bullying

Aggression and Violent Behavior 21 (2015) 61–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior:A meta-analytic approach☆

Effrosyni Mitsopoulou a, Theodoros Giovazolias b,⁎a University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlandsb University of Crete, Department of Psychology, Rethymno 74100, Greece

☆ This research was supported in part by a scholarship tand Dr. J. Wicherts for valuable comments on an earlier v⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology,

E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Giovazolias).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.0071359-1789/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 25 September 2014Received in revised form 12 December 2014Accepted 6 January 2015Available online 17 January 2015

Keywords:BullyingPersonality traitsEmpathyBig-FiveMeta-analysis

The authors conducted a literature review and a meta-analysis to understand the relation between person-ality, bullying, and victimization behavior. The objective was to assess the effect of some personality dimen-sions and variables on either bullying or victimization behavior in boys and girls of different age groups.Studies that assessed the Big-Five model of personality, and personality variables (i.e., cognitive and affec-tive empathy), and that measured bullying acts and victimization behavior, were included in the present re-view. The results revealed that lower level of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and higher levels ofNeuroticism and Extraversion were associated with both bullying and victimization. On the contrary, cog-nitive and affective empathy were negatively associated only with bullying behavior. The authors proposepossible explanations among these patterns of bullying and victimization behavior, the personality andgeneral demographic characteristics, consider implications, and discuss future directions in the field of bul-lying research.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622. Definition of personality, bullying and victimization behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623. The Big Five factor model related to bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624. Personality variables in the current meta-analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635. Gender and age differences related to bullying and victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646. The present study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7.1. Search and selection of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657.3. Study coding scheme and reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657.4. Effect size calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7.4.1. Gender differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657.4.2. Associations between BF, personality variables and bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7.5. Statistical analyses and moderators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

8.1. Demographic and study design characteristics of included samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668.2. Research question 1: gender differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678.3. Research question 2: age differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678.4. Research question 3: relationship between bullying and personality dimensions and variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678.5. Research question 4: relationship between victimization and personality dimensions and variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

o the first author from the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, Greece. The first author wishes to thank Dr. C. Dolanersion of the manuscript.University of Crete, Greece. Tel.: +30 32831077520; fax: +30 2831077578.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13591789

62 E. Mitsopoulou, T. Giovazolias / Aggression and Violent Behavior 21 (2015) 61–72

8.6. Research question 5: moderation analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678.6.1. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678.6.2. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678.6.3. Publication year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

8.7. Publication bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

9.1. Gender and age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689.2. Bullying and personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699.3. Bullying and empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709.4. Gender and age as moderators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709.5. Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709.6. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

1. Introduction

Bullying, “themostmalicious andmalevolent formof deviant behav-ior widely practiced in our schools” (Tattum & Lane, 1989, p. 1), startedto appear in the psychological literature from Norway (Olweus, 1978,1989), Britain (Smith, 1991), North America (Dodge, Coie, Pettit, &Price, 1990), and Australia (Rigby & Slee, 1993). In the early 1990s, bul-lying was identified as a sub-type of children's aggressive behavior(Dodge et al., 1990). Current research indicates that approximately 10to 30% of children and youth are involved in bullying at school, but itsprevalence rates vary significantly due to how bullying is defined, howit is measured and which classification criteria are used (Cook,Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010; Nansel et al., 2001; Solberg &Olweus, 2003).

Although the research focusing on children's characteristics involvedin bullying dates back to at least the 1980s (see Rigby, 2002, for areview), investigations on personality influences were not prevalentuntil the middle of the 1990s. Until then, adverse results had been re-ported (Bjorkqvist, Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982; Lowenstein, 1978).Our review suggests that although some findings have revealed thatsome personality variables are positively associated with bullying andnegatively with victimization (e.g., Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Olweus,1978; Slee & Rigby, 1993b), other results have shown that personalityvariables predict greater levels of bullying behavior only regarding gen-der and the bully status of those involved (e.g., Andreou, 2000;Menesini, Camodeca, & Nocentini, 2010; Mynard & Joseph, 1997). Todate, no meta-analysis has examined the relationship between per-sonality variables, bullying, and victimization behavior with theonly exception of a meta-analysis on personality traits and aggres-sive behavior (Bettencourt, Talley, & Benjamin, 2006). Such a reviewis of interest to a broad range of disciplines invested in understand-ing why and when individuals engage in bullying acts, including de-velopmental and social–personality psychology as well as sociology,psychiatry, and forensics. In the present work, we conducted a liter-ature review on personality, bullying, and victimization behaviorthat may guide further theorizing and research in a variety of basicand applied domains.

To provide an integrated understanding of theways personalitymayinfluence bullying behavior, we also performed a meta-analysis of therelevant empirical studies. By doing so, we hoped to reveal which per-sonality variables are associated with bullying and/or victimization be-havior. To sharpen our focus, we included only those personalityvariables theorized to be associated with bullying behavior. Thus, welimited our search according to two important points. First, we did notinclude studies inwhich itwas unclearwhether there is a theoretical as-sociation between personality variables (i.e., Machiavellism) and bully-ing and/or victimization (e.g., Andreou, 2000; Sutton & Keogh, 2000).Second, studies that measured subtypes of bullying (i.e., physical, ver-bal, sexual, cyber-bullying) were also excluded.

In the following sections, we first define some relevant terms. Next,we discuss the Big-Five factor model of personality (BF), and describehow itmight guide our understanding of the relationships between per-sonality traits, bullying, and victimization behavior. Finally, we reviewthe research on each of the personality variables included in the meta-analysis, thereby providing a thorough review of the relevant literature.

2. Definition of personality, bullying and victimization behavior

Personality is defined as “a dynamic organization, inside the person,of psychophysical systems that create the person's characteristic pat-terns of behavior, thoughts, and feelings” (Allport, 1961, p. 48). Weuse the term personality dimensions when referring to the constructsidentified by the BF and the term personality variables when referringto the measured constructs available in the empirical literature on bul-lying behavior. The personality variables that adhered to our inclusioncriteria, and thus were available for the meta-analysis, were cognitiveand affective empathy.

Reaching a consensus on a definition of bullying is perhaps themostchallenging task in psychological research (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).A number of different definitions exist in the literature. However,many of them share one similarity: Bullying is perceived as a subset ofaggression (Dodge, 1991; Olweus, 1993; Smith & Thompson, 1991). Ac-cording to Olweus (1989, 1993), bullying involves: (i) an imbalance be-tween strength—physical and/or psychological, (ii) a deliberateintention to hurt the other where the aggressive act is largely unpro-voked, and (iii) repeated negative actions against the individual. Thus,bullying is defined in the literature as a repeated behavior (includingboth verbal and physical behaviors) that occurs over time in a relation-ship characterized by an imbalance of strength and power (Olweus,1994).

3. The Big Five factor model related to bullying

The Big-Five factor model (BF; Costa & McCrae, 1997), a prominenttheory of personality dimensions, is useful for understanding the linkbetween personality and aggressive behavior (Jensen-Campbell &Graziano, 2001; Miller, Lynam, & Leukefeld, 2003). The major personal-ity dimensions in the BF are Neuroticism (or Emotional Instability),Extraversion (or Energy), Conscientiousness, Agreeableness (or Friend-liness), and Openness to Experience; each dimension is represented bysix facets (McCrae & Costa, 1987, 1997; McCrae, Terracciano, &Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005).

Some researchers have examined the link between personality andbully–victim problems directly with personality measures other thanthe BF. In one such study, primary school children's tendency to bullywas associated with a personality factor known as psychoticism (Slee& Rigby, 1993), which involves solitary, impulsive behavior, hostility

63E. Mitsopoulou, T. Giovazolias / Aggression and Violent Behavior 21 (2015) 61–72

toward others, and a lack of cooperation and sensitivity in social situa-tions (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). Children who assumed the role of vic-tim in this sample scored low on a scale of Extraversion and high on ascale of Neuroticism from the Eysenck and Eysenck (1975) personalitymeasure (Slee & Rigby, 1993). Mynard and Joseph (1997) replicatedSlee and Rigby's results with slightly older children.

