, 2006; Iffland, Sansen, Catani, & Neuner, 2014;Richman&
Leary, 2009). Prosocial responses consist of attempts to promote acceptance, such as
mending the harmed relationship; this type of response is more likely to occur when
individuals perceive that their relationships are repairable (Richman & Leary, 2009).
Asocial responses include fleeing from rejection, such as avoiding the aggressor, peers,
and related social events in attempt to prevent further harm (Richman & Leary, 2009).
Finally, antisocial responses consist of retaliatory and aggressive behaviors that are
often characterized by a lack of self-control and negative emotions (Richman & Leary,
2009). Thus, the behaviors that individuals choose as responses depend on the motives
triggered by the rejection experiences; motives can be determined by individual (e.g.,
gender) and situational factors (e.g., type of rejection experience) (Leary, Koch, &
Hechenbleikner, 2001; Leary & Leder, 2009; Richman & Leary, 2009). For instance,
individuals have been found to respond differently towards indirect and direct forms of
bullying (Smith, Barkley, & Shapiro, 2009;McMahon&Frick,2009). A meta-analysis
(Card et al., 2008) revealed that responses to direct aggression (e.g., physical or verbal
bullying) include more externalizing problems (e.g., poor peer relations, higher levels
of antisocial behaviors) while responses to indirect aggression (e.g., relational bullying)
include more internalizing problems (e.g., depression, low self-esteem), as well as
higher levels of prosocial behaviors. Further identifying factors that could be instru-
mental in determining when bullying and rejections leads to antisocial responding over
prosocial responding has been noted as integral to the future of research on the
rejection-aggression link (Blackhart et al., 2006;Richman&Leary,2009).
Although there are a number of behavioral responses from which individuals
can choose to respond to bullying, repeated rejection that alienates youth has been
linked to school violence and school shootings (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, &
Stucke, 2001;Vossekuiletal.,2000). Social rejection is evident in the majority
of cases of shootings and school violence (Leary et al., 2003), with one-third of
school shooters specifically reporting that they felt bullied by others (Vossekuil
et al., 2000). Among elementary and middle-school students, increases in rejection
over time have led to increases in aggression over time (Kupersmidt, Burchinal, &
Patterson, 1995). Among older youth, individuals who have been alienated have
also been found to angrily lash out towards their perpetrators (Reijntjes et al.,
2010; Williams, 1997; Williams & Zadro, 2001).
Am J Crim Just
Gender Differences in Responses to Victimization
It is quite clear that rejection in the form of bullying can lead to aggression (Reijntjes
et al., 2010; Williams & Zadro, 2001). Further, research suggests that antisocial
reactions to rejection are a more common response among boys than girls
(Hutchinson et al., 2008; Kalish & Kimmel, 2010; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003;Klein,
2005; Leary et al., 2003; Reijntjes et al., 2010; Reijntjes et al., 2011;Richman&Leary,
2009; Williams, 1997; Williams & Zadro, 2001). For example, Sommer, Leuschner,
and Scheithauer (2014) examined 126 cases of school violence and found that 121
(96%) of cases included male perpetrators, with 29.9% being physically bullied and
53.7% experiencing peer rejection, including verbal and other types of aggression.
Research findings also suggest that boys are more likely than girls to seek revenge
against their aggressors (Card et al., 2008;Hodges&Perry,1999; Rose & Asher, 1999;
Rose & Rudolph, 2006;Slaby&Guerra,1988). Multiple explanations have been
offered for this finding, including aggrieved entitlement, responding to perceived
threats of a loss of privilege, or loss of face that challenges conceptions of masculinity
(Brown, Osterman, & Barnes, 2009; Kalish & Kimmel, 2010; Kimmel & Mahler,
2003;Klein,2005). However, this gender difference may exist not just because, as
research has argued, that boys may be more aggressive than girls generally, but also that
girls may be less aggressive (Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2000).
Researchers (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2000) have found evidence for a tend and
befriend response to stress in women, but they did not find this response in men. The
tend and befriend response involves seeking out a social group for mutual defense or
befriending one’s aggressor in response to a threat or attack. Instead, men are more
likely to use a fight or flight response (i.e., the physiological response to fight back or
withdraw from a threat or attack) to stressors, such as rejection (Lee & Harley, 2012).
The tend and befriend model asserts that women are more likely than men to respond
prosocially to stressors, including being attacked or rejected, such as by trying to repair
their relationships with their aggressors (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2000).
The tend and befriend model provides a theoretical framework for understanding
stress responses in women over the fight or flight response that more closely resembles
the responses that men evince (Lee & Harley, 2012). Originally, the tend and befriend
model was based on evolutionary theory, arguing that women’s biological differences
(e.g., hormonal, genetic) associated with reproduction and the survival of offspring
have influenced their stress responses (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2000). For instance,
sex dimorphisms on the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene have been differentially linked
to prosocial and harm avoidant behavior in women (McQuaid, McInnis, Matheson, &
Anisman, 2015; Stankova, Eichhammer, Langguth, & Sand, 2012) but antisocial
behavior in men (Waller et al., 2016). Experimental studies have also found that women
are more bio-behaviorally sensitive to social rejection than men as evidenced by higher
increases in cortisol levels (Stroud, Salovey, & Epel, 2002; Weik, Maroof, Zöller, &
Deinzer, 2010) and higher skin conductance when ostracized (Iffland et al., 2014).
Further, while both male and female participants exposed to ostracism reported more
negative affect than those not ostracized, significant differences in hostility toward the
rejecters was only evident in male participants (Zwolinski, 2012).
However, recent work provides evidence that socialization is not to be overlooked as
men’s prosocial behavior appears more linked to OXTR polymorphisms than women’s
Am J Crim Just
(Feng et al., 2015), particularly in collectivistic cultures (Nishina, Takagishi, Inoue-
Murayama, Takahashi, & Yamagashi, 2015). Generally, women are reared to be more
empathic (Laurent & Hodges, 2009) and it is this empathy that has been shown to have
a stronger effect than gender in predicting a propensity for befriending an individual
rejecter (Barford, Pope, Harlow, & Hudson, 2014). Both perspectives argue that
women–either via biology or socialization or both–are more likely to exhibit affiliative
behaviors in response to stress such as caring for others, finding new relationships,
peacemaking, joining social groups to reduce vulnerability to threats or imminent harm,
and the desire to affiliate by mobilizing social support (Turton & Campbell, 2005).
Thus, when applied to our study, we believe that girls will be more likely to respond
prosocially by engaging in behaviors represented through this model, including affil-
iation with others or the aggressor, in order to reduce their likelihood of exclusion from
social groups. To date, only one study has examined gender differences in victimization
and perpetration across the four sub-types of bullying (Wang et al., 2009), and no
studies have assessed gender differences in responses to the four sub-types of bullying
victimization. We address this gap.
The diversity of findings regarding gender differences in the prevalence of bullying
in high school seems to necessitate gender analyses in bullying studies (Archer, 2004;
Archer & Coyne, 2005;Cardetal.,2008). However, the goal of the present research is
to also examine whether there is reason to anticipate that gender may play a role in
addressing when experiences with bullying yield antisocial responses. Research has
identified boys as being more likely to externalize stress responses (e.g., fighting back)
while also choosing flight responses to aggression (e.g., to avoid further victimization),
whereas girls are more likely to respond via a tend and befriend response, for example,
by tending to the situation to repair the relationship or seeking out alternative others for
friendship (Lee & Harley, 2012;Taylor,2006; Taylor et al., 2000).
