The dynamic associations between social dominance goals and bullying from middle to late childhood: The moderating role of classroom bystander behaviors.

Abstract

Social dominance goals have been conceptualized as orientations toward powerful and prominent positions in the peer group. Although previous studies have identified social dominance goals as one of the main motivations behind bullying, few studies have disentangled the time-invariant (average level) from the timevarying (year-to-year) effects of social dominance goals. The present study simultaneously examined the time-invariant and time-varying associations between social dominance goals and bullying, along with the moderating effects of classroom bystander behaviors (reinforcing the bully and defending the victim). A Chinese sample of third graders (n = 615, 46.5% girls, M age = 9.29 years, SD = 0.40) and fourth graders (n = 559, 44.9% girls, M age = 10.31 years, SD = 0.40) in four schools was surveyed three times (in May 2018, May 2019, and June 2020). Social dominance goals and bullying were self-reported. Classroom reinforcing and defending were assessed by averaging peer-reported reinforcing and defending scores for each classroom at each time point. Three-level models revealed significant time-variant and time-invariant effects of social dominance goals on bullying in classrooms with relatively low levels of defending behavior. These results suggest that both persistent and temporary social dominance goals might motivate children to engage in bullying, but peers' defending behaviors mitigate this tendency. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThis study suggests that children with persistent or temporary social dominance goals are less likely to bully others in classrooms where defending behavior is more common. Thus, teachers should pay attention to children with social dominance goals, as well as children's momentary desire to be dominant. Moreover, to inhibit the bullying behavior of dominance-oriented children, peer support groups could be formed in which the group members are encouraged to challenge the bullies, help victimized peers, and report bullying to authority.

The Machiavellian bully revisited: A closer look at differences and processes of Machiavellian bullying and cyberbullying perpetration

“…Arguably, individuals high in Mach adopt overt antisocial behavior only when the likelihood of punishment is low (Christie & Geis, 1970). Relatedly, striving for social dominance translates into bullying only if the class norm to defend victims is low, suggesting that bullies enact their behavior only if they expect little social costs or reputational harm (Pan et al, 2023; Salmivalli et al, 2021). Since we did not assess the circumstances under which (cyber)bullying was enacted, future research might test situational affordances influencing overt (cyber)bullying by individuals high in Machiavellian approach.…”

“…Relatedly, our study was one of the few to consider the hierarchical nature of (cyber)bullying. Given the role of peer relations and feelings of dominance during adolescence, peer conflicts are expectedly high in the assessed age range (Olweus, 1993; Wigfield et al, 1996) and these phenomena are largely affected by social and environmental characteristics, such as class‐specific approval or disapproval of (cyber)bullying (Pan et al, 2023; Salmivalli et al, 2021; Swearer & Hymel, 2015; Zych et al, 2015). By separating different forms of (cyber)bullying, the present study thus sheds light on distinct dependencies of (cyber)bullying behaviors on class characteristics, as indicated by the variability of the ICC s among the five facets.…”

“…By separating different forms of (cyber)bullying, the present study thus sheds light on distinct dependencies of (cyber) Notwithstanding these strengths, this study also has limitations. For instance, specific environmental features altering the frequency of (cyber)bullying perpetration were not assessed, such as school or classroom climate, class norms to tolerate or endorse bullying, or socioeconomic status (e.g., Giumetti et al, 2022;Pan et al, 2023;Salmivalli et al, 2021;Zych et al, 2015). Besides, the data collection started 1 year after the last COVID-19 lockdown in Germany (Robert-Koch-Institut, n.d.).…”

“…Environmental and social characteristics, such as existing pro‐ or antibullying classroom norms, are expected to affect the prevalence of (cyber)bullying conduct (e.g., Giumetti et al, 2022; Swearer & Hymel, 2015) such that the peer group approves or disapproves bullying as a means to status acquisition (Pan et al, 2023; Salmivalli et al, 2021). However, recent research has seldom considered the nested structure of students within classes (see Strøm et al, 2013, for an exemplary exception).…”

The Power Dynamics of Friendship: Between- and Within- Person Associations among Friend Dominance, Self-Esteem, and Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms

“…Similarly, adolescents' perceptions of power dynamics within their close friendships are likely to fluctuate over time, rather than remain static, as youth shift friendship networks or negotiate control and influence within steady friendships. Indirect support for this hypothesis comes from recent research documenting considerable intraindividual variability in youth's social dominance goals (i.e., desire for power over peers) over time (Pan et al, 2023). However, no studies have considered how withinperson (i.e., time-varying) changes in perceived friend dominance may be linked with corresponding changes in adolescents' internalizing symptoms.…”