Furthermore, Sutton andKeogh (2000) found that bullies scored sig-nificantly higher than control children on a measure of Machiavellian-ism which the authors describe as a tendency to perceive others astargets for manipulation in interpersonal relationships, characterizedby a powerful drive for social success. Researchers suggested thatbullies' devious behavior appears to reflect an underlying personalitytrait that involves manipulation for personal gain as imposed by theTheory of Mind (ToM; see Leslie, 1987). Further, the negative relationbetween supportive attitudes toward victims and a greater desire forsocial success suggests a neurotic component in bullies' personalities.Findings very similar to those of Sutton and Keogh (2000) emerged inanother study of personality traits of bullies among Greek school chil-dren by Andreou (2000).

Also, Tani, Greenman, Schneider, and Fregoso (2003), using an Ital-ian sample, suggested that bullies' low empathy and hostile behaviormight reflect underlying personality characteristics typical of individ-uals who score low in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, just as vic-tims' characteristic introversion and low social acceptance might alsoreflect underlying personality traits (e.g., low Extraversion, high Neu-roticism). The authors used both self-reports and teacher ratings intheir study; interestingly, teachers perceived a lack of Agreeablenessand elevated Neuroticism in both bullies and victims. Additionally,bullies themselves scored lower in Agreeableness. The Agreeablenessdimension describes people who are directed toward interpersonal re-lationships and the needs of others. The facets of Agreeableness includetrust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. Low Agreeableness is thought to involve a preoccupationwith one's own goals and interests and a lack of sympathy for other peo-ple's suffering (Costa & McCrae, 1997). This finding is consistent withreports in the literature that bullies tend to resort to aggressive strate-gieswhen dealingwith interpersonal problems (Slee, 1993), lack empa-thy for others (Olweus, 1993), and utilize their knowledge of otherchildren's mental states or emotions to manipulate and take advantageof them (Sutton & Keogh, 2000; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999).Another finding was that children in the bullying group also scoredhigher on Extraversion. This suggests that children who bully othersor children who help them are likely to assert themselves in social situ-ations (Costa & McCrae, 1997); this finding explains the observation ofprevious investigations that some children in certain bullying situationswill actively initiate conflicts (Salmivalli, 2001; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz,Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996).

These results contradict those of studies conducted by Slee andRigby (1993) who reported that bullies were hostile and solitary(e.g., Byrne, 1994; Craig, 1998; Mynard & Joseph, 1997). In contrast,Tani et al. (2003) suggested that bullies may be involved in high-energy peer activities (see Kumpulainen et al., 1998) such as sports, inwhich they consider themselves proficient (Boulton & Smith, 1994). Al-though this would not mean that they are solitary, it would mean thatthey are involved in social activities that demand little cooperation orsensitivity toward others, and little in the way of true friendliness.

Despite the suggestive findings, these studies are limited in a coupleof ways. First, some studies reported different personality profiles forbullies and victims because they compared them to non-bullies, by-standers, or non-victims. For instance, Tani et al. (2003) reported thatbullies scored lower on Agreeableness compared to bystanders whilebullies' scores were quite similar to victims' scores. Also, in some stud-ies, researchers have failed to compare bully status groups (i.e., bullies,victims). In doing so, they have failed to take into account theways per-sonality dimensions may interact with bully status to predict bullyingbehavior.

4. Personality variables in the current meta-analysis

Research on BF suggests that the Agreeableness, Neuroticism, andExtraversion dimensions may predict bullying and victimization. Asnoted, however, little, if any, empirical literature confirms this relation-ship. Because some studies in our meta-analysis have assessed person-ality variables, such as cognitive and affective empathy, and measuredbullying behavior, the meta-analysis has the potential to isolate rela-tions between cognitive and affective empathy, bullying and victimiza-tion behavior.

Empathy is defined by Davis (1983) as “a reaction of one individualto the observed experiences of another” (p. 114). Many studies have re-ported that empathy and aggression have a negative relationship(Bryant, 1982; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe, 2007; Mehrabian, Young,& Sato, 1988). In a meta-analysis of 43 studies, for example, which in-vestigated the relationship of empathy and anti-social behavior, Millerand Eisenberg (1988) concluded that a negative relationship exists be-tween these two constructs. Some researchers have gone so far as toargue that there might be a causal relationship between low empathyand aggression (Minde, 1992; Rigby, 1996). This position suggests thatthe development of empathy plays an important role in reducing ag-gression (Feshbach, 1978). Thus, as has been noted, low levels of empa-thy might become a risk factor for future involvement of children inaggressive behavior (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a).

In the case of bullying, empathy was chosen because emotional as-pects (i.e., empathic feelings) possibly promoting either pro-bullyingor anti-bullying behaviors have received little attention in this fielduntil very recently (Gini et al., 2007; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a;Warden & Mackinnon, 2003). Previously, there was uncertainty in theliterature regarding the profile of the bullies. Randall (1997, p. 23)claimed that bullies “fail to understand the feelings of others” and“have little awareness of what other children actually think of them, asymptom of social blindness.” In contrast, Sutton et al. (1999) arguedthat bullies possess an ability to understand and manipulate theminds of others providing the context and skills for effective and recur-rent bullyingwithout getting caught. The issue of bullies' superior theo-ry of mind relates to the ongoing debate concerning whether they lackempathic skills and whether this exacerbates the recurrent nature ofbullying behavior due to the bully not feeling any empathy toward thevictim (Dautenhahn, Woods, & Kaouri, 2007). In support of this asser-tion, several studies have suggested that if a victim displays distress,this only serves to reinforce the bullies' behavior even more (Davis,1994). Sutton et al. (1999) and Evans, Heriot, and Friedman (2002) stat-ed that bullies understand the emotions of others but do not share themresulting in a ‘theory of nasty minds.’ All inconsistencies concerning theprofile of bullies is likely to be due to a combination of different factorsranging from the definition of what constitutes bullying behavior, themethodology employed to assess bullying, andwhether studies consid-ered only ‘direct’ physical bullying or relational bullying as well. Tohighlight this, studies which have distinguished between direct and re-lational bullying and identified ‘pure’ bullies have revealed that theyhave few behavior problems, enjoy going to school, miss few daysfrom school, do not suffer from physical and psychosomatic healthproblems and are academically bright individuals (Wolke, Woods,Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000; Wolke, Woods, Schulz, & Stanford, 2001).

Moreover, some researchers perceive empathy not as a unitary con-struct but rather two-dimensional, differentiating between cognitiveand affective empathy (Davis, 1994; Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias,2013). The former reflects the ability to recognize and understand thefeelings of others in a particular situation, while the latter refers to theability to internalize and experience the feelings of others. Based onthis distinction, several authors have argued that both the cognitiveand the affective component reduce aggressive behavior (Albiero & LoCoco, 2001; Feshbach, 1978; Kaukiainen et al., 1999). Other authors,however, suggest that aggressive children show lower levels on the af-fective component of empathy, but not on the cognitive one (Bryant,


1982; Cohen & Strayer, 1996; de Wied, Goudena, & Matthys, 2005;LeSure-Lester, 2000). Lovett and Sheffield's (2006) meta-analysis re-vealed a consistent negative correlation between aggression and affec-tive empathy in adolescents, while this was not the case with youngerchildren. This association was even stronger when studies used behav-ioral rather than self-reported measures of empathy. Additionally, anumber of studies focusing on gender differences found that the nega-tive correlation between aggression and empathy existed only amongboys. In contrast, there was no significant difference in aggression be-tween girls with high empathy and girls with low empathy (Albiero &Lo Coco, 2001; Feshbach & Feshbach, 1969). Based on such findings,the development of empathy is considered an essential component forintervention programs designed to reduce aggressive behavior in gen-eral and bullying in particular (Manger, Eikeland, & Asbjornsen, 2001).

Table 1 includes the measures of the personality dimensions andvariables used in the studies included in the current meta-analysis, theauthors of the measures, the number of items, and the type of scaleused.

