Psychological processes in young bullies versus bully‐victims

Abstract

Some children who bully others are also victimized themselves (“bully‐victims”) whereas others are not victimized themselves (“bullies”). These subgroups have been shown to differ in their social functioning as early as in kindergarten. What is less clear are the motives that underlie the bullying behavior of young bullies and bully‐victims. The present study examined whether bullies have proactive motives for aggression and anticipate to feel happy after victimizing others, whereas bully‐victims have reactive motives for aggression, poor theory of mind skills, and attribute hostile intent to others. This “distinct processes hypothesis” was contrasted with the “shared processes hypothesis,” predicting that bullies and bully‐victims do not differ on these psychological processes. Children (n = 283, age 4–9) were classified as bully, bully‐victim, or noninvolved using peer‐nominations. Theory of mind, hostile intent attributions, and happy victimizer emotions were assessed using standard vignettes and false‐belief tasks; reactive and proactive motives were assessed using teacher‐reports. We tested our hypotheses using Bayesian model selection, enabling us to directly compare the distinct processes model (predicting that bullies and bully‐victims deviate from noninvolved children on different psychological processes) against the shared processes model (predicting that bullies and bully‐victims deviate from noninvolved children on all psychological processes alike). Overall, the shared processes model received more support than the distinct processes model. These results suggest that in early childhood, bullies and bully‐victims have shared, rather than distinct psychological processes underlying their bullying behavior.

Development of aggressive-victims from childhood through adolescence: Associations with emotion dysregulation, withdrawn behaviors, moral disengagement, peer rejection, and friendships

“…Aggressive-victims appeared to share many similar social–emotional and social–cognitive characteristics as aggressors. These findings are consistent with a shared processes hypothesis (see van Dijk, Poorthuis, & Malti, 2017), according to which aggressive-victims and aggressors have similar psychological profiles. However, it appeared that the distinction between these aggressive subgroups emerged more clearly with respect to their peer relationships such that aggressive-victims also exhibited comparable relational risks as victims.…”

Does Parent–Child Discussion of Peer Provocations Reduce Young Children's Hostile Attributional Bias?

“…We assessed children's hostile attributional bias using four vignettes that describe ambiguous provocations by a same-gender peer (Dodge, McClaskey, & Feldman, 1985;Feshbach, 1989;Van Dijk, Poorthuis, & Malti, 2017). Story themes were (a) being hurt; (b) one's drawing being ruined; (c) being refused to join a board game; (d) one's toy being taken.…”

Social responsibility on the Internet: Addressing the challenge of cyberbullying

“…Research has shown that hard-to-manage preschoolers with poor mind skills tend to behave more negatively towards their peers (i.e., they showed more insulting, whining, and controlling behavior while playing games). Children may bully others because they insufficiently comprehend their peers' mental states (Van Dijk, Poorthuis, and Malti, 2017).…”

“…Bullies may tend to anticipate feeling positive emotions after victimizing others. Such "happy victimizer emotions" are uniquely related to proactive aggression (Van Dijk, Poorthuis, and Malti, 2017). Furthermore, bullies employ moral disengagement mechanisms that allow them to engage with violent conduct (Gini, 2006).…”