505216
research-article2013
JIV29410.1177/0886260513505216Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceKodžopeljić et al.
Article
School Bullying in
Adolescence and
Personality Traits:
A Person-Centered
Approach
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2014, Vol. 29(4) 736­–757
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260513505216
jiv.sagepub.com
Jasmina Kodžopeljić, PhD,1 Snežana Smederevac,
PhD,1 Dušanka Mitrović, PhD,1 Bojana Dinić, MSc,1
and Petar Čolović, PhD1
Abstract
This study examined the differences in personality traits between the
clusters reflecting the roles in violent interactions among high school
students. The sample included 397 students (51.1% male) of Serbian
nationality from the first to the fourth grades of different high schools. Based
on scores of five dimensions related to peer violence (Physical Aggression,
Psychological Aggression, Victimization, Adapted Behavior, and Risky
Behavior), three clusters were extracted: Adapted Adolescents, Victims,
and Bullies. These three clusters were compared with respect to lexical
Big Seven personality traits, and the results indicate that the clusters differ
significantly on Aggressiveness, Neuroticism, and Negative Valence. The
Adapted Adolescents have the lowest scores on all three dimensions, while
the Victims score highest on Neuroticism, and the Bullies on Aggressiveness.
The potential importance of certain Extraversion facets for the roles in
violent interaction was discussed.
Keywords
bullying, victimization, peer violence, Big Seven
1University
of Novi Sad, Serbia
Corresponding Author:
Bojana Dinić, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
737
Introduction
Bullying has been the subject of researchers’ interest since the first studies
were conducted in Scandinavian countries in the late 1970s (Olweus, 1978,
1993). Although it is very difficult to compare the results of the frequency of
violent behavior in different cultures and educational systems, the results of
studies in many countries have suggested that the frequency of violent behavior among students had been on the increase (Carney & Merrell, 2001). In
addition to that, the results of numerous studies have pointed to the negative
and long-term consequences of bullying for all participants (increased depressiveness, anxiety, social exclusion and withdrawal, reactive aggression, and
so on in victims; Craig, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Hourbe, Targuinio,
Thuillier, & Hergott, 2006; Nansel et al., 2001; Pepler et al., 2006). Such
results may be the reason for the unfading interest in the phenomenon of bullying in recent decades.
In spite of the notably rising number of studies since the 1970s, disagreements among authors regarding the definition of bullying have persisted
throughout this period (Arora, 1996; Griffin & Gross, 2004). However,
despite the differences in defining bullying, certain common elements are
present in works of many authors. Price and Dodge (1989) defined bullying
as a type of proactive aggression that can be displayed in the form of direct or
relational aggressive behavior (Connor, 1988). Therefore, many authors perceived intentional and repetitive infliction of physical pain and/or intimidation not provoked by the victim’s actions as significant determinants of
bullying (Olweus, 1993, 2010). However, the power imbalance that exists
between the bully and the victim has also been emphasized (Peterson &
Rigby, 1999). To conduct a more comprehensive research of the social climate in schools, some studies shifted their focus from the narrowly defined
bullying phenomenon to more broadly defined concepts of peer and school
violence (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Kodžopeljić, Smederevac, & Čolović,
2010; Popadić & Plut, 2007; Thomson, Arora, & Sharp, 2002). In addition to
the aforementioned components of bullying, these concepts include individual violent interactions between peers, where an imbalance of power is not
necessarily present. However, disagreements over defining the concept have
gained or lost importance depending on the goal of the research. Whereas the
way of assessment of violent behavior can affect the estimation of the prevalence rate (Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2009; Solberg & Olweus, 2003),
its effect on determining predictors has not been confirmed (Cook, Williams,
Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010). The results of the meta-analytic study (Cook
et al., 2010) showed that the predictors of bullying do not differ from predictors of aggressive behavior.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
738
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
According to the definition, bullying occurs in a social context determined
by the individual characteristics of the participants, as well as by different
contextual features of the environment (Cook et al., 2010). Bullying appears
to be a group activity in which the parties involved participate differently
according to their personal characteristics (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen,
Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999). Roles in violent interactions tend to
remain stable not only throughout elementary school (Salmivalli, Lappalainen,
& Lagerspetz, 1998) but also as participants transfer to high school (Paul &
Cillessen, 2003). Most authors consider three roles in violent interaction:
bully, victim, and bully-victim. Bullies may be considered as children who
show intentional and repeated aggressive behavior toward other children.
Victims in general may be defined as targets of bullying, while bully-victims
are both targets of bullying and aggressors (Griffin & Gross, 2004). In the
meta-analysis of 153 studies, Cook et al. (2010) gave a short review of the
most important predictors of each role in violent interaction. Even though
some of the personal and contextual predictors appeared in all three groups
(gender, family and home environment, school climate, poor social skills),
bullies were also characterized by a more pronounced externalizing behavior,
low school achievement, and negative attitudes and beliefs about others and
themselves. Typical victims showed greater tendency toward internalized
problems (decrease in self-esteem, increase in anxiety, and depressiveness,
etc.) and negative self-related cognitions. In addition to that, they were frequently rejected by their peers and socially isolated. Bully-victim group
exhibited a comorbidity of externalized and internalized problems, a negative
image of oneself and others, as well as poor social competence, while peer
rejection was accompanied by succumbing to negative peer influence. In
addition, some authors single out the role of bystanders or witnesses as
important group in bullying situations (e.g., Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012; Gini,
Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008; Salmivalli, 2010). It may be important to
make a distinction between bystanders and other participants in bullying. The
bystanders do not take active part in violent interactions; however, they can
indirectly reinforce the bullies’ behavior, passively support the victims, or
behave as observers (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, &
Kaukiainen, 1996). Bystanders’ role in violent interaction is important
because their behavior can contribute to persistence of violent patterns.