5. Gender and age differences related to bullying and victimization

Thus far, many researchers have agreed that there are differences inthe way males and females bully, how they are bullied, and what theyare bullied about. One commondistinction is between physical bullying,such as hitting, kicking and punching, and verbal or psychological bully-ing, such as name calling, exclusion, gossip, and rumor spreading.Farrington (1993) stated that physical bullying prevails among malesand psychological bullying among females. Olweus (1978) found thatboys engage in more direct physical bullying than females; girls engageinmore indirect bullying, such as spreading rumors andmanipulation offriendship. Also, Felix and McMahon (2007) found that males employphysical victimization, harming others through violence, whereas fe-males employ relational victimization, harming others by damagingtheir relationships.

There appears to be a consensus between researchers that malespredominantly bully physically and females predominantly bully

Table 1Measures used to assess personality variables in the studies included in themeta-analysis.

Measures Used subscales No. ofitems

Personality dimensionsBig Five Questionnaire for Children(BFQ-C; Barbaranelli, Caprara, &Rabasca, 1998)

Openness, Neuroticism,Extraversion, Agreeableness,and Conscientiousness

65

EPQ Junior: Eysenck and Eysenck(1975).

Extraversion, and Neuroticism 100

Little Five personality questionnairein children and adolescent (LFPQ;Lynam et al., 2005).

Openness, Neuroticism,Extraversion, Agreeableness,and Conscientiousness

62

The short version of NEO PersonalityInventory (Costa & McCrae, 1997)

Extraversion, and Neuroticism 60

Coolidge Personality andNeuropsychological Inventory(CPNI; Coolidge, 1998; Coolidge,Thede, Stewart, & Segal, 2002)

Narcissistic PB andEmotional Lability Scale

200

HEXACO PersonalityInventory—Revised (HEXACO-PI-R;Lee & Ashton, 2004)

Openness, Emotionality,Extraversion, Agreeableness,and Conscientiousness

100

Short-D3 (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) Narcissistic Scale 28

Personality variablesBasic Empathy Scale (BES; Jolliffe& Farrington, 2006b)

Cognitive and AffectiveEmpathy

20

Index of Empathy for Children andAdolescents (IECA; Bryant, 1982)

Affective Empathy 22

Interpersonal Reactivity Index(IRI; Davis, 1980)

Cognitive and AffectiveEmpathy

28

verbally and psychologically. There are also other gender differencesthat exist in relation to bullying behavior. Farrington (1993) foundthat, in general,males bullymore than females,males aremainly bulliedby males, and that females are equally bullied by males and females.Later on, Thorne (1993) and Eder, Evans, and Parker (1997) replicatedthese results. Lastly, Farrington (1993) suggested that the prevalenceof female bullies declined steadily with age, but the prevalence ofmale bullies remained roughly constant from the ages of eight to 16.In later adolescence, bullying becomes more relational, culminating informs such as racial and sexual harassment in adulthood (Turkel, 2007).

There is strong support that agemight have a different trajectory forbullying than aggression (Farrington, 1991; Loeber &Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998). In fact, the more typical trajectory of bully-ing from a developmental perspective is an increase and peak duringearly adolescence, and a decrease in bullying during high school years(Nansel et al., 2001; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000). Monks, Smith, andSwettenham (2003, 2005) reported that victimization during the pre-school years (ages 4 to 6) does not appear to be a stable experiencefor most children. A number of children behave aggressively towardtheir peers, so that many children are exposed to victimization, butthis tends to be short-lived. This is compared to the relative stability ofvictimization in middle childhood and adolescence (e.g., Boulton &Smith, 1994; Salmivalli et al., 1996). Monks et al. (2005) supportedthe notion that there is no clear victim group for younger children andno relationship of victimization between the aggressor and the victim.It may not be until middle childhood that the experience of bullying en-compasses the repeated ‘relationship’ between aggressor(s) and victim.

It is difficult to disentangle effects of cognitive changes due to age(i.e., due to maturational changes and general age-related experiences),and the role of specific bullying-related experiences (Monks & Smith,2006). However, studies on gender and age effects can provide essentialinput, important for prevention and intervention efforts to be directedat the children's transition from elementary to high school.

6. The present study

In the present study, we meta-analytically examine the associationsbetween personality traits and variables and bullying behavior. Ourstudy has the capacity to refine theories of bullying in several ways.First, because at least some personality variables are expected predic-tors of bullying and victimization behavior, a literature reviewwill doc-ument the need for theories of bullying to articulate how andwhy thesepersonality variables influence observable behavior. Second, the meta-analytic results are likely to suggest that theories must consider wheth-er personality variables are likely to interact with bully status groups,gender, and age in their influences on bullying and victimization behav-ior. Third, the review's findings may point to additional variables thatmoderate the link between personality antecedents and bullyingbehavior.

For our meta-analysis, we calculated an effect-size estimate that as-sociates bullying and victimization behavior with personality traits andvariables. Our review on bullying and personality suggests that differentpatterns of the former behavior should be revealed by the meta-analysis. As such, our review question is which and in what ways thepre-described personality traits and variables are associated with bully-ing and/or victimization behavior. Therefore, we formulated the follow-ing general research questions:

1. Are there any gender differences regarding children's involvement inbullying and victimization?

2. Are there any age differences regarding children's involvement inbullying and victimization?

3. What is the relationship between bullying and personality dimen-sions and variables?

4. What is the relationship between victimization and personalitydimensions and variables?


5. Are there any moderating effects of gender and age on the associa-tion between bullying and/or victimization behavior and personalitydimensions and variables?

7. Method

7.1. Search and selection of studies

As part of this review, materials from experts on the methods ofmeta-analysis were used (Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Lipsey & Wilson,2001). The first step was to locate potential studies for inclusionwhich included sufficient quantitative data on bullying and/or victimi-zation published in English from 1970 to mid-2012. Specifically, multi-ple search methods were used in order to avoid publication bias ofretrieving only the studies that were published due to significant resultsand larger effect sizes (Rosenthal, 1995). First, review articles publishedbetween 1970 and June 2012 were reviewed to locate potential studies(Salmivalli, 1999; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). Sec-ond, a computerized search of all relevant databases was conducted:PsycInfo, ERIC,Web of Science, andGoogle Scholar (e.g., for unpublishedarticles and reports). The following key words in varying combinationswere searched: bully, victim, bullying, victimization, personality traits, em-pathy, traits, and adjectives. As articles were retrieved, the titles and au-thors' names and their references were scanned for relevance andadditional studies. We used only books, papers, or reports that wereavailable through the Dutch IBL system onwhich over 400 Dutch librar-ies are connected. Non-peer reviewed papers (chapters and doctoraldissertations or theses) were included to reduce the influence of publi-cation bias (McLeod & Weisz, 2004). Although our search strategy re-sulted in an adequate number of studies, it is possible that we missedrelevant studies (i.e., studies reporting results in languages other thanEnglish).

7.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The search process identified 143 citations. Studieswere included onthe basis of the following criteria: (a) reported the relation between the

(69) Full-text articles considered for inclusion

(30) Articles identify for possible inclusion

(187) Articles identified

(19) Studies included in the meta-analysis

(i.e., 11 for personality dimensions & 8 for

empathy)

Fig. 1. Flowchart of selection of s

predictor and bullying and/or victimization; (b) focused on predictorsof bully groups; (c) included participants without intellectual disabil-ities; (d) reported main demographic characteristics and quantitativeinformation (i.e., means and standard deviations) for calculating effectsizes; (e) for practical reasons, studies were written in English, butthey were not necessarily conducted in English-speaking countries;and (f) time frame ranging between 1970 and June, 2012. Most studieswere excluded because they did not meet the criteria for the meta-analysis, including insufficient information for computing effect sizesand describing interventions related to decreasing bullying ratherthan reporting predictors of this behavior. Applying these criteria re-duced the number of articles from 187 to 21 (see Fig. 1).

7.3. Study coding scheme and reliability

Effect sizes of thepublished studieswere computed twice by thefirstauthor to avoid any computational errors (see Table 1 and Fig. 1 for a listof the specific study characteristics and individual-level variables in-cluded in this study and a description of the rationale and definitionand coding procedure for each variable).