Despite there being much evidence for tend and befriend (Iffland et al., 2014;Lee&
Harley, 2012; McQuaid et al., 2015; Stankova et al., 2012; Stroud et al., 2002;Taylor,
2006; Taylor et al., 2000;Weiketal.,2010), no studies have examined tend and befriend
across the spectrum of all possible responses to bullying. Little is actually known
regarding how boys and girls may respond differently to subtypes of bullying, particularly
with regard to who might lash out versus reach out. As such, our unique contribution to
the rejection literature includes empirically testing the application of tend and befriend to
explain possible gender differences in responses to overt and covert forms of bullying.
The Current Study
The purpose of the present study is to better understand gender differences in bullying
victimization and perpetration, as well as behavioral responses (e.g., prosocial, asocial,
antisocial behaviors) across the four subtypes (PVRC) of bullying. Our study makes a
number of unique contributions to the literature. First, given that most studies have
focused on gender differences in perpetration only, this study adds to the literature by
also examining gender differences in victimization. Second, to our knowledge, only one
study (Wang et al., 2009), conducted among a sample of sixth–tenth grade students, has
examined gender differences across the four subtypes of bullying victimization and
perpetration, as most victimization studies have focused on gender differences in rela-
tional bullying. Third, this study is one of the first to examine gender differences in how
Am J Crim Just
individuals respond to experiences with PVRC bullying. In the present research, we
propose the following research questions: (1) Are there gender differences in PVRC
bullying perpetration?; (2) Are there gender differences in PVRC bullying victimization?;
and (3) Are there gender differences in how students respond (e.g., prosocial, asocial,
antisocial responses) to PVRC bullying victimization?
Given that the literature shows that boys experience and engage in more direct forms of
aggression than girls (Orpinas et al., 2015; Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004;Wangetal.,
2009), we expect to find support for the following hypotheses: (H1) Boys will be more
likely to perpetrate physical and verbal aggression than girls; and (H2) Boys will be more
likely to experience physical and verbal bullying victimization than girls. As the research
is mixed as to whether girls or boys are more likely to experience and engage in cyber
aggression (Donoghue & Raia-Hawrylak, 2016; Marcum et al., 2010; Marcum et al.,
2012;Sincek,2014), we do not propose any hypotheses for this subtype. Similarly,
because findings in the literature are mixed with regard to the perpetration of relational
aggression (Archer, 2004; Archer & Coyne, 2005;Cardetal.,2008), we do not propose
hypotheses for this factor. However, research does suggest that girls are more likely to be
victims of relational aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Thus
we propose our third hypothesis: (H3) Girls will be more likely than boys to experience
relational victimization (Donoghue & Raia-Hawrylak, 2016; Scheithauer et al., 2006;
Wang et al., 2009). Regarding responses to bullying victimization, because boys are more
likely to fight or flight (Lee & Harley, 2012), and girls are more likely to tend and befriend
in response to stress (i.e., rejection; Taylor, 2006;Tayloretal.,2000), we expect to find
support for the following hypothesis: (H4) Boys will be more likely than girls to respond
antisocially (fight) and asocially (flight). Research on tend and befriend suggests that girls
may be more likely than boys to seek relationship repair (Taylor, 2006;Tayloretal.,
2000). Thus, we expect to find support for the following hypothesis: (H5) Girls will
engage in more prosocial responses than boys.
Method
Participants
Four hundred and forty-seven public high school students in a rural Southeastern U.S.
school agreed to participate in an online survey regarding how often they experienced or
engaged in PVRC bullying. After obtaining IRB approval from the university, and
parental consent from parents, students received a choice of incentives (i.e., water bottle,
USB drive, earbuds) for returning the consent form that was provided (regardless of
participation status). A total of 1397 students were invited to participate in the study, and
556 returned consent forms signed by their parents (response rate = 40.1%). Table 1
includes the sample demographics on gender, race/ethnicity, age, student grade level,
location of residence, and mother’s level of education.
Materials
All of the materials were presented online using Qualtrics, and participants
completed the measures in one sitting at the school. In addition to participants’
Am J Crim Just
demographics, the following information was collected: victimization and per-
petration experiences, negative affect and self-esteem, and behavioral responses
to rejection. To view the survey instrument, please see the Appendix.Other
study materials can be found on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/.
Victimization and Perpetration Experiences
Items that assess victimization and perpetration experiences were listed at the beginning
of the survey. Students were provided with a definition for each of the subtypes of
bullying, and were then asked about their experiences. For each type of aggression, the
participant was asked to reflect on the past six months at his/her school to answer: 1)
Tab l e 1 Sample demographics
Percent (N)
Gender
Female
Male
Other
55.5 (248)
44.1 (197)
0.4 (2)
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian
African-American
Hispanic/Latino
Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander
Native American/Alaska Native
Other
32.4 (145)
63.8 (285)
4.3 (19)
2.0 (9)
3.4 (15)
4.3 (19)
Age (M= 15.95, SD =1.27)
14
15
16
17
18
19
11.6 (52)
30.6 (137)
24.6 (110)
17.9 (80)
14.3 (64)
0.9 (4)
Student Grade Level
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
31.8 (142)
28.2 (126)
19.0 (85)
21.0 (94)
Location of Residence
Within city limits
Outside city limits
80.8 (361)
19.2 (86)
Mother’s level of education
Did not complete high school
High school degree/GED
Some college
Associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Ph.D.
Not sure
4.0 (18)
18.1 (81)
13.2 (59)
5.8 (26)
14.8 (66)
15.7 (70)
4.7 (21)
23.7 (106)
Am J Crim Just
How often have you engaged in this behavior?; and 2) How often have you experi-
enced (i.e., been the target of) this behavior? Participants responded on a six-point
Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = almost all of the time,
and 5 = all of the time) and were asked a series of follow-up questions.
Assessing the ABC’s of Responses to Bullying: Affective, Behavioral,
and Cognitive
Negative Affect and Self-Esteem Items assessing negative affect and self-esteem were
asked as follow-up questions when a participant reported experiencing PVRC aggression.
Negative affect included 16 items (4 for each type of aggression) that measured sadness,
anger, upset, and embarrassment (e.g., BHow much did this experience make you feel sad?^;
α= .91). Self-esteem included 12 items (3 for each type of aggression) that were adapted
from the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale (e.g., BHow much did this experience make
you question whether you had any good qualities?^;α= .93). Both of the scales were
responded to on a five-point Likert scale, with 0=notatalland 4 = definitely.
Behavioral Responses to Rejection After completing the items about experiences
with victimization, negative affect, and self-esteem, participants were asked how they
have responded to the different types of aggression. Zimmer-Gembeck and Nesdale’s
(2013) Behavioral Responses to Rejection Scale was used to assess each subtype of
behavior. There were 12 items to assess prosocial responses, 3 for each type of
bullying. A sample item for prosocial responding includes the phrasing, BIf someone
became physically aggressive towards me, I have responded by: Going to someone
(e.g., parent, teacher, friend) for help.^Reliability for all 12 items was α= .90. There
were 16 items to assess antisocial responses, 4 for each sub-type of bullying. A sample
item for antisocial responding includes: BIf someone became verbally aggressive
towards me, I have responded by: Doing to others what was done to me.^Reliability
was α= .90. Lastly, there were 16 items to assess asocial responses, 4 for each type of
bullying. A sample item for asocial responding includes: BIf someone became socially
aggressive towards me, I have responded by: Trying to avoid situations where I have to
be with other people.^Reliability was α= .83. Item order was randomized. The scales
were responded to on a 5-point Likert scale, with 0=notatalland 4 = definitely.
Demographics were collected at the end of the survey on the grade, gender, race, age,
location of residence, and mother’s level of education for each student.