Temporal stability of the role in violent interaction, among other factors,
was also shown to be affected by personality traits (Olweus, 1993; Salmivalli
et al., 1998). Among studies that have investigated relations between personality traits and roles in bullying incidents, two approaches are noted: variable-centered and person-centered (Grumm & von Collani, 2009). Traditional,
variable-centered approach to this problem explored the relationship between
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
739
personality traits and aggressive behavior or bullying. The Big Five model
was used in several studies as the most influential theoretical framework.
This model includes five dimensions: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The results of numerous studies indicated that Agreeableness had the strongest correlation and emerged as the
most important predictor of all roles in violent interactions (Gleason, JensenCampbell, & Richardson, 2004; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002; Sharpe &
Desai, 2001; Tani, Greenman, Schneider, & Fregoso, 2003; Trebblay &
Ewart, 2005). Low Agreeableness was found in both bullies and victims
(Tani et al., 2003), and it was also a significant predictor of victimization
increase over time (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002). Agreeableness also negatively correlated with antisocial behavior and adolescent delinquency
(Robins, John, & Caspi, 1994; Van Dam, Janssens, & De Bruyn, 2005). A
number of factors contributing to social adaptation, such as peer acceptance
(Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002), cooperation in group activities (Graziano,
Hair, & Finch, 1997), and self-control in interpersonal relations (JensenCampbell, Graziano, & Hair, 1996), also correlated significantly with
Agreeableness. Such behaviors may occur as protective factors in bullying
situations. Other dimensions, apart from Agreeableness, correlated significantly with different roles in violent interactions. Both victims and bullies
scored high on Neuroticism (Maynard & Joseph, 1997; Tani et al., 2003).
However, some studies indicated that bullies showed higher positive affect
than other participants in violent interaction (Craig & Pepler, 1997). It was
assumed that hostility and lack of empathy of the bullies may have been the
result of not only low Agreeableness but also of low Conscientiousness. At
the same time, social exclusion of the victim can stem from low Extraversion
and high Neuroticism (Tani et al., 2003). Substantial correlations between
Openness and violent behavior have not been found in most studies.
Nonetheless, the results of our research on senior elementary school students
suggested that higher Openness is a feature of victims (Smederevac &
Čolović, 2011).
The person-centered approach investigates specific trait configurations
distinctive for certain groups of individuals belonging to a specific personality type (Grumm & von Collani, 2009). Typology introduced by Block and
Block (1980) has often been used in the search for different outcomes of
specific personality types. Three personality types, labeled resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled, represent unique combinations of traits that
have specific behavioral outcomes. Some of these outcomes are related to
bullying. Thus certain findings showed that overcontrolled individuals, characterized by high Neuroticism and low Extraversion, inclined to internalized
problems, while undercontrolled ones, characterized by low Agreeableness
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
740
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
and Conscientiousness, were more prone to externalized problems (Robins,
John, Caspi, & Moffit, 1996; Van Leeuwen, de Fruyt, & Mervielde, 2004).
Aggressive behavior as the behavioral outcome of the above-mentioned personality types has also been the subject of research. A longitudinal study by
Hart, Hoffman, Edelstein, and Keller (1997) revealed that children who were
identified as overcontrolled at the age of seven, showed a greater predisposition to withdraw from social interactions in adolescence, as well as a lower
level of self-esteem compared with the other two types. The increase of
aggressive behavior during adolescence was noted in children classified as
undercontrolled. Considering that the low scores on Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness in undercontrolled individuals are sometimes accompanied by moderate and high Neuroticism (Herzberg & Roth, 2006), it is apparent that there is a high level of compliance between the results of
variable-centered and person-centered approach to personal characteristics of
bullies. The resilient type is characterized by high social competence and
emotional stability (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999). In terms of five-factor
model, resilient persons are characterized by moderate Extraversion,
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness, and low Neuroticism (Van
Leeuwen et al., 2004). Therefore, it is less likely that the Resilients will tend
to participate regularly in violent interactions.
Besides the studies that investigated relations between personality types
and violent behavior, attempts have been made to extract types of adolescents
based on self- or peer-reported measures of bullying and/or victimization
(Espelage & Holt, 2001; Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010). The results
suggest that there are three subtypes of bullies in both boys and girls (Peeters
et al., 2010), while five clusters are extracted when both measures of bullying
and victimization are taken into account (Espelage & Holt, 2001).
Studies concerning personality traits of bullies and victims have, up to
now, used the Big Five model framework, regardless of the approach applied.
Some traits not included in this model can potentially be significant in
describing children displaying violent behavior and children enduring violence. Taking that into consideration, a questionnaire aimed at assessing
seven personality dimensions is applied in this study. The questionnaire Big
Five Plus Two (BF+2; Smederevac, Mitrović, & Čolović, 2010) was developed on the basis of lexical studies of personality descriptors in the Serbian
language. It contains scales for the assessment of Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Aggressiveness, Conscientiousness, Openness, Positive Valence, and
Negative Valence. The latter two dimensions are referred to by the common
term “evaluative dimensions,” because they comprise indicators of positive
and negative self-evaluation. Previous studies have pointed to low selfesteem as one of the important characteristics of victimized children (Carney
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
741
& Merrell, 2001). Therefore, evaluative dimensions, which contain markers
of self-esteem, may play an important role in the personality description of
both bullies and victims. Victims could achieve significantly lower scores on
Positive Valence than other children, and possibly higher scores on Negative
Valence, considering the findings pointing to their proneness to depression
(Carney & Merrell, 2001). Some thus far findings have spoken in favor of
increased Neuroticism and Openness in victims (Smederevac & Čolović,
2011); therefore, such results can be expected in this study. As research on a
sample of children aged 11 to 15 indicated elevated scores on Positive and
Negative Valence in children who show violent behavior (Mitrović,
Kodžopeljić, & Čolović, 2011), similar results can be expected in high school
students. Apart from this, Aggressiveness and Neuroticism may be significant for the description of both groups of participants in violent interactions.