7.4. Effect size calculation

7.4.1. Gender differencesIn themajority of studies, effect sizes (ESs) could be computed read-

ily on the basis of means and standard deviations. In several cases, wecomputed ESs on the basis of t values and F values. For gender differ-ences, Hedges' g (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) ESs were computed. The signof the ES was coded to denote the positive or negative valence of thepredictor. For example, a positive ES indicated that men have a higherscore than women on bullying while a negative one indicated thatwomen had a higher score.

7.4.2. Associations between BF, personality variables and bullyingESs were calculated in the form of Pearson correlation coefficients.

These coefficients are particularly useful because they are readily inter-pretable and range from −1.0 to 1.0. Hedges and Olkin (1985) and

(157) Articles excluded (title and/or abstract not

relevant of not satisfying the inclusion criteria)

(50) Articles excluded

(39) Additional articles identified from the

retrieved articles

tudies for the meta-analysis.

Table 2Descriptive information of samples included in the meta-analysis (N = 27).

Descriptive variable Frequency %

Sample age8–11 years (middle childhood) 7 25.912–14 years (early adolescence) 10 3715–18 years (middle adolescence) 3 11.118–25 (adolescence) 1 3.7Missing 6 22.2

Study locationUnited States 3 11.1Europe 19 70.4Other 5 18.5

Publication year1990–1995 2 7.41996–2000 2 7.42001–2005 5 18.52006–2010 14 51.92011–mid-2012 4 14.8

Measurement sourceSelf-report 20 74.1Peer report 1 3.7Mixed 6 22.2PredictorsPersonality 11 40.7Empathy 13 48.1Both 3 11.1

Measurement approachMeasured bullying 16 59.3Measured victimization 2 7.4Both 9 33.3

Samples on bully status groupsBullies vs victims 3 11.1Bullies vs non victims 6 22.2Bullies vs non bullies 1 3.7Victims vs non victims 1 3.7Mixed 1 3.7


Rosenthal (1991) advocate that after converting ESs into a standardnormal metric (using Fisher's r-to-Z transformation), researchersshould calculate a weighted average of these transformed scores.Fisher's r-to-Z transformation and the conversion back to r are describedin Eq. (1). The first step is to use this equation to convert each correla-tion coefficient into its corresponding Z value.

The transformed ESs are then used to calculate an average in whicheach ES is weighted. Eq. (2) shows that the transformed ES of the studyis weighted for that particular study (wi).

zri ¼12Loge

1þ ri1− ri

� �ri ¼

e 2zið Þ−1e 2zið Þ þ 1

ð1Þ

zri ¼Xk

i¼1wizriXk

i¼1wi

ð2Þ

zri ¼Xk

i¼1ni−3ð ÞzriXk

i¼1ni−3ð Þ

ð3Þ

Hedges and Vevea (1998) note that ESs based on large samples willbe more precise than those based on small samples; therefore, theweights should reflect the increased precision of large studies. In fact,the optimal weights that minimize the variance are the inverse vari-ances of each study (see Hedges & Vevea, 1998, Eq. 11.2), and for corre-lation coefficients the individual variance is the inverse of the samplesize minus three (see Hedges & Olkin, 1985, p. 227, 231). As such, thegeneral equation for the average ES given in Eq. (2) becomes Eq. (3)for correlation coefficients (see Eq. 4.16 in Rosenthal, 1991, p. 74). Thesampling variance of this average ES is simply the reciprocal of thesum of weights (Hedges & Vevea, 1998, Eq. 4) and the standard errorof this average ES is simply the square root of the sampling variance.

In addition, each study could contributemore thanone ES for a givenpredictor (e.g., studies reporting both the total and subscale scores onpersonality questionnaires) that were included in the meta-analysis.Cohen's (1992) conventional guidelines of small (r = .10), medium(r = .30), and large (r = .50) effect sizes were used to highlight thepractical meaning of the weighted ES estimates.

The Fisher transformation is typically used to eliminate a slight biasin the untransformed correlation coefficient: the transformation cor-rects for a skew in the sampling distribution of rs that occurs as the pop-ulation value of r becomes further from zero (Field, 2001).

7.5. Statistical analyses and moderators

An online calculator (http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html)was used in calculating all the ESs (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). SPSS 19and R program were used for the analyses of the data, as well as forgraphical representations.

ESs were calculated for each of the personality subscales as definedby the BF (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Perugini, 1993). For thestudies that used measures other than the BF, authors determined ifthe content of the items was similar to that of the items of the relevantBF scale or subscale.

In this meta-analytical model, true ESs are believed to be heteroge-neous and in part predictable from various moderators. The followingvariables were used as predictors. First, the age of the participants ineach study was used. Second, the gender composition (i.e., only boys,only girls, and mixed) and the publication year were used.

Homogeneity analyses using Cochran's Q were conducted for eachpredictor to determine whether ES for a given predictor was estimatingthe same population mean ES (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). A significant Qstatistic indicates that the ESs are, in fact, heterogeneous,with other fac-tors creating variability around the grand mean ES. These analyses

provided a basis for determining whether a random versus fixed effectanalysis should be performed (Hedges & Vevea, 1998).

Fixed effect models only account for the degree of uncertainty thatcomes from the specific samples included in specific studies for a specif-ic meta-analysis. As a result, inference is conditional because it is basedsolely on the studies included in the meta-analysis. Random effectsmodels make unconditional inferences about a population of studysamples and characteristics that are more diverse than the fixed num-ber of studies included in a given meta-analysis (Cook et al., 2010).Fixed effects analyses were conducted in order to gain statisticalpower and because inferences beyond could not be made given thesmall sample size of studies. Finally, publication bias was evaluated byconstructing funnel plots for each personality dimensions and variableassociated with bullying behavior.

8. Results

8.1. Demographic and study design characteristics of included samples

Table 2 provides anoverviewof the descriptive information of the 27samples. A summary of these characteristics reveals that most of the 27samples were very recent, with 2007 as the median year of publication.With respect to the location of those studies examining bullying andvictimization, 70.4% were conducted in Europe, 11.1% in the UnitedStates, and 18.5% in other various nations (3 in Australia and 2 inCanada). The total sample examined was 3198 children and adoles-cents, with an average age of 12.85 (SD= 3.02).

With respect to bullying style measurement, 70.4% (19) of the sam-ples used a variety of questionnaires, 11.1% (3) first used a definition ofbullying and then asked to report related behaviors (e.g., hitting), and

http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html


7.4% (2) used specific references (e.g., Have you ever bullied someone?Have you ever been bullied by someone?). In 74.1% (20) of the studies,data were collected through self-reports, 22.2% (6) used mixed ap-proaches (i.e., self-reports, peer-, teacher- and/or parent-reports), and3.7% (1) used only peer-reports.

8.2. Research question 1: gender differences

The summary of the study-level ESs given in Fig. 2 allows for the de-termination of whether boys or girls differed in exhibited bullying be-havior. In this table, a clear gender difference is shown with positiveESs. Examination of the mean weight ESs shows that boys were moreprone to be involved in bullying than girls. Jolliffe and Farrington(2011) provide the only study reporting the opposite ES. Fig. 2 displaysforest plots presenting Hedge's g ESs and the standard error for each in-cluded study.

8.3. Research question 2: age differences

Further moderation analyses were conducted using age of the sam-ples and the publication year as moderators. Unsurprisingly, the year ofstudy publication was not a significant moderator given that all includ-ed studies were published around the last five years (one exception isMunard et al., 1997). Thus, only the age of the samples emerged as a sig-nificantmoderator (Q=3.85, p b .05), with younger children reportingengaging in more bullying behaviors than older children (B=− .0169,p b .001, SE = .001).

8.4. Research question 3: relationship between bullying and personality di-mensions and variables

Twelve ESs (N= 9 studies) of the relationship between bullying be-havior and the five dimensions of BF Personality Questionnaire (BFQ)and 16 ESs (N = 11 studies) of the relationship between bullying be-havior and the two types of empathy were calculated. Table 3 displaysthe Fisher Zs and the reverse Fisher Zs, the 95% confidence intervalsand the homogeneity test for each predictor of bullying behavior.