Analysis Plan Descriptive statistics, chi-square analyses, and ANOVAs were con-
ducted to test research questions regarding gender differences in perpetration and
victimization. To test for differences within gender in PVRC bullying rates,
repeated-measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons were used with
the four subtypes of aggression. Separate repeated-measures ANOVAs were con-
ducted for the male and female samples, respectively. To examine gender differences
in response to bullying victimization, we computed means that averaged the items to
assess negative affect, which were asked as follow-up questions when a participant
reported experiencing PVRC bullying. There were 16 items in total (4 following
each type of aggression, asking about sadness, anger, upset, and embarrassment;
α= .91). We repeated the same process for the three self-esteem items that were
Am J Crim Just
adapted from the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale, yielding 12 items total
(α= .93). Further, as an index of internalizing, both the self-esteem and negative
affect items were also averaged (combining all 28 items; α= .95). Both scales were
responded to on a five-point Likert scale with 0=notatalland 4 = definitely. For
behaviors, we employed an adaptation of Zimmer-Gembeck and Nesdale’s(2013)
Behavioral Responses to Rejection Scale, which includes items that assess prosocial
(12 items; α= .90), antisocial (16 items; α= .90), and asocial responses (16 items;
α= .83). All scales were responded to on a five-point Likert scale with 0 = not at
all and 4 = definitely.
Results
Research Question 1: Gender Differences in Perpetration
Are there gender differences in PVRC bullying perpetration? Extant research
suggests that boys tend to be higher on aggressive behavior (e.g., physical,
verbal) than girls, with one potential exception being relational aggression,
whereby levels tend to even out with age (Orpinas et al., 2015). However,
among girls, perpetrating relational aggression may be more common than
perpetrating other types of aggression (Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004). Accord-
ingly, to address Research Question 1, we examined gender differences in
perpetration by first computing means for responses to the four victimization
questions: BHow often [in the last 6 months] have you engaged in this behavior
[PVRC aggression]?^Every question was preceded by a definition, and followed
with a six-point Likert scale where 0 = never and 5=allofthetime.Descrip-
tives are available in Table 2. As can be seen in Table 2, perpetration rates
hovered around the rate of one incident. As such, to examine gender differences
in perpetration rates, we collapsed the perpetration response scale into a cate-
gorical variable (0 = No, 1 = Yes). As both the predictor variable (gender) and
the outcome variable (perpetration) were categorical variables, we employed chi-
square analyses with using Cramer’s V to approximate effect size (as
recommended by Agresti, 1996). As can be seen in Table 3, types of PVRC
bullying perpetration are distinct, with some subtypes having only weak positive
associations. Results from the chi square analysis are provided in Table 4.
Tab l e 2 Means and standard deviations for reported perpetration in high school within the past 6 months by
gender and bullying type
Bullying Type Physical Verbal Relational Cyber
Male Students 0.92
(1.14)
1.35
(1.40)
0.94
(1.23)
0.56
(1.20)
Female Students 0.56
(1.04)
1.03
(1.26)
0.94
(1.26)
0.46
(1.06)
Am J Crim Just
Partially supporting Hypothesis 1, the only significant gender difference to
emerge was with regard to male students using more physical aggression than
female students, as seen in Fig. 1.
Lastly, to test for differences within gender, we employed two repeated-measures
ANOVAs–one for boys and one for girls–with Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons of
reports of physical, verbal, and relational aggression within gender using the original
continuous scores on the six-point Likert scale. Cyber aggression was excluded from this
analysis due to infrequency and skew. For girls, results showed that rates of verbal and
relational aggression were significantly more common than physical aggression rates,
F(2238) = 17.65, p< .001, ŋ
2
= .13. For boys, using verbal aggression was more common
than using physical or relational aggression, F(2191) = 12.61, p< .001, ŋ
2
= .12.
Research Question 2: Gender Differences in Victimization
Are there gender differences in PVRC bullying victimization? Evidence suggests that
rates of bullying in high school may be relatively equal–especially as students age–with
potential gender differences in physical and verbal aggression (boys being higher than
girls) and relational aggression (girls being higher than boys) (Card et al., 2008;
Orpinas et al., 2015). To test Research Question 2, we first checked descriptives on
responses to the four victimization questions: BHow often [in the last 6 months] did
someone from your school engage in [PVRC] aggression towards you?^Every
question was preceded by a definition, and followed with a six-point Likert scale
where 0 = never and 5 = all of the time. As seen in Table 5, it was rare for frequencies
to exceed 2 (Brarely^). Further, responses to the cyber aggression item were statistically
skewed. As such, we again converted scores into a Byes^or Bno^format. We then
conducted chi-square analyses to examine gender differences in frequency using
Cramer’sVto approximate effect size (Agresti, 1996). In Table 6we provide correla-
tions for PVRC bullying victimization, finding subtypes to be distinct with some weak
Tab l e 3 Correlations between bullying perpetration types
Physical Verbal Relational Cyber
Physical --
Verbal .39** --
Relational .28** .41** --
Cyber .35** .24** .26** --
**p<.005
Tab l e 4 Results of chi-square analyses of gender differences in perpetration frequency
Physical aggression Verbal aggression
Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 10.14, p=.001,V=.151 Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 3.68, p=.055,V=.091
Relational aggression Cyber aggression
Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 0.01, p=.905,V=.006 Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 0.239, p=.632,V= .023
Am J Crim Just
(positive) linear relationships to one another. Results from the chi square analysis are
available in Table 7. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, significant gender differences with
small effects emerged for experiencing physical and verbal aggression, with boys
scoring higher than girls, as seen in Fig. 2. No other gender differences were evident.
Again, to test for differences within gender on whether boys or girls were more likely
to experience one type of bullying over others, we employed two repeated-measures
ANOVAs–one for boys and one for girls–with Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons. Using
the original continuous scores on the six-point Likert scale, reports of physical, verbal, and
relational victimization were compared within gender. However, cyber victimization was
excluded again due to skew. Results for victimization paralleled those found for perpe-
tration. For girls, results showed that rates of verbal and relational victimization were
significantly higher than rates of physical aggression (F(2246) = 12.05, p< .001,
ŋ
2
= .09). For boys, experiencing verbal aggression was more common than
experiencing physical or relational aggression (F(2196) = 7.131, p= .001, ŋ
2
= .04).
Research Question 3: Gender Differences in Responses to Bullying
Are there gender differences in how students respond (e.g., prosocially, asocially,
antisocially) to PVRC bullying victimization? As a form of stressful social rejection,
*Denotes a significant gender difference was found.
Female
Male
0
10
20
30
40
50
Physical Verbal Relaonal Cyber
Female Male
Fig. 1 Percentage of students reporting bullying perpetration by gender and type of aggression
Tab l e 5 Means and standard deviations for reported victimization in high school within the past 6 months by
gender and bullying type
Bullying type Physical Verbal Relational Cyber
Male students 0.92
(1.16)
1.42
(1.45)
1.07
(1.29)
0.49
(0.97)
Female students 0.56
(0.97)
1.13
(1.33)
1.16
(1.41)
0.53
(1.07)
Am J Crim Just
bullying can elicit an array of responses across affective, cognitive, and behavioral
spectrums (Richman & Leary, 2009). Individuals can internalize–feeling negative affect
and thinking less of themselves–or they can externalize and act (Richman & Leary,
2009). However, the actions that individuals take do not necessarily have to be
antisocial. Rather, literature examining the consequences of social rejection (e.g., acute
rejection, ostracism, alienation) has shown that not all individuals respond to bullying
antisocially (Hutchinson et al., 2008; Richman & Leary, 2009). Some individuals
choose to be asocial and withdraw, whereas others seek to be more prosocial by
reaching out for support or trying to build friendships (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al.,
2000). Based on extant literature, we expected that girls may be more likely to tend and
befriend–i.e., pursue prosocial responses–rather than fight or flight–i.e., act out antiso-
cially or withdraw, respectively (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2000). Boys may be more
likely to exhibit the fight or flight response over prosocial behavior, especially in
comparison to girls (Taylor et al., 2000; Taylor, 2006).