This study is based on a somewhat broader definition of bullying which
includes Olweus’ criteria (Olweus, 2010), as well as incidental cases of nonrepetitive bullying not necessarily including power imbalance. The study
uses person-centered approach, which has been previously used in studies
regarding adolescents’ violent behavior (Peeters et al., 2010). However, it
appears that person-centered studies of self-reported violence in adolescents
(Espelage & Holt, 2001; Peeters et al., 2010) are much less frequent than
person-oriented studies that are primarily based on personality traits
(Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Robins et al., 1996; Scholte, van Lieshout, de
Wit, & van Aken, 2005; Van Leeuwen et al., 2004), particularly in older adolescents. This study attempts to examine whether self-reported tendencies to
participate in violent interactions may serve as a basis for plausible typology
of adolescents, and if so, whether adolescents in such clusters differ with
regard to personality traits. By using violent behavior as a framework for
cluster extraction, this study aims to contribute to a better understanding of
different roles in violent interactions among adolescents. At the same time,
by using BF+2, this study takes into consideration both descriptive and evaluative personality dimensions, the latter being neglected in studies of adolescents’ violent behavior so far.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The study was conducted in 2011. The sample comprised 203 (51.1%) male
and 194 (48.9%) female first- to fourth-grade high school students from
Serbia. The participants were White and of Serbian nationality. The average
age of the participants was 16.68 (SD = 1.15, range = 15-19). Informed
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
742
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
consent was obtained prior to administration of the questionnaires. Participants
were told that the study was investigating the frequency of violence in the high
school population. In addition, participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time
without penalty. No participants declined to participate in the study.
Measures
Peer Violence Questionnaire (PVQ). The PVQ (Maksimović, Raković,
Jovanović, & Čolović, 2008) was developed to measure the tendency toward
different forms of violent behavior. Apart from behavioral indicators of peer
violence in the more narrow sense, PVQ includes indicators of some forms of
risky behavior which could be related to violent behavior and bullying. PVQ
contains five facets: Physical Violence, which assesses a variety of physical
forms of violence from direct physical violence toward peers to incitement of
physical violence (e.g., “I often take a part in fights”); Psychological Violence, which measures psychological forms of violence such as gossip, mock,
disregard, and so on (e.g., “I gossip with my friends about people who deserve
it”); Victimization, which measures the exposure to different forms of violence (e.g., “Other students often push me”); Adapted Behavior, which measures behavior such as protecting peers, exemplary behavior, and so on (e.g.,
“Even when I mess up, I try to set things right.”); and Risky Behavior, which
assesses behavior such as substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, theft, and
so on (e.g., “I tried marijuana”). The questionnaire contains 59 binary items
(Yes/No), of which seven are fillers (e.g., “I have many hobbies”). Fillers are
included in the questionnaire to obscure the purpose of the scale.
Higher scores on all the scales in PVQ indicate increased tendency to display certain patterns of behavior labeled by the scale name, while lower
scores indicate decreased proneness to these behaviors. The descriptives and
reliabilities of scales are shown in Table 1.
BF+2. The BF+2 (Smederevac et al., 2010) is a 184-item measure of seven
lexical personality dimensions in the Serbian language. The psycho-lexical
study, on which the BF+2 is based, was conducted according to Tellegen and
Waller’s non-restrictive criteria (Waller, 1999), which suggest that any personality descriptor can be included in the descriptor list. The items were
designed as simple statements in accordance with dictionary definitions, with
the 5-point Likert response format ranging from “very false for me” to “very
true for me.” The instrument measures 7 higher order and 18 lower order
personality dimensions. Seven higher order scales were Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Aggressiveness, Openness, Positive Valence,
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
743
Kodžopeljić et al.
Table 1. Number of Items, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for Scales
of PVQ and BF+2.
PVQ
Physical violence
Risky behavior
Victimization
Adapted behavior
Psychological violence
BF+2
Anxiety
Depression
Negative affect
Warmth
Positive affect
Sociability
Self-discipline
Persistence
Cautiousness
Anger
Disagreeableness
Tough-mindedness
Intellect
Novelty seeking
Superiority
Positive self-concept
Manipulative style
Negative self-concept
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Conscientiousness
Aggressiveness
Openness
Positive valence
Negative valence
SD
α
n
M
15
10
9
10
8
11.91
6.59
7.81
2.20
5.89
2.87
1.92
1.30
1.46
1.59
.80
.64
.60
.63
.56
13
10
12
8
8
8
8
11
9
9
11
10
13
7
14
11
12
10
35
24
28
30
20
25
22
34.83
20.85
33.02
32.80
33.89
31.54
24.98
41.80
31.35
26.03
27.53
32.66
46.84
27.36
43.31
41.65
25.64
17.29
88.75
98.22
98.09
86.20
74.19
84.97
42.92
9.01
7.02
9.27
3.92
3.81
4.75
6.85
6.33
5.25
7.57
6.90
6.80
8.25
4.18
10.15
6.05
8.23
5.03
21.75
9.89
14.78
16.50
10.35
14.80
11.34
.80
.79
.82
.60
.65
.65
.72
.73
.59
.80
.68
.71
.77
.52
.83
.76
.82
.68
.91
.79
.84
.84
.77
.88
.83
Note. PVQ = Peer Violence Questionnaire; BF+2 = Big Five Plus Two.