In both personality dimensions and variables, significantQ statistic isassociated with a predictor indicating significant heterogeneity acrossESs. Nearly all predictors across the BFQ and two empathy types had sig-nificantQ statistics. The strongest associationswerewith Agreeableness(r = − .24), Affective Empathy (r = − .16) and Conscientiousness(r = − .15), as shown in Table 3. Both ESs were small to medium instrength according to Cohen's (1992) guidelines. The three predictors

Fig. 2. Forest plot of studies' ESs for sex

with the weakest overall ESs were Cognitive Empathy and Extraversion(r = − .08), Neuroticism (r = .10), and Openness (r = − .11).

8.5. Research question 4: relationship between victimization and personal-ity dimensions and variables

Seven ESs (N= 6 studies) of the relationship between victimizationbehavior and the five dimensions of BFQ were calculated. Only twostudies reported associations between empathy and victimization andthus ESs were not calculated. Table 4 displays the Fisher Zs and the re-verse Fisher Zs, the 95% confidence intervals and the homogeneity testfor each personality dimension and victimization.

Almost all predictors across the BF dimensions had non-significantQstatistics. The strongest associations were with Neuroticism (r = .24),and Conscientiousness (r = − .10), as shown in Table 4. Both ESswere small to medium in strength according to Cohen's (1992) guide-lines. The three predictors with the weakest overall ESs were Openness(r = − .08), Agreeableness (r = − .07), and Extraversion (r = .05).

8.6. Research question 5: moderation analyses

Moderation analyses were not performed for the association be-tween victimization behavior, personality dimensions and variables be-cause the number of ESs did not permit adequate calculations. Tables 5and 6 display the results for moderation analyses between personalitydimensions and bullying behavior.

The scarce significant results can be attributed to the following rea-sons: (a) limited statistical power, and (b) the purpose was to provideonly a preliminary look at the moderating impact of these variables onthe magnitude of derived relationships between personality dimen-sions, variables and bullying behavior.

8.6.1. GenderFor personality dimensions, gender significantlymoderated only ex-

traversion (see Table 5). For externalizing behavior, the magnitude ofthe relationship was significantly higher for boys than for girls(r = − .12). The reverse was true for both personality variables, cogni-tive and affective empathy (r = .09 and r = .06, respectively).

8.6.2. AgeThe ESs for emotional stability and cognitive empathy were signifi-

cantly higher for younger than for older children (r = − .06 andr = − .04, respectively). Certainly, the magnitude of these ESs is quitesmall and thus we cannot consider them as representative.

differences on bullying behavior.

Table 3Bullying and personality dimensions and variables: summary table of effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals, and tests of homogeneity.

Correlate Sample Estimates 95% confidence interval Test of homogeneity

k Fisher Zs r Lower Upper Cochran's Q

Openness 4 − .11 − .11⁎⁎ − .19 − .03 χ2 (3) = 3.35ns

Neuroticism 11 .10 .10⁎⁎⁎ .04 .15 χ2 (10) = 44.18⁎⁎⁎

Extraversion 12 .08 .08⁎⁎⁎ .03 .12 χ2 (11) = 79.90⁎⁎⁎

Agreeableness 5 − .25 − .24⁎⁎⁎ − .31 − .17 χ2 (4) = 9.97⁎

Conscientiousness 5 − .15 − .15⁎⁎⁎ − .23 − .07 χ2 (4) = 8.88ns

Cognitive Empathy 11 − .08 − .08⁎⁎⁎ − .12 − .04 χ2 (10) = 36.07⁎⁎⁎

Affective Empathy 16 − .16 − .16⁎⁎⁎ − .19 .12 χ2 (15) = 32.64⁎⁎⁎

Note. Upper and low confidence intervals are reported after reverse Fisher transformation.⁎ p b .05.⁎⁎ p b .01.⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.


8.6.3. Publication yearThere were no significant contributions of this moderator either to

personality dimensions or personality variables and bullying behavior.

Table 5Moderation analyses between personality dimensions and bullying behavior.

Moderators Fisher's Zs r 95% confidenceinterval

Test of homogeneity

Lower Upper Cochran's Q

OpennessGender − .06 − .06ns − .17 .04 χ2 (2) = 1.96ns

Age – – – – –

Publication year – – – – –

8.7. Publication bias

Fig. 3 displays the funnel plots for each personality dimension andvariables associated with bullying behavior. In the absence of publica-tion bias, the studies will be distributed symmetrically around the com-bined ES. By contrast, in the presence of bias, we would expect that thebottom of the plot would show a higher concentration of studies on oneside of themean than on the other. This would reflect the fact that stud-ies with increased standard error are more likely to be published if theyhave larger than average effects which also make them more likely tomeet the criterion for statistical significance.

There have been at least two attempts to produce significance testsfor identifying publication bias: (a) Begg's test (Beggs & Mazumdar,1994; rank correlational test), and (b) Egger's test (Egger et al., 1997;linear regression model). We shall report results using Egger's test.

In Egger's test, the standardnormal deviate is regressed on precision,defined as the inverse of the standard error. The intercept in this regres-sion corresponds to the slope in aweighted regression of the ES over thestandard error. As was true for the rank correlation test, the significancetest should be two-tailed. Sterne, Egger, and Davey-Smith (2001) dis-cuss this method in more detail and they report that power for thistest is generally higher than power for the rank correlation method,but is still low unless there is severe bias or a substantial number ofstudies.

Investigating each funnel plot in Fig. 3, we observe that the samepredictors in the included studies are clustered toward the right-handside of the graph; this asymmetry could suggest the possibility of publi-cation bias. Results from Egger's tests revealed that there is a significant

Table 4Victimization and personality dimensions and variables: summary table of effect sizes,95% confidence intervals, and tests of homogeneity.

Correlate Sample Estimates 95%confidenceinterval

Test ofhomogeneity

k FisherZs

r Lower Upper Cochran's Q

Openness 4 − .08 − .08ns − .18 .03 χ2 (3) = 5.79ns

Neuroticism 7 .25 .24⁎⁎⁎ .18 .29 χ2 (6) = 9.52ns

Extraversion 7 .05 .05ns − .00 .11 χ2 (6) = 59.10⁎⁎⁎

Agreeableness 4 − .07 − .07ns − .18 .04 χ2 (3) = 1.20ns

Conscientiousness 4 − .10 − .10ns − .21 .00 χ2 (3) = 6.48ns

Note. Upper and low confidence intervals are reported after reverse Fisher transformation⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

asymmetry in the Cognitive Empathy plot: Z= 3.22, p b .001. No otherresults were statistically significant.

9. Discussion

On the basis of our literature review on bullying literature, we con-ducted a meta-analysis to identify and assess some personality predic-tors of bullying and/or victimization drawing on research publishedover the past 30 years. We hypothesized that some personality dimen-sions and variables would be positively and other negatively associatedwith bullying and/or victimization. This hypothesis is consistent withother studies (e.g., Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a, 2011; Mynard &Joseph, 1997; Slee & Rigby, 1993a, 1993b) that have revealed relation-ships of bullying and victimization with personality. In our meta-analysis, studieswere included if theymeasured bullying and/or victim-ization behavior and personality dimensions (related to BF model) andvariables in children or adolescent samples.

9.1. Gender and age

Consistent with the findings that gender role and age influence bul-lying behavior (Eder et al., 1997; Farrington, 1993; Nansel et al., 2001;

NeuroticismGender .06 .06ns − .04 .15 χ2 (9) = 42.83⁎⁎⁎

Age − .06 − .06⁎ − .12 − .01 χ2 (5) = 4.82ns

Publication year − .01 − .01ns − .01 .00 χ2 (9) = 41.08⁎⁎⁎

ExtraversionGender − .12 − .12⁎⁎ − .21 − .04 χ2 (10) = 73.16⁎⁎⁎

Age .01 .01ns − .00 .02 χ2 (6) = 20.40⁎⁎⁎

Publication year – – – – –

AgreeablenessGender .01 .01ns − .09 .12 χ2 (3) = 9.90⁎⁎

Age – – – – –

Publication year − .01 .01ns − .04 .01 χ2 (3) = 9.20⁎

ConscientiousnessGender .01 .01ns − .09 .11 χ2 (3) = 8.86⁎

Age – – – – –

Publication year − .02 − .02ns − .05 .00 χ2 (3) = 5.91ns

⁎ p b .05.⁎⁎ p b .01.⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

Table 6Moderation analyses between personality variables and bullying behavior.