To answer Research Question 3, we ran a MANOVA testing for gender differences
in negative affect and self-esteem (as these two outcome variables were correlated;
r= .72). Although the analysis at the multivariate level suggested a potential difference
(Wilks λ(2, 253) = 3.04, p=.05,ŋ
2
= .02) there were no significant differences at the
univariate level on either negative affect (M=1.43,SD = 1.11 for girls; M=1.27,
SD = 1.13 for boys) or experiencing lowered self-esteem (M=0.98,SD = 1.16 for girls;
M=1.08,SD = 1.22 for boys).
Subsequently, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA looking for gender differences
(between-subjects variable) by response type (prosocial, asocial, or antisocial; within-
subjects variable). Here, significant differences emerged regarding the frequency of
response type (F(2, 254) = 12.95, p<.005,ŋ
2
= .09) as well as a significant interaction
of gender and response type (F(2, 254) = 4.20, p=.016,ŋ
2
= .03). Overall, according to
Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons, antisocial responses were significantly less common
than either asocial or prosocial responses. However, the interaction reveals that,
Tab l e 6 Correlations between bullying victimization types
Physical Verbal Relational Cyber
Physical --
Verbal .47** --
Relational .32** .49** --
Cyber .31** .31** .41** --
**p<.005
Tab l e 7 Results of chi-square analyses of gender differences in victimization frequency
Physical aggression Verbal aggression
Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 7.41, p=.006,V=.129 Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 4.60, p=.032,V= .102
Relational aggression Cyber aggression
Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 0.03, p=.869,V=.008 Χ
2
(1, N= 445) = 0.79, p=.373,V= .042
Am J Crim Just
consistent with the tend and befriend hypothesis, girls were significantly more likely to
engage in prosocial responses than boys. In fact, for boys, there was no significant
difference in their likelihood to choose antisocial over prosocial responses (see Fig. 3).
Finally, comparing whether there was a significant gender difference in negative
internalizing (e.g., low self-esteem, negative affect) and negative externalizing (e.g.,
antisocial behavior), a repeated-measures ANOVA was again employed with internal-
izing versus externalizing as the within-subjects variable and gender as the between-
subjects variable. No significant main effects or interactions emerged.
*Denotes a significant gender difference was found.
Female
Male
0
10
20
30
40
50
Physical Verbal Relaonal Cyber
Female Male
*
Fig. 2 Prevalence of bullying victimization by gender and type of aggression
0
0.5 1
1.5
2
An-social
Asocial
Pro-social
An- orPlaicosAlaicos-social
Female 86.127.171.1
Male 23.165.113.1
Fig. 3 Interaction of gender and response type
Am J Crim Just
Discussion
The goal of this study was to examine gender differences across the four subtypes
(PVRC) of bullying among high school students. Consistent with the literature (Orpinas
et al., 2015; Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004; Wang et al., 2009), our analysis suggests
that there are gender differences in direct forms of aggression (i.e., physical and verbal
bullying), with boys being more likely to be perpetrators and victims of physical
aggression than girls, and being more likely to be victims of verbal aggression than
girls. There were no statistically significant gender differences in indirect forms of
aggression (i.e., relational aggression) in either victimization or perpetration reports.
The latter two findings are somewhat inconsistent with the literature such that in some
samples, girls have been found to perpetrate relational aggression more than boys
(Björkqvist et al., 1992;Crick,1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick,
1996; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Lagerspetz, 2000). However, as noted, the literature is
mixed (Archer, 2004; Archer & Coyne, 2005; Card et al., 2008) and it may be that the
diversity of operationalization is to blame. Thus, we can only say that, as measured in
the present study, no gender differences were found for relational aggression perpetra-
tion or victimization.
While previous studies have found perpetration of verbal bullying to be higher
among boys (Donoghue & Raia-Hawrylak, 2016; Robers et al., 2014), our study
yielded only marginal evidence for a difference. However, we did find that boys are
more likely to be victims of verbal bullying than girls. In our sample, verbal aggression
was found to be the most prominent type of aggression overall, so the lack of gender
differences in perpetration may be due to the normalization of verbal bullying in this
school system. For girls, verbal and relational victimization was higher as compared to
physical victimization, while for boys, verbal victimization was higher than physical or
relational victimization. Some scholars (Anderson, 1999; Goldstein, Young, & Boyd,
2008; Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011;Leffetal.,2010; Rodkin, Espelage, &
Hanish, 2015) have argued that verbal or relational victimization likely occurs first,
with physical victimization sometimes following as a response to initial verbal threats
or harassment. Therefore, understanding how individuals respond to subtypes of
bullying is key to improving safety in schools, as earlier intervention at verbal or
relational Bstages^may help stem later physical aggression. Again, though, it is
important to note that girls may not proceed to the level of physical aggression as
often as boys, and the sub-types of bullying may be damaging enough. Indeed, in
follow-up exploratory analyses we found the means for how hurt girls felt when
subjected to physical vs. verbal aggression was 1.60 for both types of bullying.
As for other behavioral responses, we examined whether there are gender differences
in how high school students acted when bullied. Consistent with tend and befriend,we
found that girls are more likely to respond to bullying with prosocial behaviors than are
boys (Taylor, 2006;Tayloretal.,2000). In contrast, we found that boys are just as likely to
choose prosocial responses as they are to choose antisocial responses. Social withdrawal
was more evident in the sample than antisocial responses overall. Moreover, there were no
gender differences in experiencing negative affect or lowered self-esteem post victimiza-
tion. Accordingly, but for prosocial responding, boys and girls seem to respond to
bullying in similar ways; feeling hurt, thinking less of themselves, and withdrawing.
However, reaching out to others for social support is also a likely response among girls.
Am J Crim Just
As previously stated, neither boys nor girls are immune to social rejection
(Scheithauer et al., 2006). Thus, it may be that girls seek to reduce negative affect by
tending to the self (i.e., social status or reputation at school) through befriending others
more often than boys. Boys, on the other hand, may be more likely to choose more
immediate responses of fight or flight while internalizing negative affect and it seems
that flight (e.g., withdrawal, asocial responding) may be the first option over fight for
boys. This withdrawal response was not uncommon among girls. It would be interest-
ing if, in future research, we could discern the motive for withdrawal. If the tend and
befriend premise is correct, a girl’s motive for withdrawal might be to tend to the self,
working on the self to restore self-esteem or reinvent the self to gain social acceptance
(Anthony, Holmes, & Wood, 2007). Whereas for boys, the motive may be flight and
simple harm avoidance, not withdrawal to improve the self to improve odds of future
inclusion.
Contributions
As there have been mixed research findings regarding gender differences in bullying
(Archer, 2004; Archer & Coyne, 2005; Card et al., 2008), this research contributes by
examining victimization and perpetration rates for the different subtypes of bullying
(PVRC) in a rural sample of high school students. This study is also among the first to
examine gender differences in how students respond to the four subtypes (PVRC) of
bullying with prosocial, asocial, and/or antisocial behaviors. Our results suggest that
gender is important to consider when examining the effects of bullying because girls
and boys have been shown to perpetrate, experience, and respond differently to
aggression in certain instances.
Also of note is that in the present study we did not find much difference between
high school students in their experiences with relational aggression. Consequently,
although relational aggression was previously considered to be more of a female
phenomenon, studies are showing that this may not be the case, with rises in relational
aggression occurring among both boys and girls and an increasing number of studies
showing no gender differences (Archer & Coyne, 2005;Cardetal.,2008;Orpinas
et al., 2015). Our study adds to this research, supporting that, at least among older
youth, relational aggression is Bequal opportunity.^Further, it may be that individuals
choose relational aggression with age because this form of aggression has fewer social
costs (i.e., loss in reputation or social status) for perpetrators than more overt forms of
aggression (e.g., physical aggression), which might entail school suspension or arrest,
for example (Björkqvist, 1994).