and Negative Valence. The Neuroticism scale refers to the tendency to experience negative emotions and contains three facets: Anxiety, Depression, and
Negative Affect. The Extraversion scale mostly includes indicators of
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
744
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
sociability and positive emotionality and contains the following facets:
Warmth, Positive Affect, and Sociability. The Conscientiousness scale
includes indicators of persistence and responsible attitude toward obligations
and consists of the facets named Self-discipline, Persistence, and Cautiousness. The Aggressiveness scale, for the most part, includes indicators of the
display of aggressive impulses and aggressive reactions, and comprises three
facets: Anger, Disagreeableness, and Tough-mindedness. The Openness scale
refers to a variety of interests and proneness to novelties, and contains two
facets: Intellect and Novelty Seeking. The Positive Valence includes two facets: Superiority and Positive Self-Concept. The Negative Valence scale consists of two facets: Manipulative Style and Negative Self-Concept. The
descriptives and reliabilities of scales are shown in Table 1.
Data Analysis
To determine types of violent and risky behavior, two-step cluster analysis
(with log-likelihood as distance measure) was conducted based on the PVQ
scores. Three-, four-, and five-cluster solutions were compared according to
their silhouette widths. Silhouette width (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2005) was
used as a measure of cluster validity. The silhouette is a graphical representation of cluster cohesion or separation. Values of silhouette width span from
−1 to 1. Larger values indicate better clustering, and thus they are preferred
(Brock, Pihur, Datta, & Datta, 2008; Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2005).
Results
Descriptives and Reliability
The descriptives and reliabilities for PVQ and BF+2 scales are shown in
Table 1. Reliabilities of scales were acceptable to good, except for
Psychological Violence, Novelity Seeking, and Cautiousness. Students generally scored higher on Physical Violence, Victimization, and Psychological
Violence, and lower on Adapted Behavior.
Cluster Analysis
To identify clusters based on the PVQ scores, a two-step cluster analysis was
performed. The silhouette width was the most favorable for the three-cluster
solution. One-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) revealed significant differences at the p < .01 between groups on all PVQ scores: Physical Violence,
F(2, 373) = 145.95; Psychological Violence, F(2, 373) = 33.54; Victimization,
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
745
Figure 1. Mean standardized scores for Peer Violence Questionnaire scales in the
three-cluster solution.
F(2, 373) = 98.13; Adapted Behavior, F(2, 373) = 82.63; and Risky Behavior,
F(2, 373) = 139.13. Scheffe post hoc tests showed that only the differences
between the first and the second subgroup on Risky Behavior (p = .94) and
between the first and the third subgroup on Adapted Behavior (p = .57) are
not statistically significant. Classification results from the discriminant analysis showed that 97.2% of cases for the first subgroup are classified correctly,
100% for the second, and 94.5% for the third subgroup.
Figure 1 shows the mean standardized scores for the three-cluster solution. The first cluster comprised the majority of the sample (n = 250, 66.5%).
This cluster was described by relatively low scores on each of the PVQ facets, except for the Adapted Behavior, so the cluster was named Adapted. The
adolescents belonging to this cluster scored the lowest on Physical and
Psychological Violence and Victimization, while on Adapted Behavior they
scored same as the members of the third cluster but significantly higher than
the adolescents from the second cluster. Their scores on Risky Behavior were
the same as those achieved by the members of the second cluster but significantly lower than in the third cluster. The Adapted cluster comprised 103
boys (41.2%) and 147 girls (58.8%), average age of 16.62 (SD = 1.14). The
second cluster comprised 53 participants (14.1% of the whole sample), 27
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
746
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
boys, and average age of students in this cluster was 16.92 (SD = 1.12). This
cluster was described by relatively high scores on Victimization and low
scores on Adaptive and Risky Behavior, so it was named Victims. The Victims
cluster had the highest scores on Victimization and the lowest scores on
Adapted Behavior, as well as the lowest scores on Risky Behavior along with
the Adapted cluster, while scores on Physical and Psychological Violence
were moderate compared with other clusters. The third cluster comprised 73
participants (19.4%), with relatively high scores on Physical Violence and
Risky Behavior, and low on Victimization, so this cluster was named Bullies.
The Bullies cluster had the highest scores on Physical and Psychological
Violence and Risky Behavior, moderate scores on Victimization, and nearly
the same scores on Adapted behavior as the Adapted cluster but higher than
the Victims cluster. Boys were the majority of the Bullies cluster (n = 58,
79.5%), and the average age of students in this cluster was 16.74 (SD = 1.21).
Results of a Profile (3) × Gender (2) chi-square test indicated that the
numbers of male and female students in clusters were significantly different,
χ2(2) = 33.09, p < .001. Inspection of crosstabulation suggested that the main
difference concerned the group of Bullies, which included mostly male
participants.
Clusters and Personality Traits
Univariate F tests were performed on all BF+2 variables with the three clusters as the grouping factor, followed by Scheffe post hoc tests (see Table 2).
F tests yielded significant univariate effects of group membership on
almost all personality variables (Table 2). Results indicated that the Victims
had the highest scores on all facets of Neuroticism, and the Bullies had the
highest scores on all facets of Aggressiveness and on Manipulative Style
facet of Negative Valence. The Adapted and the Bullies differed significantly
on Conscientiousness. However, at the facet level, the only difference was on
Self-Discipline between the Adapted and the others, with the Adapted scoring higher. The Bullies scored higher than adapted on Superiority (Positive
Valence’s facet). The Adapted scored higher than the Victims on Warmth
(Extraversion’s facet). The Bullies scored higher on the Sociability than the
Victims. The Intellect (facet of Openness) also discriminated between the
Victims and the Bullies, with the latter scoring lower. Eta-squared effect sizes
were moderate for domains of Negative Valence, Aggressiveness, and
Neuroticism, as well as for Manipulative Style, Negative Self-Concept,
Depression, and Anger facets. For the remaining personality variables, effect
sizes were small.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
747
Kodžopeljić et al.