Moderators Fisher's Zs r 95% confidenceinterval

Test of homogeneity

Lower Upper Cochran's Q

Cognitive empathyGender .09 .09⁎⁎⁎ .04 .13 χ2 (9) = 21.44⁎⁎

Age − .04 − .04⁎⁎⁎ − .05 − .01 χ2 (8) = 18.64⁎⁎

Publication year − .02 − .02ns − .03 .00 χ2 (9) = 32.92⁎⁎⁎

Affective empathyGender .06 .06⁎⁎ .01 .10 χ2 (14) = 25.46⁎

Age − .01 − .01ns − .03 .01 χ2 (11) = 31.01⁎⁎⁎

Publication year – – − .01 .01 χ2 (14) = 32.48⁎⁎

⁎ p b .05.⁎⁎ p b .01.⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.


Thorne, 1993), significant gender and age differences emerged. Theoverall comparisons show significantly higher scores on bullying forboys and especially for younger children. At this point, it should bementioned that despite the differentiations on bullying measurementmethodology (i.e., self-report questionnaires, narratives, multiple infor-mants) this result is consistent with the existing literature. In fact, manystudies have reported that boys predominately engage in bullying ac-tions compared to girls and, developmentally, bullying behavior in-creases during early adolescence and decreases during adolescence(Farrington, 1993; Nansel et al., 2001; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000).

9.2. Bullying and personality

Regarding associations between personality dimensions, bullyingand victimization, themeta-analytic analyses revealed slightly differentresults than those reported in the literature. Lower level of Agreeable-ness and Conscientiousness and higher levels of Neuroticism and Extra-version were associated with both bullying and victimization. Indeed,

Fig. 3. Funnel plots for each personality dime

Tani et al. (2003) reported that Agreeableness and Neuroticismemerged as the most consistent predictors of children's bully status.Our findings are consistent with previous studies (e.g., Bollmer et al.,2010; Costa & McCrae, 1997; Tani et al., 2003). Of course the combina-tion of lowAgreeableness andhigh Extraversion in personality structureof bullies might at first seem counterintuitive, however it is not illogicalbecause many times they are involved in high-energy-peer activities(i.e., sports, games) (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Tani et al., 2003) which re-quire little sensitivity or cooperation with their peers. On the otherhand, victimization was significantly related to high Neuroticism and,although it did not reach statistical significance, to low Conscientious-ness. It is possible that children who exhibit extensive angry emotionswould elicit bullying by peers, but it is equally reasonable that beingchronically victimized would lead a child to express angry emotions(Bollmer, Harris, & Milich, 2006). Overall, the association between vic-timization and Conscientiousness is less intuitive. One possibility isthat the negative affect associated with Neuroticism creates a particularvulnerability to victimization when it is combined with the lack of re-straint associated with low Conscientiousness. Children who scorehigh on Neuroticism and low on Conscientiousness may be incapableof regulating their behavior in a conflict situation, to be more anxiousand insecure, and thereby react in a way that might exacerbate the sit-uation. Surely, such association in victims should be investigated furtherin future studies.

Although not statistically significant, the direction of the Extraver-sion association with victimization is worth mentioning. Previous re-sults suggested a strong negative relationship with victimizationbehavior (Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Slee & Rigby, 1993a, 1993b). Onthe contrary, our finding suggests the opposite relationship. Until now,the Extraversion (Energy) dimension has been positively correlatedonly with bullying (Tani et al., 2003). Specifically, researchers claimedthat children who bully others are quite likely to assert themselves insocial situations (Costa & McCrae, 1997), which helps explain previousobservations that some children, in specific bullying situations, activelyinitiate conflicts (Salmivalli, 2001; Salmivalli et al., 1996). Related to the

nsion and variables related to bullying.


findingof higher scores onNeuroticism for victims in thismeta-analysis,one other possibility can be put forward. Olweus (2001) categorizedstudents' and teachers' perceptions of bullying victims. He conclud-ed that 10 to 20% of the victims can be characterized as “provocativevictims.” Further, they often have attention deficits and irritating be-havior in the classroom. In contrast to passive victims who do noth-ing that can be considered as provocative, these victims with theirbehavioral difficulties exacerbate bullying acts. However, high levelsof Extraversion and Neuroticism in bullies is in line with Eysenck'stheory of criminality (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964) and theory of anti-social behavior (Eysenck, 1977). It is suggested that extraverts aremore prone to crime and anti-social behavior because they pursuerewards without fear of consequences, and are impatient and impul-sive (Byrne, 1994; Slee & Rigby, 1993b). In such case, the high Neu-roticism scorer has been described as anxious, moody, oftendepressed and having strong emotional reactions. In general, neurot-ic tendencies are believed to intensify emotional reactions (Connolly& O'Moore, 2003).

An unexpected statistical result was revealed between Openness,bullying, and victimization. This personality trait seems to be negativelyassociated with both bullying and victimization. Overall, individualsscoring high in this dimension are more open to new ideas (McCrae &Costa, 1987) and motivated to seek variety and external experience. In-dividuals scoring low inOpenness tend to be less inclined to consider al-ternative opinions and are more steadfast in their own beliefs (John,1990), relying mostly on information that is familiar and conventional(McCrae & Costa, 1997). Generally, results depicting any relationshipbetween openness to experience, bullying and victimization are scarceand inconclusive within the school context. Also, adverse results werereported from studies in work contexts. Some studies have foundthat workplace bullying victims score higher in openness to experience(Rammsayer & Schmiga, 2003) while others did not find any significantassociation to victimization (Glasø et al., 2007). Thus, this associationshould be investigated more thoroughly in the future.

9.3. Bullying and empathy

Furthermore, this study included two personality variables, cogni-tive and affective empathy. Overall, our meta-analytic findings are con-sistent with the findings of our qualitative review. ESs revealed thatboth variables are negatively associated with bullying behavior. This re-sult relates to the finding reported by Albiero and Lo Coco (2001) indi-cating that both components of empathy can potentially reduceaggressive behavior (Feshbach, 1978; Kaukiainen et al., 1999). Howev-er, the magnitude of the association between cognitive empathy andbullying is quite small, which is consistent with Bryant's (1982) andother researchers' (Cohen & Strayer, 1996; de Wied et al., 2005;LeSure-Lester, 2000) suggestions that aggressive children show lowerlevels in the affective component of empathy but not in the cogni-tive one. In contrast to Lovett and Sheffield's (2006) review, wedid not find any moderation effect of the samples' age between bul-lying and cognitive and affective empathy. Lovett and Sheffield(2006) claimed that there is a consistent correlation between ag-gression and affective empathy in adolescents but not in children.This finding may suggest that the correlation between bullyingand empathy remains stable during middle childhood throughadolescence.