As the current research elucidates, girls and boys may also have different responses
to stress, such as experiences of rejection. As mentioned previously, the majority of
aggression and violence in schools is related to social rejection, and perpetrators of
school violence tend to be males with histories of peer rejection (Kalish & Kimmel,
2010; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003;Klein,2005; Leary et al., 2003; Sommer et al., 2014).
This mirrors our finding that boys are more likely to be perpetrators and victims of
physical aggression and victims of verbal aggression. However, research has also
suggested that while boys have been shown to respond more aggressively and engage
in more bullying than girls, girls are more likely to tend and befriend (Lee & Harley,
2012; Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2000).
Am J Crim Just
As reviewed earlier, the tend and befriend model is supported by both biological
gender differences (McQuaid et al., 2015; Stankova et al., 2012) and the use of different
socialization techniques for girls and boys (Feng et al., 2015; Nishina et al., 2015).
Thus, it is not surprising that women are more likely to respond to rejection prosocially
than men (Zwolinski, 2012). The socialization of traditional gender norms that ascribe
certain characteristics to masculine and feminine behaviors teaches boys and girls
norms for how to act accordingly, based on their sex category membership
(Hollander, 2013; Ridgeway, 2009; West & Zimmerman, 1987). For example, from a
very early age, girls are taught to value social relationships and to have greater empathy
than are boys (Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Barford et al., 2014;Laurent&Hodges,2009).
However, studies show that empathy can be taught (Graham & Ickes, 1997) and our
findings revealed that boys were equally as likely to choose prosocial responding as
asocial responding.
Important next steps to take in improving school safety, reducing aggression, and
preventing antisocial responses might include increasing the accessibility of prosocial
response options for boys. Interventions should focus on assisting all students with
learning prosocial communication and behavioral skills that could be utilized in
response to experiencing (PVRC) subtypes of bullying. For example, research on
empathy has shown that it is a key ingredient to predict befriending attempts following
negative social interactions (Barford et al., 2014). There is also research showing that
the gender difference in empathy is something that can be Btrained away^(Graham &
Ickes, 1997). Thus, via enhancing empathic skills, interventions could reduce aggres-
sive responding and increase prosocial action (e.g., Castillo, Salguero, Fernandez-
Berrocal, & Balluerka, 2013; Stavrindes, Georgious, & Theofanous, 2010).
Further, as the bulk of responses tended to be asocial for both boys and girls,
interventions should focus on assisting students who are differentially affected by
(PVRC) subtypes of bullying. Indirect and covert forms of aggression (e.g., relational,
cyber) are harder to detect and can extend beyond victimization at school. Additionally,
indirect aggression can sometimes be more harmful because basic needs (e.g., social
acceptance, to avoid further rejection, and the need to defend oneself) are immediately
threatened and the effects are prolonged (Richman & Leary, 2009). For example, when
the type of aggression involves rumor spreading to his/her peers online or in person, it
is difficult for the victim to defend his/her self. Additionally, this negative or false
information may continue to spread to peers online or in person over time, which also
threatens social acceptance and the need to avoid further rejection as information
spreads across networks.
Limitations and Future Research
As this is one correlational study, the findings should be considered in light of
limitations and warrant replication. A possible limitation of this research is that we
did not ask about the gender of the perpetrator in our survey when a student indicated
that s/he had been victimized. When examining gender differences in victimization, it is
also important to consider whether there are differences between intra and inter gender
bullying among boys and girls (see Boiling, Pelphrey, & Vander Wyk, 2016). Future
research should investigate whether boys and girls are more likely to use different types
of aggression against their own gender or across an array of gender identities. Same
Am J Crim Just
gender bullying and across gender bullying may lead to different types of aggression
being used, as well as different responses to those types of aggression.
Another important limitation to our study is that we were unable to address why
gender differences in bullying experiences exist. Now that we have shown that gender
differences are important to consider in regard to bullying experiences, important next
steps are conducting a meta-analysis of the bullying literature to assess gender differ-
ences, and then engaging in follow-up research to determine why results vary in the
bullying literature regarding gender differences. Answering this question is a vital step
in explaining the disparities in the literature.
Another limitation might be the time limit for behavioral responses to occur, which
was six months. Students may not have had time to respond to an experience with
PVRC bullying, which might explain why many students responded asocially by
withdrawing. Future research should expand the window of time examined and or
track bullying experiences prospectively, such as by using event diaries instead of
retrospectively. More research is needed to also monitor, in general, how quickly
responses occur so that we can better estimate a reasonable timeframe for assessing
responses to rejection.
Finally, our focus in the current study was on attempting to discern whether or not
gender is important to consider when examining behavioral responses to bullying/
rejection. Although we offered the tend and befriend model as an over-arching
framework and the gender difference in prosocial responding would support this
perspective, the choice of asocial responding among boys and girls is open to inter-
pretation. One way to elucidate this finding, would be to assess the reported motives
underlying the response behaviors. If the tend and befriend perspective is correct, girls
would be more likely to indicate motives that help them achieve future inclusion (even
if withdrawing).
Implications
The distinction and classification of bullying into four subtypes is important for
detecting and preventing bullying in schools. Direct aggression (e.g., physical, verbal)
is easier to detect and report to authorities than indirect aggression (e.g., relational,
cyber). Thus, a greater understanding of indirect aggression, including its negative
consequences, is needed among parents, teachers, students, and school personnel.
Distinction in subtypes of bullying also allows for a better understanding of gender
differences in perpetration and victimization, as well as the responses to subtypes of
bullying, all of which can be used to improve anti-bullying programs in schools. Part of
this intervention involves recognition of types of aggression that are less monitored or
recognized (e.g., cyber aggression), and these programs should be targeted towards
both boys and girls.
The impacts of relational aggression, for example, are incredibly damaging; targets
of this behavior experience a range of negative outcomes (Goldberg, Smith-Adcock, &
Dixon, 2011), such as feeling loss of self-esteem and onset of depression (Owens, Slee,
& Shute, 2000). Acute negative reactions (Goldberg et al., 2011; Reijntjes et al., 2011)
and chronic future maladjustment (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995;Rudolph
et al., 2009) are frequent effects of relational aggression. Relational aggression can also
lead to classroom and school violence; there exists a link between relational and
Am J Crim Just
physical aggression, as relational aggression often precedes physical aggression in
urban school settings (Goldstein et al., 2008;Leffetal.,2010). By and large, relational
aggression leads to a cycle of perpetration and victimization (Hamburger et al., 2011;
Rodkin et al., 2015). Key community stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, counselors)
must be educated on how to recognize and intervene (with the ultimate goal of
prevention) when indirect and more covert forms of aggression are occurring.
Indeed, the interaction of students as reciprocal aggressors engaged in an on-going
conflict may be important to acknowledge. Too often we conceive of bullying as the
harassment of a victim by a perpetrator. However, the victim should not be conceived as
merely a passive recipient of abuse, but rather actively attempting –prosocially, asocially, or
antisocially –to avoid victimization. Thus, interventions could be put in place to encourage
prosocial response options, with a goal of keeping victims from becoming bully-victims
(Kelly et al., 2015), like many school shooters have been alleged to be. Generally, the variety
of responses employed by those affected by bullies should be better explored.
Further, it is also important to consider research and policy implications for gender
differences in responding to subtypes of bullying. Although we found girls are more
likely than boys to respond prosocially, we also found that boys are equally likely to
respond prosocially and antisocially to rejection. Thus, there may be theoretical and
research implications of tend and befriend that should include situational or environ-
mental variables that apply to both girls and boys. For example, is tend and befriend
influenced by differences in the environment, such as boys in Bhonor states^being less
likely to respond prosocially due to concerns about loss of reputations than are boys in
non-honor states (Brown et al., 2009)? Future research should examine the applicability
of tend and befriend in addition to several factors that seem to demonstrate discrepant
bullying roles of girls and boys (i.e., age, geography, culture, socioeconomic status).