Table 2. Means, Standard deviations, and Post Hoc Tests for BF+2 Variables by
the Three-Cluster Classification.
Anxiety
Depression
Negative affect
Warmth
Positive affect
Sociability
Self-discipline
Persistence
Cautiousness
Anger
Disagreeableness
Tough-mindedness
Intellect
Novelty seeking
Superiority
Positive self-concept
Manipulative style
Negative self-concept
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Conscientiousness
Aggressiveness
Openness
Positive valence
Negative valence
F(2, 372)
η2
7.16**
37.43***
19.86***
3.86*
2.51
6.01**
14.10***
1.81
2.51
36.04***
10.52***
18.77***
3.81*
2.03
3.32*
0.57
39.29***
50.57***
24.77***
3.02*
7.29**
34.77***
1.82
2.32
63.62**
.04
.17
.10
.02
.01
.03
.07
.01
.01
.16
.05
.09
.02
.01
.02
.00
.17
.21
.12
.02
.04
.16
.01
.01
.26
1-Adapted
2-Victims
3-Bullies
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Scheffe Post
Hoc
35.01 (8.33)
23.12 (7.05)
34.62 (9.24)
32.25 (4.29)
33.22 (4.26)
32.96 (3.68)
22.48 (6.45)
40.90 (5.26)
30.14 (5.56)
31.68 (6.54)
30.79 (7.42)
36.56 (6.38)
44.89 (7.39)
28.15 (3.82)
45.99 (9.51)
42.28 (5.87)
31.74 (8.68)
20.79 (5.26)
93.07 (20.96)
98.42 (9.85)
93.31 (12.70)
99.06 (15.23)
73.04 (9.19)
88.32 (13.89)
52.53 (11.12)
2 > 1 and 3
2>3>1
2>3>1
1>2
3>2
1 > 2 and 3
3>2>1
3 > 1 and 2
3 > 1 and 2
2>3
3>1
3>2>1
2 and 3 > 1
2>3>1
1>2
1>3
3>1
2 and 3 > 1
33.90 (8.98)
38.96 (9.06)
18.95 (5.89)
26.70 (7.82)
31.22 (8.73)
39.32 (8.75)
33.18 (3.67)
31.75 (4.33)
34.20 (3.49)
33.34 (4.46)
31.43 (4.71)
30.08 (5.68)
26.27 (6.74)
22.36 (6.27)
42.24 (6.45)
40.94 (6.97)
31.58 (5.04)
31.91 (5.61)
24.03 (7.07)
27.68 (6.93)
26.82 (6.44)
26.45 (7.10)
31.34 (6.63)
33.51 (6.02)
46.98 (8.30)
48.94 (8.75)
27.07 (4.20)
27.62 (4.45)
42.53 (10.07) 43.34 (10.94)
41.57 (6.00)
41.17 (6.58)
23.31 (7.19)
28.19 (7.17)
15.64 (3.86)
20.21 (5.85)
84.07 (20.05) 104.98 (21.86)
98.81 (9.44)
95.17 (11.52)
100.08 (14.80) 95.21 (15.60)
82.19 (15.35) 87.64 (14.27)
74.04 (10.51) 76.54 (10.94)
84.10 (14.75) 84.51 (15.85)
38.96 (9.32)
48.40 (10.23)
Note. All post hoc results presented in this table are significant at p < .05. BF+2 = Big Five Plus Two.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
The first aim of this study was to identify distinct groups of adolescents who
differ according to the participants’ roles in violent interaction. Three clusters
with the following features were identified: (1) cluster of adapted adolescents
who showed lower tendency to participate in violent interaction than other
participants; (2) cluster of adolescents who were most often victims in violent
interaction; and (3) cluster of adolescents who showed violent behavior
toward others.
The cluster named the Adapted was the most numerous (66.5% of sample)
and included adolescents who scored lower than others not only on
Physical Violence, Risky Behavior, and Psychological Violence but also on
Victimization. On the other hand, these participants scored highest on Adapted
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
748
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
Behavior, which implies a negative attitude toward violence. Adapted adolescents are more emotionally stable than the other two groups, which is supported by the findings regarding Neuroticism domain and facets. Higher
emotional stability is an important basis for resilience and adaptive strategies
for facing potentially threatening stimuli from the environment (Robins et al.,
1996). Although the Adapted had the highest overall Extraversion score, they
did not differ from other groups regarding Positive Affect and Sociability.
Thus, it appears that these differences are not predominantly temperamentbased. Rather, the Adapted express most prominently those aspects of extroverted behavior connected to the intensity of interest in others, social skills,
and socialization, which is reflected in higher score on the Warmth facet. The
Adapted, compared with the other groups, scored lower on Negative Valence,
which includes Negative Self-Concept and Manipulative Style. This suggests
a lower tendency toward manipulative behavior and negative self-evaluation.
In addition to that, Aggressiveness scores show that the Adapted are less prone
to anger and that they are less stubborn and tough-minded than the Bullies.
Self-discipline of the Adapted is high. This most likely contributes to success
in carrying out various obligations. Such success, in turn, increases selfesteem and maintains emotional stability. However, the finding that they score
lower on Superiority than the Bullies indicates that their self-esteem has sound
emotional and cognitive bases. These results correspond to the findings referring to the features of adapted individuals (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999).
Domain and facet configuration in the Adapted cluster, obtained in our
research, corresponds with the prototypical features of the resilient type (Hart
et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996).