9.4. Gender and age as moderators

With regard to the moderation analyses, only gender and age weresignificant predictors of the ESs between some personality dimensionsand bullying. Age significantly moderated the effect of two predictors(i.e., Neuroticism and Cognitive Empathy). These results indicated thatneuroticism was only significantly related to being bullied in youngerchildren but not in older while the reverse was found for Cognitive

Empathy. However, it is important to point out that these results cannotbe generalized due to limited studies reporting the overall average ageof their samples, but surely should be taken into consideration. Presum-ably, bullies in lower school years who are perceived to be anxious andinsecure can engage in more aggressive behaviors (Salmon, 1998). Ad-ditionally, gender significantlymoderated Extraversion and both Cogni-tive and Affective Empathy. The results indicated that boys reportedhigher scores on Extraversion, which was expected, but lower on bothempathy types whereas the reverse was true for girls. These findingsare partially in line with the existing literature. Because boys engageand assist more often in bullying situations than girls (Spinrad et al.,1999; Stavrinides, Georgiou, & Theofanous, 2010), this finding can bepartially explained due to their lower levels of empathic concern(Stavrinides et al., 2010) toward others. However, Lafferty (2004) in astudywith a sample of 12 to 14-year-old adolescents found thatwhere-as girls scored significantly higher in the affective component of empa-thy, there were no gender differences in the cognitive component. Inour analysis, we did find differences on both empathy types, howeverthe age of the samples could be a potential influence. As some re-searchers have argued, gender differences in empathy may decreasewith increasing age. In this direction, Tobari (2003) found significantlyhigher scores in girls during childhood, but these gender differences de-creased in adolescence. In a similar vein, Calvo, González, and Martorell(2001), with a sample of children and adolescents aged 10 to 18, con-firmed increasing empathy with age only in girls. Indeed, our samplesare comprised mainly of children in middle childhood (i.e., 8 to 11years) or early adolescence (i.e., 12 to 14 years) and thus such differ-ences could be facilitated.

9.5. Implications

The current work fills a void in the literature as, to date, there hasbeen no literature review including a meta-analytic approach on per-sonality, bullying, and victimization behavior. In doing so, our workbrings this literature under the rubric of thefive-factormodel of person-ality as a way of understanding individuals' tendencies toward bullyingactions. Moreover, our review suggests that particular personality di-mensions and variables (i.e., Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and AffectiveEmpathy) may predict the tendency to engage in bullying behavioronly in relation to one's gender and age.

9.6. Limitations

The results of the present meta-analysis are limited in a number ofways. First, our inclusion criteria generated relatively few studies exam-ining the relation between personality and bullying and/or victimiza-tion behavior. For example, the small number of available ESs was aproblem for understanding the influence of bully status (i.e., bullies, vic-tims). Also, for some personality variables (e.g., Machiavellianism) thathave been shown to be related to bullying behavior, there were too fewstudies for inclusion in themeta-analysis.Moreover, although our inclu-sion criteria allowed studies that used samples of a variety of ages(e.g., early childhood, adolescence), studies conducted on adults wereexcluded as they referred to another form of bullying behavior, namelymobbing (i.e., bullying at work).

Additionally, the differences and correlations among mean ESs thatwere revealed by the fixed-effects analyses were not always replicatedin the random-effects analyses. Theoretically, this lack of correspon-dence may suggest that the outcomes of the meta-analysis are true forthe specific sample of studies we included but not true for the potentialpopulation of studies that could be conducted. Practically, however, thisproblemmay point to the fact that random-effectsmodels overestimateerror variance (Overton, 1998).

Also, it is important to note that the findings of this meta-analysiscannot be generalized to subtypes of bullying. The meta-analysis re-vealed that the vastmajority of studies in the available sample of studies


had measured general bullying behavior, largely ignoring other types(e.g., physical, verbal, cyber bullying). Clearly, future research shouldexplore whether the positive and negative associations revealed in themeta-analysis could be generalized to other types of bullying behavior.

9.7. Conclusion

Given the convergence of evidence, it seems likely that specific per-sonality dimensions and variables predict the tendency to engage inbullying behavior. Nevertheless, the connections we draw among thepersonality dimensions specified by the five-factormodel, the personal-ity variables, and bullying largely remain theoretical. Thus, our reviewpoints out the need for further research that examines the relations be-tween personality dimensions and bullying and/or victimization behav-ior. Also, any research using dimensions from the five-factor modelshould determine the associations with bullying behavior separatelyfor men, women and different age groups. Moreover, researchers whostudy specific personality variables (e.g., empathy, self-esteem, resil-ience) may need to provide an understanding of the ways these vari-ables fit into the rubric of the five-factor model. The use of the BFmodel may bring more conceptual clarity to the plethora of personalityvariables that have been considered in the literature on bullying behav-ior. In that sense, theoretical models of bullying are likely to gain moreexplanatory power. Indeed, suchmodelsmay be able tomore clearly ar-ticulate which variables underlie the links between personality and bul-lying behavior.

As awhole, problemswith aggression, violence, andparticularly bul-lying continue to plague people's interpersonal lives, their intergroupinteractions, and society. It is an unavoidable duty of scientists to devel-op a better understanding of the complex dynamics among personalityand bullying behavior. By doing so, not only the field's theoretical un-derstanding of human aggression would be enriched, but also the ther-apeutic and policy interventions aimed at reducing aggression andviolence in schools would be more adequately refined.

References1

Albiero, P., & Lo Coco, A. (2001). Designing amethod to assess empathy in Italian children.In A. Bohart, & D. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications forfamily, school & society (pp. 205–223). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological con-

structs in 8- to 12-year old Greek schoolchildren. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 49–56.Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Rabasca, A. (1998). BFQ-C. Big Five Questionnaire-Children.

Manuale. Firenzie: O.S Organizzazioni.Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for

publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101.Bettencourt, B.A., Talley, A., & Benjamin, A.J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior

under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. PsychologicalBulletin, 132(5), 751–777.

Bjorkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: Their ego picture,ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23,307–313.

*Bollmer, J.M., Harris, M.J., & Milich, R. (2006). Reactions to bullying and peer victimiza-tion: Narratives, physiological arousal, and personality. Journal of Research inPersonality, 40, 803–828.

Boulton, M.J., & Smith, P.K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Sta-bility, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. BritishJournal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315–329.

Bryant, B. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development,53, 413–425.

Byrne, B.J. (1994). Bullies and victims in a school setting with reference to some Dublinschools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 15, 574–586.

Calvo, A.J., González, R., & Martorell, M.C. (2001). Variables relacionadas con la conductaprosocial en la infancia y adolescencia: personalidad, autoconcepto y género.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 24, 95–111.

Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The “big five question-naire:” A new questionnaire to assess the five factor model. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 15(3), 281–288.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

1 References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth.Developmental Psychology, 32, 988–998.

*Connolly, I., & O'Moore, M. (2003). Personality and family relations of children whobully. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 559–567.

Cook, C.R., Williams, K.R., Guerra, N.G., Kim, T.E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullyingand victimization in childhood and adolescence: Ameta-analytic investigation. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 25, 65–83.

Coolidge, F. L. (1998). Coolidge personality and neuropsychological inventory for childrenmanual: CPNI. Colorado Springs, CO: Author.

Coolidge, F. L., Thede, L. L., Stewart, S. E., & Segal, D. L. (2002). The Coolidge Personalityand Neuropsychological Inventory for Children (CPNI): Preliminary psychometriccharacteristics. Behavior Modification, 26, 550–566.

Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: TheRussell Sage Foundation.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1997). Longitudinal study of adult personality. In R. Hogan,J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269–292). SanDiego, CA: Academic.

Craig, W.M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety,and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences,24, 123–130.

Dautenhahn, S., Woods, C., & Kaouri, C. (2007). Possible connections between bullying be-haviour, empathy and imitation. In K. Dautenhahn, & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Models andmechanisms of imitation and social learning in robots, humans and animals: Behaviouralsocial and communicative dimensions (pp. 323–339). Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-ty Press.

Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for amultidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

Davis, M.H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.de Wied, M., Goudena, P.P., & Matthys, W. (2005). Empathy in boys with disruptive be-

havior disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 867–880.Dodge, K.A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D.J.

Pepler, & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression(pp. 201–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S., & Price, J.M. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boysgroups: Development and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289–1309.

Eder, D., Evans, C., & Parker, S. (1997). School talk. Gender and adolescent culture. NewBrunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Midner, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis de-tected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.

Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization:What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review,32(3), 365–383.

Evans, I.M., Heriot, S.A., & Friedman, A.G. (2002). A behavioural pattern of irritability, hos-tility and inhibited empathy in children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7,211–224.

Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1964). An improved short questionnaire for the mea-surement of extraversion and neuroticism. Life Sciences, 305, 1103–1109.

Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.New York: Hodder and Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Psychosis and psychoticism: A reply to Bishop. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 86, 427–430.

Farrington, D. P. (1991). Longitudinal research strategies: Advantages, problems andprospects. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30,369–374.