Tend and befriend should also be considered in interventions and programs that could
increase prosocial behaviors in boys and reduce antisocial behaviors. For example,
Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, and Cowie (2003) used a befriending model and applied it
to an anti-bullying intervention for both boys and girls. The intervention was shown to be
effective, as it was successful in reducing negative attitudes and behaviors among middle
school Italian children (Menesini et al., 2003). Researchers and policy makers in the U.S.
could apply tend and befriend to anti-bullying interventions and campaigns, while empha-
sizing behaviors that boys can engage in to reduce aggressive behaviors. These implications
rest mainly on literature that suggests aggressive behavior in boys is reflected through
biological and social processes that induce adaptive behavior (to flee or fight) to reduce or
prevent further harm, whereas girls are more likely to seek to repair relationships or protect
one’s social group (Lee & Harley, 2012;Taylor,2006). However, our finding that boys also
respond prosocially to aggressive behavior informs us that prosocial behaviors can be
learned and should be encouraged in school environments, such as through programs that
aim to improve communication skills and adaptive, cooperative behaviors.
Presently, there exists numerous national and international programs and campaigns
designed to combat the presence and effects of bullying in schools and among children
and adolescents. Prevention and intervention efforts include early childhood programs
[e.g., Walk Away, Ignore, Talk it Out, Seek Help (WITS; Leadbetter, Woods, Yeung,
Riel, & Lynch, 2011); You Can’tSayYouCan’tPlay(Paley,1993)], social media
campaigns [e.g., #StandUp (Beyond Bullies, 2016); #IAmAWitness (I Witness
Bullying, 2016); #STOMPOutBullying (Stomp Out Bullying, 2016); #PostItForward
Am J Crim Just
(Tumblr, 2015)], advertising campaigns [e.g., Cyber Mentors, 2016; Bully Free Me
(National Education Association, 2015)], and safe school initiatives [e.g., Creating A Safe
School (Ophelia Project, 2013); Project Appleseed (National Campaign for Public School
Improvement, 2016)]. It is likely that multi-systemic approaches are most successful in
reducing aggressive behaviors and promoting prosocial behavior and positive social rela-
tionships in schools and among children and adolescents. Prevention and intervention efforts
should include training and consultation with key community stakeholders (i.e., caregivers,
parents/guardians, teachers, school administration, school staff) in order to maintain changes.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding The project is funded by the National Institute of Justice School Safety Initiative and can be found
on the Open Science Framework at www.osf.io/fyvxp. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix
Survey Instrument
We are interested in how students get along with one another. Please think about your
relationship with other STUDENTS AT YOUR SCHOOL DURING THE PAST SIX
MONTHS. For each of the statements, please answer questions using the scale provided.
PA Some students engage in physical aggression, such as hitting, kicking, and shoving
other students. Physical aggression may also include any other attempts that have the
potential to cause physical harm to another person. (PA = Physical Aggression).
VA Some students engage in verbal aggression, such as calling others names to hurt
feelings, making fun of others to cause harm, or making threats of harm. Verbal aggression
may also include any other attempts to cause psychological harm. (VA = Verbal Aggression).
SA Some students engage in social aggression, such as spreading rumors about other
students, purposely leaving people out of social groups or social events, turning people
against each other, or giving the silent treatment. Social aggression may also include any
other attempts to cause social harm. (SA = Social or Relational Aggression).
CA Some students engage in cyber aggression, such as posting negative things about
others online or posting/sharing inappropriate pictures by electronic means (e.g., by use of
cell phones, social media, social applications, or internet access). Cyber aggression may also
include any other attempts to cause harm by electronic means. (CA = Cyber Aggression).
(Note: Items are shown for one type of aggression at a time.)
CSB01 How often do you do this? _____.
CSB02 How often has this happened to you? _____.
012 3 4 5
Never Once Rarely Sometimes Almost all of the time All of the time
If the response is more than once (response answer 2+), pop up with: BPlease recall
the most recent, serious incident when answering the remainder of the questions^
Am J Crim Just
Negative Affect
NEGAFF.01 To what extent did this experience make you feel sad?
NEGAFF.02 To what extent did this experience make you feel upset?
NEGAFF.03 To what extent did this experience make you feel angry?
NEGAFF.04 To what extent did this experience make you feel embarrassed?
01234
Notatall Definitely
Low Self-Esteem
SELF.01 To what extent did this experience make you feel bad about yourself?
SELF.02 To what extent did this experience harm your self-esteem?
SELF.03 To what extent did this experience make you feel as though you have few
good qualities?
0 1234
NotatAll Definitely
Response to Rejection Survey
If someone became physically aggressive (changed based on the type of aggression)
towards me, I would generally respond/have responded by:
WITH.01 Trying to avoid situations where I have to be with other people.
WITH.02 Keeping to myself.
WITH.03 Thinking of ways to avoid seeing people.
WITH.04 Deciding to spend more time alone.
ANTI.01 Getting angry and arguing with the person/persons who hurt me.
ANTI.02 Doing to others what was done to me.
ANTI.03 Thinking of ways to get back at the person/persons who hurt me.
ANTI.04 Saying negative things about the person/persons to other people.
PRO.01 Going to someone (e.g., parent, teacher, friend) for help.
PRO.02 Working things out with the person/persons who were aggressive towards me.
PRO.03 Doing nice things for others.
0 1234
NotatAll Definitely
Am J Crim Just
References
Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis (Vol. 135). New York: Wiley.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street.NewYork:Norton.
Anthony, D. B., Holmes, J. G., & Wood, J. V. (2007). Social acceptance and self-esteem: Tuning the
sociometer to interpersonal value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1024–1039.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1024.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of
General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9,212–230. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2.
Barford, K. A., Pope, J. B., Harlow, T. F., & Hudson, E. P. (2014). Predicting empathy andprosocial behavior:
Who cares and when? Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19,202–213.
Beyond Bullies. (2016). #Beyond bullies stand up campaign. http://beyondbullies.org/take-action-
now/sticker-campaign/
Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research.
Sex Roles, 30, 177–188.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and indirect aggressive
strategies in males and females. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of
female aggression (pp. 51–64). San Diego: Academic Press.
Blackhart, G. C., Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2006). Rejection’s impact on self- defeating, prosocial,
antisocial, and self-regulatory behaviors. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships:
Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 237–253). New York: The Guilford Press.
Boiling, D. Z., Pelphrey, K. A., & Vander Wyk, B. C. (2016). Unlike adults, children and adolescents show
predominantly increased neural activation to social exclusion by members of the opposite gender. Social
Neuroscience, 11,475–486.
Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? A
review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27–37. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357620.
Boulton, M. J., Bucci, E., & Hawker, D. D. S. (1999). Swedish and English secondary school pupils' attitudes
towards, and conceptions of, bullying: Concurrent links with bully/victim involvement. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 277–284.
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., & Murray, L. (2008). Associations between peer victimization, fear of future
victimization and disrupted concentration on class work among junior school pupils. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78,473–489. doi:10.1348/000709908X320471.
Brown, R. P., Osterman, L. L., & Barnes, C. D. (2009). School violence and the culture of honor.
Psychological Science, 20,1400–1405. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02456.x.
Burns, R., & Crawford,C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for a moral panic.
Crime, Law and Social Change, 32(2), 147–168.
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during
childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations
to maladjustment. Child Development, 79,1185–1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.
Castillo,R.,Salguero,J.M.,Fernandez-Berrocal,P.,&Balluerka, M. (2013). Effects of an emotional intelligence
intervention on aggression and empathy among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 883–892.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of
children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9706060169.
Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of aggression: Links to
social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 610–617.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment.
Child Development, 66,710–722. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9506152720.