The cluster Victims (14.1% of the sample) included adolescents scoring
extremely high on Victimization, with lower scores on Risky Behavior and
Adapted Behavior. However, their proneness to physical and psychological
violence is more prominent than in the cluster Adapted. This finding points to
a possibility that the cluster Victims also partly incorporates the adolescents
who are simultaneously in both the position of a victim and a bully, or the
adolescents who react to the exposure to violence using non-adaptive strategies. Therefore, although bully-victims were not identified as a separate cluster, they are most probably included in the cluster of Victims. The scores on
the personality dimensions of the BF+2 questionnaire support this. The
Victims scored highest on Neuroticism and lowest on Extraversion, whereas
their scores on Aggressiveness, Conscientiousness, and Negative Valence are
between the Adapted and the Bullies. The Victims’ pronounced reactivity to
unpleasant stimuli from the environment, reflected in higher scores on all
aspects of Neuroticism (Robins et al., 1994), may partially be a consequence
of their frequent exposure to bullying. Moreover, it may be a trigger for
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
749
Bullies for whom they may represent an easy target. This result corresponds
to the findings regarding personality traits of Victims (Maynard & Joseph,
1997; Tani et al., 2003). The tendency toward introvert behavioral patterns
(lower Warmth and Sociability scores) probably points to a temperamental
predisposition for fewer social contacts (Robins et al., 1994), which implies
fewer potential protectors. The results of several studies maintained that the
number of social contacts was a protective factor for exposure to violence
(Carney & Merrell, 2001; Dinić, Kodžopeljić, & Čolović, 2010; Kodžopeljić,
Smederevac, & Dinić, 2010). Bullies scored significantly higher than Adapted
on the Aggressiveness, while there was no significant difference between the
Bullies and the Victims. However, the Victims scored higher than the Adapted
and lower than the Bullies on the Anger facet, but they did not differ significantly from the Adapted regarding the scores on Disagreeableness and
Tough-Mindedness. In this context, Anger for Victims can represent the reaction to the inability to establish an adequate social position. In addition,
Negative Valence scores suggest that the Victims show a higher tendency to
manipulative behavior than the Adapted. This is in accordance with the clusters’ structure, which suggests Victims’ more pronounced tendency toward
psychological violence compared with the Adapted group. It is likely that the
Victims manifest their aggressive impulses indirectly, avoiding direct confrontations with the others. Although Victims scored similarly to Bullies on
Negative Self-Concept, it can be assumed that the quality and the content of
this aspect of self-evaluation are considerably different in those two groups,
according to the differences in other personality traits—namely, negative
self-evaluation may represent a consequence of perceiving oneself as a person less worthy and less capable, which could be the property of the Victims
(Cook et al., 2010). On the other hand, the Bullies probably are highly aware
of, or even emphasize, their own negative features, as they want to be feared
by others. Therefore, these socially inappropriate traits have an important
role in their social positioning. However, regardless of the hypothesized
source of negative self-evaluation in Victims and Bullies, the meta-analysis
by Cook et al. (2010) has shown that negative self-related cognition is a common feature of the victims and bullies that can result in acquiring different
positions in violent interactions.
The cluster Bullies (19.4% of sample) included adolescents scoring high
on Physical Violence, Risky Behavior, and Psychological Violence, and low
on Adapted Behavior and Victimization. External validation showed that
these adolescents scored the highest on Aggressiveness and Negative Valence
and the lowest on Conscientiousness. While having similar scores to the cluster Adapted on Extraversion, their scores on Neuroticism were lower than in
the cluster Victims but higher than in the cluster Adapted. Although Bullies
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
750
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
scored lower than the Victims on Anxiety, and did not differ significantly
from the Adapted in this aspect, they did differ from the Adapted in the manifestation of Negative Affect and Depression. High scores on Sociability and,
in general, Extraversion most likely contribute to the fact that Bullies react to
the increase of emotional tension with the overt aggression aimed at other
people. Anger, Disagreeableness, and Tough-Mindedness were most pronounced in the Bullies group, which indicates an adopted pattern of social
interactions aimed at gaining and maintaining the position of power.
Extremely high self-evaluation reflected in higher scores on Superiority, supported by manipulative behavioral patterns and negative self-assessment,
also contributes to this. It has already been mentioned that Negative SelfConcept in this context probably refers to the need to make an impression of
a strong and dangerous person. This study confirms the findings of many
previous studies that have suggested that dimensions Agreeableness (which
significantly corresponds to dimension Aggressiveness in the BF+2 questionnaire) and Neuroticism are closely related to different positions and outcomes
in violent interaction (Gleason et al., 2004; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002;
Tani et al., 2003). In addition to that, this study points more clearly to the
importance of evaluative dimensions in the configuration of the traits of bullies and victims.
Openness did not discriminate between the groups. This dimension refers
to the need for stimulation, which, at the adolescent age, probably has only a
minor (if any) impact on violent interaction.
The distribution of the gender within clusters has shown that boys were
predominant in cluster named Bullies and girls in Adapted cluster, and that
there were similar percentage of boys and girls in cluster named Victims,
which is in line with the main results regarding gender differences in bullying
(Felix & Green, 2010). However, the main indicators of violence in this
research included forms of overt violent behavior, which are more typical for
violent behavior among boys. Girls are more frequently involved in types of
violent interaction that include different forms of relational aggression (Crick
& Grotpeter, 1996). Such findings are congruent with assumptions that gender differences are shaped by social roles (Eagly & Wood, 1991), suggesting
that overt violent behavior is an acceptable feature of males rather than
females.