Farrington, D.P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris(Eds.), Crime and justice, vol. 17, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Felix, E.D., & McMahon, S.D. (2007). The role of gender in peer victimization amongyouth: A study of incidence, interrelations, and social cognitive correlates. Journal ofSchool Violence, 6, 27–44.

Feshbach, N.D. (1978). Studies of empathic behavior in children. In B. Maher (Ed.),Progressing experimental personality research, vol. 8. (pp. 1–47). New York: AcademicPress.

Feshbach, N.D., & Feshbach, S. (1969). The relationship between empathy and aggressionin two age groups. Developmental Psychology, 1, 102–107.

Field, A.P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison offixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6(2), 161–180.

*Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoe, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents' bul-lying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467–476.

Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: AcademicPress.

Hedges, L.V., & Vevea, J.L. (1988). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.Psychological Methods, 3, 486–505.

Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Graziano, W.G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of inter-personal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362.

John, O.P. (1990). The “big five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natu-ral language and questionnaires. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality(pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford Press.

*Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2006a). Examining the relationship between low empathyand bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 540–550.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006b). The development and validation of the Basic Em-pathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589–611.

*Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2011). Is low empathy related to bullying after con-trolling for individual and social background variables? Journal of Adolescence,34, 59–71.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1359-1789(15)00008-7/rf0155

























































































































Kaukiainen, A., Bjoerkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Oesterman, K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S.,et al. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and threetypes of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81–89.

Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S.L., et al.(1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptoms among elementary school-age children.Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 705–717.

Lafferty, J. (2004). The relationships between gender, empathy, and aggressive behav-iours among early adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: TheSciences and, Engineering, 64(12-B), 6377.

Lee, K., & Ashton,M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inven-tory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.

Leslie, A.M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of theory of mind.Psychological Review, 94(4), 412–426.

LeSure-Lester, G.E. (2000). Relation between empathy and aggression and behavior com-pliance among abused group home youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,31, 153–161.

Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and vi-

olence. American Psychologist, 53(2), 242–259.Lovett, J.B., & Sheffield, A.R. (2006). Affective empathy deficits in aggressive children and

adolescents: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 1–13.Lowenstein, I. F. (1978). Who is the bully? Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 31,

147–149.Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2005).

Adolescent psychopathy and the Big Five: Results from two samples. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 33, 431–443.

Manger, T., Eikeland, O., & Asbjornsen, A. (2001). Effects of social–cognitive training onstudents' empathy. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 60, 82–88.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality acrossinstruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.

McCrae, R.R., Terracciano, A., & Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project(2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective:Data from 50 different cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,547–561.

McLeod, B. D., & Weisz, J. R. (2004). Using dissertations to examine potential bias in childand adolescent clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72,235–251.

Mehrabian, A., Young, A., & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional empathy and associated individualdifferences. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, 7, 221–240.

*Menesini, E., Camodeca, M., & Nocentini, A. (2010). Bullying among siblings: The role ofpersonality and relational variables. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28,921–939.

Miller, P.A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externaliz-ing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324–344.

Miller, J.D., Lynam, D., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Examining antisocial behavior through thefive-factor model of personality. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 497–514.

Minde, K. (1992). Aggression in preschoolers: Its relation to socialization. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(5), 853–862.

Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2013). The relationship between perceived parentalbonding and bullying: Themediating role of empathy. European Journal of CounsellingPsychology, 2(1), 1–16.

Monks, C.P., & Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of ‘bullying’; age differences in understand-ing of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology, 24, 801–821.

Monks, C.P., Smith, P.K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, victims and defenders inpreschool: Peer, self and teacher reports. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 453–469.

Monks, C.P., Smith, P.K., & Swettenham, J. (2005). The psychological correlates of peervictimisation in preschool: Social cognitive skills, executive function and attachmentprofiles. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 571–588.

*Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association withEysenck's personality dimensions in 8- to 13 year-olds. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 67, 51–54.

Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).Bullying behavior among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocialadjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. New York: Wiley.Olweus, D. (1989). Bully/Victim Questionnaire for students. Department of Psychology:

University of Bergen.Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. NY: Wiley-

Blackwell.Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based

intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171–1190.Olweus, D. (2001). Bullying at school: Tackling the problem. Observer, 225, 24–26.Overton, R.C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random effects) models for

meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3, 354–379.Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machi-

avellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.Pellegrini, A.D., & Bartini, M. (2000). An empirical comparison of methods of sampling ag-

gression and victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,360–366.

Rammsayer, T., & Schmiga, K. (2003). Mobbing und Persönlichkeit: Unterschiede ingrundlegenden Persönlichkeitsdimensionen zwischen Mobbing-Betroffenen undNicht-Betroffenen [Bullying and personality: Differences with regard to basic person-ality traits between bullying victims and non-victims]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 5(2),3–11.

Randall, P. (1997). Adult bullying: Perpetrators and victims. London: Routledge.Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools:What to do about it.Melbourne: Australian Council for

Education Research Limited.Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley.Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian chil-

dren and implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology,133(1), 33–42.

Rosenthal, R. (1991).Meta-analytic procedures for social research (revised). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192.Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for inter-

vention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453–459.Salmivalli, C. (2001). Group view on victimization: Empirical findings and their implica-

tions. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vul-nerable and victimized (pp. 398–419). New York: Guilford.

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullyingas a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within thegroup. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.

Salmon, G., James, A., & Smith, D. M. (1998). Bullying in schools: Self reported anxiety, de-pression, and self esteem in secondary school children. British Medical Journal, 317,924–925.

Slee, P.T. (1993). Bullying: A preliminary investigation of its nature and the effects of so-cial cognition. Early Childhood Development and Care, 87, 47–57.

Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993). Australian school children's self-appraisal of interpersonalrelations: The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 23,273–282.

*Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and self-esteem to bully–victim behaviour in Australian schoolboys. Personality andIndividual Differences, 14, 371–373.

Smith, P.K. (1991). The silent nightmare: Bullying and victimization in school peergroups. The Psychologist, 4, 243–248.

Smith, P.K., & Thompson, D.A. (1991). Practical approaches to bullying. London: DavidFulton.

Solberg, M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with theOlweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.

Spinrad, T.L., Losoya, S.H., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Shepard, S.A., Cumberland, A., et al.(1999). The relations of parental affect and encouragement to children's moral emo-tions and behavior. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 323–337.

*Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., & Theofanous, V. (2010). Bullying and empathy: A short-term longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychology: An International Journal ofExperimental Educational Psychology, 30, 793–802.

Sterne, J.A.C., Egger, M., & Davey-Smith, G. (2001). Investigating and dealingwith publica-tion and other biases. In M. Egger, G. Davey-Smith, & D.G. Altman (Eds.), Systematicreviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books.

Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying,Machiavellianism, and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,443–456.

Sutton, J., Smith, P.K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inad-equacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17,435–450.

Swearer, S.M., Espelage, D.L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done aboutschool bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39,38–47.

*Tani, F., Greenman, P.S., Schneider, B.H., & Fregoso, M. (2003). Bullying and the Big Five. Astudy of childhood personality and participant roles in bullying incidents. SchoolPsychology International, 24, 131–146.

Tattum, D.P., & Lane, D.A. (Eds.). (1989). Bullying in schools. Stoke-on-Trent: TrenthamBooks.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play. Girls and boys in school. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Tobari, M. (2003). The development of empathy in adolescence: A multidimensionalview. Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 136–148.

Turkel, A.R. (2007). Sugar and spice and puppy dog's tails: The psychodynamics of bully-ing. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysts and Dynamic Psychiatry, 35(2),243–258.

*Warden, D., & Mackinnon, S. (2003). Pro-social children, bullies, and victims: An investi-gation of their sociometric status, empathy and problem-solving strategies. BritishJournal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 367–385.

Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2000). The association between directand relational bullying and behavior problems among primary school children.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 989–1002.

Wolke, D., Woods, S., Schulz, H., & Stanford, K. (2001). Bullying and victimization of pri-mary school children in South England and South Germany: Prevalence and schoolfactors. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 673–696.


























































































































































