Why are Some Victims Also Bullies? The Role of Peer Relationship Management and Anger Regulation in Traditional Bullying

Abstract

There is ample evidence of bullying victimization-perpetration association. However, little is known about the role of socioemotional variables in reinforcing or mitigating it. There is a need to delve deeper into what victims feel and do that leads them to bully. This study aimed to analyze the moderating role of peer relationship management and anger regulation in the victimization-perpetration association, controlling gender and age. This cross-sectional study involved 874 Spanish middle school students (47.8% girls) aged 11 to 18 years ( M = 13.92, SD = 1.45). The results revealed that the perpetration was positively related to victimization and negatively related to peer relationship management and anger regulation. In addition, peer relationship management can moderate the victimization-perpetration association, acting as a protective factor, when the ability of victims to regulate anger is sufficiently trained. These findings highlight the importance of designing effective prevention based on socio-emotional development to fully curb bullying.

Perceived social competencies as moderators: examining the relationship between psychological distress and aggression, hostility, and anger in Lebanese adults

“…It has been further explained that individuals with strong social competencies were less prone to provocation related to anger and subsequently to aggression in conflict settings. To prove the importance of developing social competences in order to manage anger attitudes related to psychological distress, literature reviews [ 50 , 51 ] successfully implemented Social Skills Training (SST) as a treatment option for reinforcement of prosocial behavior to decrease risks of anger responses in social settings.…”

The impact of strain, constraints, and morality on different cyberbullying roles: A partial test of Agnew’s general strain theory

“…These were later applied to cyberbullying, and the core roles in cyberbullying behavior are perpetrators, victims, and bystanders ( Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque, 2018 ; Moxey and Bussey, 2019 ). Importantly, the cyberbullying perpetrator and the victim are interchangeable, in which victims used cyberbullying as a way to protect themselves, and thus, plus a new role, the cyber bully–victim, who are both cyberbullying victims and cyberbullying perpetrators ( McInroy and Mishna, 2017 ; Espino et al, 2022 ). Regarding cyberbullying perpetrators and victims, researchers agreed that perpetration and victimization co-occur far more frequently in cyberspace than in the offline setting, because offensive messages spread quickly online ( Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque, 2018 ; Clark and Bussey, 2020 ; Parti et al, 2022 ).…”

“…Regarding cyberbullying perpetrators and victims, researchers agreed that perpetration and victimization co-occur far more frequently in cyberspace than in the offline setting, because offensive messages spread quickly online ( Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque, 2018 ; Clark and Bussey, 2020 ; Parti et al, 2022 ). Meanwhile, Espino et al (2022) showed that if cyberbullying victims have experienced frequent aggression, they are more likely to perpetrate cyberbullying. These points show that we shall consider the challenges when the aspects of traditional bullying features directly applied in cyberbullying ( Slonje et al, 2013 ), and cyberbullying is an interaction that could be predicted and prevented through interpersonal relationships ( Varela et al, 2018 ; Mehari and Basu, 2022 ).…”

“…According to GST, both externalizing responses (i.e., acts that harm others either via violence) and internalizing responses (i.e., acts committed against themselves, such as substance use and deliberate self-harm) were found to be associated with various forms of strain ( Guo, 2021 ). In the previous studies, the associations between strain and traditional bullying have been well studied (e.g., Moon and Jang, 2014 ; Espino et al, 2022 ; Strohacker et al, 2022 ). For example, Agnew (2011) found that individual with high levels of strain is more likely to engage in the traditional bullying behavior; Ganem (2010) stated that negative emotionality affects the relationship between strain and offending; Cochran (2015) have used self-domain, family domain, school domain, peer domain, and deviant motivations as main variables in testing strain and traditional bullying; Wooten (2021) investigated that strain leads to anger, which in turn leads to delinquency.…”

Effects of victimization and perpetration in observing bullying scenes: an eye-tracker study

“…Although it is still not clear why some students become bully-victims ( Malamut & Salmivalli, 2021 ), previous studies showed that traits like reduced empathy, limited prosocial behavior, fragile family bonds, or difficulties in anger regulation could contribute to their profile ( Chan & Wong, 2015 ; Espino, Guarini, Menabò, & Del Rey, 2023 ). Bully-victims are the most disliked group, and they are more likely to have higher levels of depression and self-harm compared to the other groups ( Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2008 ).…”