The results of this study indicate the role of certain temperamental traits
in the development and manifestation of specific maladaptive pattern of
social interactions (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002; Tani et al., 2003). In this
context, the role of Sociability could be important. The lower Sociability in
the Victims group contributes to withdrawal and the development of the
submissive attitude, whereas the high Sociability in the Bullies group
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
751
contributes to the development of the dominant attitude. Considering that
these positions in social interactions are compatible, it is unlikely that a
spontaneous change of these dysfunctional patterns of communication will
take place. Thus, different programs of acquiring social skills are an adequate approach to changing such patterns. Furthermore, the results point to
different manifestations of aggressive tendencies with Bullies and Victims.
Bullies are more prone to direct attacks, whereas Victims are inclined to
indirect forms of aggression. The significance of self-evaluation in this
context is reflected in the importance of negative self-perception that contributes to behavioral inhibition with the Victims, while with Bullies it can
encourage aggressive tendencies provoking the feeling of awe in persons
they interact with.
In general, results of this study confirm the assumption that violent behavior can be a basis for plausible typology of adolescents. This typology is
congruent with the dominant approach in research of personality, which proposes three main personality types, named resilient, overcontrolled, and
undercontrolled (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999). The Adapted cluster, which
was extracted in this study, has shown the features usually associated with
resilient type. Bullies are similar to the undercontrolled, while Victims have
shown some of the features of the overcontrolled. In addition to that, the
structure of clusters bears similarities to usual roles in violent interaction,
a.k.a. victims, bullies, and bystanders. Although there is no evidence that
bystanders fit into Adapted cluster, the possibility that adapted adolescents
may take the role of bystanders cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Adapted
may also contribute to the circumstances in which violent behavior is exhibited. However, typical bystanders’ behavior is not included in the measures
that were applied in this study. Therefore, all conclusions regarding bystanders’ role may be treated as hypothetical.
The results of this research emphasize the general importance of personcentered approach, but also point to its relevance for violence studies. The
results confirm that distinctive clusters can be extracted that are related to the
roles in violent interaction and that such clusters differ substantially with
regard to personality traits. Therefore, in personality assessment, it may be of
crucial importance to consider not only separate dimensions but also their
configuration. This way, a more thorough understanding of specific roles in
violent interaction can be ensured.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
752
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partially supported by the
Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia (Grants ON179006) and
by the Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development.
References
Arora, C. M. J. (1996). Defining bullying: Towards a clearer general understanding
and more effective intervention strategies. School Psychology International, 17,
317-329.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled, and
undercontrolled personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive
power, and the trait-type issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 815-832.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the
organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium of child
psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brock, G. N., Pihur, V., Datta, S., & Datta, S. (2008). clValid, an R package for cluster validation. Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1-22.
Carney, A., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in school: Perspective on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International,
22, 364-382.
Connor, D. F. (1988). Overt categorical aggression in referred children and adolescents. Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 67,
66-73.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N., & Kim, T. (2009). Variability in the prevalence of bullying and victimization: A cross-national and methodological analysis. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The international
handbook of school bullying (pp. 347-362). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N., Kim, T., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of
bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression,
anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual
Differences, 24, 123-130.
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in
the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41-60.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of
relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
753
Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Do
these criteria conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1889-1910.
Dinić, B., Kodžopeljić, J., & Čolović, P. (2010, November). Korelati psihološkog
i fizičkog nasilja kod srednjoškolaca [Correlates of psychological and physical
violence in high school students]. Poster presented at III Znastveno-naučni skup,
“Psihosocijalni aspekti nasilja u suvremenom društvu – izazov obitelji, školi i
zajednici”, Osijek, Croatia.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A
meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306-315.
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional
Abuse, 2(2/3), 123-142.
Felix, D. E., & Green, J. G. (2010). Popular girls and brawny boys: The role of gender
in bullying and victimization experiences. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D.
L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 173-185). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008).The role of bystanders in students’ perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology,
46, 617-638.
Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Richardson, D. (2004). Agreeableness as a
predictor of aggression in adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 43-61.
Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Competitiveness mediates the link
between personality and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1394-1408.
Griffin, R. D., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings
and future direction for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379-400.
Grumm, M., & von Collani, G. (2009). Personality types and self-reported aggressiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 845-850.
Hart, D., Hoffman, V., Edelstein, W., & Keller, M. (1997). The relation of childhood
personality types to adolescent behavior and development: A longitudinal study
of Iceland children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 195-205.
Herzberg, P. Y., & Roth, M. (2006). Beyond resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers? A new perspective on personality prototype research. European Journal
of Personality, 20, 5-28.
Hourbe, B., Targuinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E. (2006). Bullying among students
and its consequences on health. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
21, 183-208.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Adams, R., Perry, D. G., Workman, K. A., Furdella, J. Q.,
& Egan, S. K. (2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early
adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in
Personality, 36, 224-251.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Personality and relationships as moderators of interpersonal conflict in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 42, 148-164.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
754
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2005). Finding groups in data. An introduction to
cluster analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Kodžopeljić, J., Smederevac, S., & Čolović, P. (2010). Razlike u učestalosti i oblicima nasilnog ponašanja između učenika osnovnih i srednjih škola [Frequency and
manifestations of bullying: Differences between primary and secondary school
students]. Primenjena psihologija, 3, 289-305.
Kodžopeljić, J., Smederevac, S., & Dinić, B. (2010, November). Prediktori učestalosti
vršnjačkog nasilja u srednjoj školi [Predictors of peer violence frequency in high
school]. Poster presented at III Znastveno-naučni skup, “Psihosocijalni aspekti
nasilja u suvremenom društvu – izazov obitelji, školi i zajednici”, Osijek, Croatia.