Cyber Mentors. (2016). Cyberbullying. http://cybermentors.org.uk/?s=cyberbullying
Donoghue, C., & Raia-Hawrylak, A. (2016). Moving beyond the emphasis on bullying: A generalized
approach to peer aggression in high school. Children and Schools, 38,30–39.
Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2011). Bullying as a predictor of offending, violence and later life outcomes.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21,90–98. doi:10.1002/cbm.801.
Feng, C., Lori, A., Waldman, I. D., Binder, E. B., Haroon, E., & Rilling, J. K. (2015). A common oxytocin
receptor gene (OXTR) polymorphism modulates intranasal oxytocin effects on the neural response to
social cooperation in humans. Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 14, 516–525. doi:10.1111/gbb.12234.
Am J Crim Just
Goldberg, R. M., Smith-Adcock, S., & Dixon, A. L. (2011). The influence of mass media on relational
aggression among females: A feminist counseling perspective. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and
Traum a, 2 0,376–394. doi:10.1080/10926771.2011.568995.
Goldstein, S. E., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with school safety and
social climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37,641–654. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9192-4.
Graham, T., & Ickes, W. (1997). When women’s intuition isn’t greater than men’s. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic
accuracy (pp. 117–143). New York: Guilford Press.
Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child
Development, 67,2328–2338. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9706060170.
Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo, A. M. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization perpetration, and
bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Harris, M. J. (2009). Taking bullying and rejection (inter)personally: Benefits of a social psychological
approach to peer victimization. In M. J. Harris (Ed.), Bullying, rejection, and peer victimization: A social
cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer Publishing.
Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and
relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages.
Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 687–697.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial
maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41,441–455.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending
and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156. doi:10.1080/01639620701457816.
Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of
victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 677–685.
Hollander, J. A. (2013). BI demand more of people^: Accountability, interaction, and gender change. Gender
& Society, 27(1), 5–29.
Hutchinson, M., Wilkes, L., Vickers, M., & Jackson, D. (2008). The development and validation of a bullying
inventory for the nursing workplace. Nurse Researcher, 15(2), 19–29.
I Witness Bullying. (2016). #I am a witness. http://iwitnessbullying.org/
Iffland, B., Sansen, L. M., Catani, C., & Neuner, F. (2014). Rapid heartbeat, but dry palms: Reactions of heart
rate and skin conductance levels to social rejection. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 956. doi:10.3389
/fpsyg.2014.00956.
Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2010). Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and
rampage school shootings. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 451–464. doi:10.5172
/hesr.2010.19.4.451.
Kelly,E.V.,Newton,N.C.,Stapinski,L.A.,Slade,T.,Barrett, E. L., Conrod, P. J., & Teeson, M. (2015). Suicidality,
internalizing problems, and externalizing problems among adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims.
Preventive Medicine: An international journal devoted to practice and theory, 73, 100–105.
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence random school shootings,
1982-2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439–1458. doi:10.1177/0002764203046010010.
Klages, S. V., & Wirth, J. H. (2014). Excluded by laughter: Laughing until it hurts someone else. Journal of
Social Psychology, 154,8–13. doi:10.1080/00224545.2013.843502.
Klein, J. (2005). Teaching her a lesson: Media misses boys’rage relating to girls in school shootings. Crime,
Media, Culture, 1,90–97. doi:10.1177/1741659005050245.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41,S22–S30. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Developmental patterns of childhood peer relations as
predictors of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 825–843.
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Dolev-Cohen, M. (2015). Comparing cyberbullying and school bullying among school
students: Prevalence, gender, and grade level differences. Social Psychology of Education, 18,1–16.
doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9280-8.
Laurent, S. M., & Hodges, S. D. (2009). Gender roles and empathic accuracy: The role of communion in
reading minds. Sex Roles, 60, 387–398. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9544-x.
Leadbetter, B., Woods, T., Yeung, R., Riel, K., & Lynch, R. A. (2011). Using your WITS to prevent peer
victimization: A resource guide to the WITS primary and WITS LEADS programs (2nd ed.). Victoria:
University of Victoria and Rock Solid Foundation.
Leary, M. R., Koch, E., & Hechenbleikner, N. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. In M.R.
Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 146–166). New York: Oxford University Press.
Am J Crim Just
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies
of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29,202–214. doi:10.1002/ab.10061.
Leary, M. R., & Leder, S. (2009). The nature of hurt feelings: Emotional experience and cognitive appraisals. In A.
Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 15–33). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J., & Harley, V. R. (2012). The male fight-flight response: A result of SRY regulation of catecholamines?
BioEssays, 34, 454–457. doi:10.1002/bies.201100159.
Leff, S. S., Waasdorp, T. E., Paskewich, B., Gullan, R. L., Jawad, A. F., MacEvoy, J. P., Feinberg, B. E., &
Power, T. J. (2010). The preventing relational aggression in schools everyday program: A preliminary
evaluation of acceptability and impact. School Psychology Review, 39,569–587.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International,
27,157–170. doi:10.1177/0143034306064547.
Loflin,D.C.,&Barry,C.T.(2016).Youcan’t sit with us: Gender and the differential roles of social
intelligence and peer status in adolescent relational aggression. Personality and Individual Differences,
91,22–26. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.048.
MacDonald, G., & Jensen-Campbell, L. A. (2011). Social pain: Neuropsychology and health implications of
loss and exclusion. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Macgowan, M. J., Nash, J. K., & Fraser, M. W. (2002). The Carolina child checklist of risk and protective factors for
aggression. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(2), 253–276. doi:10.1177/104973150201200204.
Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Freiburger, T. L., & Ricketts, M. L. (2012). Battle of the sexes: An examination of
male and female cyber bullying. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 904–911.
Marcum, C. D., Ricketts, M. L., & Higgins, G. E. (2010). Assessing sex experiences of online victimization:
An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Criminal Justice Review,
35(4), 412–437. doi:10.1177/0734016809360331.
McMahon, R. J., & Frick, P. J. (2009). Conduct and oppositional disorders. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley
(Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (4th ed., pp. 132–183). New York: Guilford Press.
McQuaid, R. J., McInnis, O. A., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2015). Distress of ostracism: Oxytocin
receptor gene polymorphism confers sensitivity to social exclusion. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 10, 1153–1159. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu166.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children's responsibility to take action
against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior,
29(1), 1–14. doi:10.1002/ab.80012.
Muschert, G. W. (2009). Frame-changing in the media coverage of a school shooting: The rise of columbine as
a national concern. Social Science Journal, 46(1), 164–170. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.12.014.
National Campaign for Public School Improvement. (2016). Project Appleseed. http://www.projectappleseed.
org/secret-service-safe-school-initiative
National Education Association. (2015). NEA’sbullyfree:Itstartswithme.http://www.nea.
org/home/neabullyfree.html
Newman, M. L. (2014). Here we go again: Bullying history and cardiovascular responses to social exclusion.
Physiology and Behavior, 133,76–80. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.014.
Nishina, K., Takagishi, H., Inoue-Murayama, M., Takahashi, H., & Yamagashi, T. (2015). Polymorphism of
the oxytocin receptor gene modulates behavioral and attitudinal trust among men but not women. PloS
One, 10(10), 1–11. doi:10.1037/journal.pone.0137089.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based
intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood
aggression (pp. 411–448). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Ophelia Project. (2013). Creating a safe school. http://www.opheliaproject.org/cass/ProgramManager.pdf
Orpinas, P., McNicholas, C., & Nahapetyan, L. (2015). Gender differences in trajectories of relational
aggression perpetration and victimization from middle to high school. Aggressive Behavior, 41,401–
412. doi:10.1002/ab.21563.
Owens, L., Slee, P., & Shute, R. (2000). ‘It hurts a hell of a lot...’The effects of indirect aggression on teenage
girls. School Psychology International, 21(4), 359–376. doi:10.1177/0143034300214002.
