No abstract

No abstract

Bullying appears to be ubiquitous across cultures, involving hundreds of millions of adolescents worldwide, and has potentially serious negative consequences for its participants (particularly victims). We challenge the traditionally held belief that bullying results from maladaptive development by reviewing evidence that bullying may be, in part, an evolved, facultative, adaptive strategy that offers some benefits to its practitioners. In support of this view, we draw from research that suggests bullying serves to promote adolescent bullies' evolutionarily-relevant somatic, sexual, and dominance goals, has a genetic basis, and is widespread among nonhuman animals. We identify and explain differences in the bullying behavior of the two sexes, as well as when and why bullying is adaptive and when it may not be. We offer commentary on both the failures and successes of current anti-bullying interventions from an evolutionary perspective and suggest future directions for both research and anti-bullying interventions.

The present study examined psychosocial risk factors that differentiated direct and indirect bully-victims from bullies, victims and uninvolved adolescents. A total of 7,290 (3,756 girls) students (ages 13-18 yr) from a region of Southern Ontario, Canada, completed a number of self-report measures to determine the relation between direct and indirect bullying and victimization and several psychosocial risk factors, including normative beliefs about antisocial acts, angry-externalizing coping, social anxiety, depression, self-esteem, temperament, attachment, parental monitoring and peer relational problems. ANCOVA and logistic regression analyses indicated that indirect bully-victims and victims were similar in demonstrating greater internalizing problems and peer relational problems than indirect bullies and uninvolved participants. Furthermore, adolescents involved in indirect bullying (bullies, bully-victims) reported a higher level of normative beliefs legitimizing antisocial behaviour and less parental monitoring (males only) than indirect victims and uninvolved participants. Only normative beliefs legitimizing antisocial behaviour distinguished direct bully-victims and bullies from victims and uninvolved adolescents. Results illuminate the distinct characteristics of direct and indirect bully-victims; theoretical and clinical implications are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 32:551-569.