Maksimović, J., Raković, D., Jovanović, I., & Čolović, P. (2008). Povezanost
vršnjačkog nasilja, osobina ličnosti i vaspitnih stavova [Relations between bullying, personality traits and parenting practices]. Primenjena Psihologija, 1,
124-144.
Maynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association
with Eysenk’s personality dimensions in 8- to 13 year-olds. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67, 51-54.
Mitrović, D., Kodžopeljić, J., & Čolović, P. (2011, October). Prediktori nasilnog
ponašanja na osnovnoškolskom uzrastu: Osobine ličnosti dece i vaspitni stavovi
roditelja [Predictors of violent behavior in the primary-school age: Children’s
personality traits and parenting styles]. Paper presented at the Scientific conference Current trends in psychology, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Ramani, S. P., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton,
B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behavior among U.S. youth: Prevalence and
association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 285, 2094-2100.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the school: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In
S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying
in schools: An international perspective (pp. 9-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Paul, J. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Dynamics of peer victimization in early adolescence: Results from a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 19, 25-43.
Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. J. (2010). Clueless or powerful?
Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
39, 1041-1052.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang,
D. (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32,
376-384.
Peterson, L., & Rigby, K. (1999). Countering bullying at an Australian secondary
school with students as helpers. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 481-492.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
755
Popadić, D., & Plut, D. (2007). Nasilje u osnovnim školama u Srbiji: Oblici i učestalost
[Violence in primary schools in Serbia—Forms and prevalence]. Psihologija, 40,
309-328.
Price, J. M., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood:
Relation to peer status and social context dimension. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 17, 455-471.
Robins, W. R., John, O. P., & Caspi, A. (1994). Major dimensions of personality in early adolescence: The big five and beyond. In C. F. Halverson, G. A.
Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament
and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 267-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Robins, W. R., John, O. P., Caspi, A., & Moffit, T. E. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled Boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157-171.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 15, 112-120.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1999). Selfevaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents’ participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268-1278.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social
status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.
Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change
behavior in connection with bullying in school: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive
Behavior, 24, 205-218.
Scholte, R. H. J., van Lieshout, C. F. M., de Wit, C. A. M., & van Aken, M. A. G.
(2005). Adolescent personality types and subtypes and their psychosocial adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 258-286.
Sharpe, J. P., & Desai, S. (2001). The revised NEO personality inventory and the
MMPi-2 psychopathology five in the prediction of aggression. Personality and
Individual Differences, 31, 505-518.
Smederevac, S., & Čolović, P. (2011, October). Osobine ličnosti, porodična i socijalna
interakcija kao prediktori izloženosti vršnjačkom nasilju na osnovnoškolskom
uzrastu [Bullying in primary schools: The predictors of victimization]. Paper
presented at the Scientific conference Current trends in psychology, Novi Sad,
Serbia.
Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D., & Čolović, P. (2010). Velikih pet plus dva: Primena i
interpretacija [Big Five Plus Two: Manual for administration and interpretation].
Beograd, Serbia: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with
the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.
Tani, F., Greenman, P. S., Schneider, B. H., & Fregoso, M. (2003). Bullying and the
Big Five: A study of childhood personality and participant role in bullying incidents. School Psychology International, 24, 131-146.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
756
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
Thomson, D., Arora, T., & Sharp, S. (2002). Bullying: Effective strategies for long
term improvement. London, England: Routledge Falmer.
Trebblay, P. F., & Ewart, L. A. (2005). The Buss and Perry aggression questionnaire and its relations to values, the Big Five, provoking hypothetical situations,
alcohol consumption, and alcohol expectancies. Personality and Individual
Differences, 38, 337-346.
Van Dam, C., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & De Bruyn, E. E. J. (2005). PEN, Big Five,
juvenile delinquency, and criminal recidivism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 39, 7-19.
Van Leeuwen, K., de Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2004). A longitudinal study of the
utility of the resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types as
predictors of children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 28, 210-220.
Waller, N. G. (1999). Evaluating the structure of personality. In R. C. Cloninger (Ed.),
Personality and psychopathology (pp. 155-197). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Press.
Author Biographies
Jasmina Kodžopeljić, PhD, is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology,
University of Novi Sad. She is currently taking part in several research projects,
including “Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual
Predictors” (funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological
Development) and was the principal investigator of the project “School Without
Violence” (funded by UNICEF Serbia). Her main research interest is educational
psychology.
Snežana Smederevac, PhD, is a full professor at the Department of Psychology,
University of Novi Sad. She is the principal investigator of several research projects,
including “Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual
Predictors” (funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological
Development). She also took part in the research project “School Without Violence”
(funded by UNICEF Serbia) in 2009-2010. Among her main research interests is the
role of personality traits in different aspects of maladaptive behavior.
Dušanka Mitrović, PhD, is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology,
University of Novi Sad. She is a researcher in several research projects, including
“Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual Predictors”
(funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development). Her
main research interests include personality assessment, psychobiological and lexical
models of personality, and relationships between personality traits and various types
of maladaptive behavior.
Bojana Dinić, MSc, PhD candidate, is a teaching assistant at the Department of
Psychology, University of Novi Sad. She is currently taking part in several research
projects, including “Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
Kodžopeljić et al.
757
Predictors” (funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological
Development). Her main research interest is the study of aggressive behavior, including the assessment of various aspects of aggression.
Petar Čolović, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Psychology,
University of Novi Sad. He is participating in several research projects, including
“Violence in Contemporary Society: Dispositional and Contextual Predictors”
(funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development). He
was among the researchers involved in the project “School Without Violence” (funded
by UNICEF Serbia) in 2009-2010. His research interests include person-centered
approach to personality and psycho-lexical studies.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016