Paley, V. G. (1993). You c a n’t say you can’tplay. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Boelen, P. A., de Castro, B. O., & Telch, M. J. (2010). The outcast-
lash-out effect in youth: Alienation increases aggression following peer rejection. Psychological Science,
21, 1394–1398. doi:10.1177/0956797610381509.
Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Kamphuis, J. H., Bushman, B. J., de Castro, B. O., & Telch, M. J. (2011).
Explaining the paradoxical rejection-aggression link: The mediating effects of hostile intent attributions,
anger, and decreases in state self-esteem on peer rejection-induced aggression in youth. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 37,955–963. doi:10.1177/0146167211410247.
Am J Crim Just
Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of
interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116(2), 365–383. doi:10.1037/a0015250.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender and S ociety,
23(2), 145-160. doi: 10.1177/0891243208330313.
Robers, S., Kemp, J., Rathbun, A., & Morgan, R. E. (2014). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Rodkin, P. C., Espelage, D. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2015). A relational framework for understanding bullying:
Developmental antecedents and outcomes. American Psychologist, 70,311–321.
Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children’s goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship.
Developmental Psychology, 35,69–79.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential
trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1),
98–131. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rudolph, K. D., Troop-Gordon, W., & Flynn, M. (2009). Relational victimization predicts children’ssocial-
cognitive and self-regulatory responses in a challenging peer context. Developmental Psychology, 45,
1444–1454. doi:10.1037/a0014858.
Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). BFemale aggression^revisited: Variable- and person- centered
approaches to studying gender differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30,
158–163. doi:10.1002/ab.20012.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression and sociometric status among peers: Do
gender and types of aggression matter? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41,17–24.
Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., Petermann, F., & Jugert, G. (2006). Physical, verbal, and relational forms of
bullying among German students: Age trends, gender differences, and correlates. Aggressive Behavior,
32,261–275. doi:10.1002/ab.20128.
Sigurdson, J. F., Wallander, J., & Sund, A. M. (2014). Is involvement in school bullying associated with
general health and psychosocial adjustment outcomes in adulthood? Child Abuse and Neglect, 38, 1607–
1617. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.06.001.
Sincek, D. (2014, September). Gender differences in cyber-bullying. Paper presented at international multi-
disciplinary scientific conference on social sciences and arts,Albena, Bulgaria.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: I.
Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24, 580–588.
Smith, B. H., Barkley, R. A., & Shapiro, C. J. (2009). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In E.
J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (4th ed., pp. 53–131). New
York: Guilford Press.
Smokowski, P. R., Evans, C. B. R., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). The differential impacts of episodic, chronic, and
cumulative physical bullying and cyberbullying: The effects of victimization on the school experiences,
social support, and mental health of rural adolescents. Violence and Victims, 29, 1029–1046.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim
questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239–268. doi:10.1002/ab.10047.
Sommer, F., Leuschner, V., & Scheithauer, H. (2014). Bullying, romantic rejection, and conflicts with teachers:
The crucial role of social dynamics in the development of school shootings–A systematic review.
International Journal of Developmental Science, 8,3–24.
Stankova, T., Eichhammer, P., Langguth, B., & Sand, P. G. (2012). Sexually dimorphic effects of oxytocin
receptor gene (OXTR) variants on harm avoidance. Biology of Sex Differences, 3,17–21. doi:10.1186
/2042-6410-3-17.
Stavrindes, P., Georgious, S., & Theofanous, V. (2010). Bullying and empathy: A short-term longitudinal
investigation. Educational Psychology, 30, 793–802.
Stomp Out Bullying. (2016). #STOMP out bullying.http://www.stompoutbullying.org/.
Stroud, L. R., Salovey, P., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Sex differences in stress responses: Social rejection versus
achievement stress. Biological Psychiatry, 52,318–327. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01333-1.
Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15,273–277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-87 21.2006.00451.x.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000).
Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological
Review, 107,411–429. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.107.3.411.
Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer acceptance: Invariance across
culture, stability over time, and concordance among informants. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 601–
609.
Am J Crim Just
Tumblr. (2015). #Post it forward.http://postitforward.tumblr.com/.
Turton, S., & Campbell, C. (2005). Tend and befriend versus fight or flight: Gender differences in behavioral
response to stress among university students. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 10, 209–232.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them:
Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
1058–1069. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1058.
Underwood, M. K. (2002). Sticks and stones and social exclusion: Aggression among girls and boys. In P. K.
Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 533–548).
Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.
Vaillancourt, T., Brendgen, M., Boivin, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2003). A longitudinal confirmatory factor
analysis of indirect and physical aggression: Evidence of two factors over time. Child Development, 74,
1628–1638. doi:10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00628.x.
Vaillancourt, T., Clinton, J., McDougall, P., Schmidt, L. A., & Hymel, S. (2010). The neurobiology of peer
victimization and rejection. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of
bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 293–304). Florence: Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group.
Vossekuil, B., Reddy, M., Fein, R., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2000). U.S.S.S. safe school initiative: Am
interim report on the prevention of targeted violence in schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service,
National Threat Assessment Center.
Waller, R., Corral-Frías, N. S., Vannucci, B., Bogdan, R., Knodt, A. R., Hariri, A. R., & Hyde, L.
W. (2016). An oxytocin receptor polymorphism predicts amygdala reactivity in antisocial
behavior in men. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11, 1218–1226. doi:10.1093
/scan/nsw042.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States:
Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2009.03.021.
Weik, U., Maroof, P., Zöller, C., & Deinzer, R. (2010). Pre-experience of social exclusion suppresses cortisol
response to psychosocial stress in women but not in men. Hormones and Behavior, 58(5), 891–897.
doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.08.018.
West,C.,&Zimmerman,D.H.(1987).DoingGender.Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.
doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002.
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors, The
Springer Series in Social/Clinical Psychology (pp. 133-170). US: Springer.
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2001). Ostracism: On being ignored, excluded, and rejected. In M. R. Leary
(Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 21–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Nesdale, D. (2013). Anxious and angry rejection sensitivity, social
withdrawal, and retribution in high and low ambiguous situations. Journal of Personality, 81,
29–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00792.x.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Nesdale, D., McGregor, L., Mastro, S., Goodwin, B., & Downey, G. (2013).
Comparing reports of peer rejection: Associations with rejection sensitivity, victimization, aggression,
and friendship. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1237–1246.
Zwolinski, J. (2012). Psychology and neuroendocrine reactivity to ostracism. Aggressive Behavior, 38,108–
125. doi:10.1002/ab.21411.
Megan Stubbs-Richardson is a Research Associate II and Research Fellow at the Social Science Research
Center of Mississippi State University where she is pursuing her Ph.D. in Sociology with an emphasis in
Criminology. Her research interests include school safety, gender and crime, and crime, media, and culture.
H. Colleen Sinclair is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Co-Director of the Social Relations
Collaborative at Mississippi State University. Her research interests are in interpersonal and intergroup
relations, investigating attraction and rejection, love and prejudice, and helping and aggression within these
dyadic and group contexts.
Rebecca M. Goldberg Ph.D., LPC, NCC, GC-C is an Associate Professor of Counseling in the Department
of Counseling, Educational Psychology & Foundations at Mississippi State University. She is also Co-Director
of the Social Relations Collaborative and researches aspects of relationships including social networks,
romantic partnerships and gender issues.
Am J Crim Just
Chelsea N. Ellithorpe is a Research Associate in the Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State
University and the Lab Manager of the Social Relations Collaborative. Her research interests include social
neuroscience and interpersonal relationships, including social networks research and interdisciplinary research
on love, attraction, and rejection.
Suzanne C. Amadi is a graduate student in the Clinical Psychology Ph.D. program at Mississippi State
University. Her research focuses on youth and adult aggression, personality pathology, substance use, and
relationships.
Am J Crim Just
