Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study examined the role of person–group dissimilarity in personality in peer victimization. It was hypothesized that adolescents who show more deviation from the classroom norm in personality experience more peer victimization. Data from 1108 adolescents (48% boys; M_age = 13.56 years, SD = 1.13) from 54 classrooms were used to test this hypothesis. Data included measurements of self–reported and bully–disclosed victimization and Big Five and Dark Triad personality traits. Results of generalized linear mixed models including polynomial equations and subsequent response surface analyses partly supported our hypothesis. Person–group dissimilarity in the shape of personality profiles was related to more bully–disclosed victimization, but not to self–reported victimization. Dissimilarity in neuroticism and Machiavellianism was related to both more self–reported and bully–disclosed victimization. Dissimilarity in extraversion, openness to experience, and psychopathy was only related to more self–reported victimization. Unexpectedly, dissimilarity in agreeableness was related to less self–reported victimization. Moreover, our results also indicated that certain levels of congruent person–group combinations in agreeableness, neuroticism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy were related to more peer victimization. Overall, findings of this study emphasize the importance of considering classroom norms in relation to peer victimization. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

peer victimization person-group dissimilarity classroom norms Big Five Dark Triad

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf.

Back

M. D.

, Baumert

, Denissen

J. J. A.

, Hartung

F.–M.

, Penke

, Schmukle

S. C.

, … Wrzus

(2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25, 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.811.

Bleidorn

, Kandler

, Riemann

, Angleitner

, & Spinath

F. M.

(2012). Genetic and environmental influences on personality profile stability: Unraveling the normativeness problem. Journal of Personality, 80, 1029–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2011.00758.x.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within–group agreement, non–independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

, & Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Boele

, Sijtsema

J. J.

, Klimstra

T. A.

, Denissen

J. J. A.

, & Meeus

W. H. J.

(2017, April 5). Data and scripts of the study person–group dissimilarity in personality and peer victimization. Retrieved from osf.io/9djq5

Bollen

K. A.

(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bouman

, van der Meulen

, Goossens

F. A.

, Olthof

, Vermande

M. M.

, & Aleva

E. A.

(2012). Peer and self–reports of victimization and bullying: Their differential association with internalizing problems and social adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 759–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.08.004.

Brown

B. B.

, Eicher

S. A.

, & Petrie

(1986). The importance of peer group (“crowd”) affiliation in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140–1971(86)80029–X

Bukowski

W. M.

, & Sippola

L. K.

(2001). Groups, individuals, and victimization: A view of the peer system. In Juvonen

& Graham

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 355–377). New York: Guilford Press.

10.

Burger

J. M.

(1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1005.

11.

Card

N. A.

, & Hodges

E. V. E.

(2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012769.

12.

Chang

(2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children's social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012–1649.40.5.691.

13.

Cheng

, & Furnham

(2002). Personality, peer relations, and self–confidence as predictors of happiness and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2002.0475.

14.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2009). Sociometric methods. In Rubin

K. H.

, Bukowski

W. M.

, & Laursen

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

15.

R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation For Statistical Computing Retrieved from http://www.r–project.org/.

16.

Craig

, Harel–Fisch

, Fogel–Grinvald

, Dostaler

, Hetland

, Simons–Morton

, … Nansel

(2009). A cross–national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038–009–5413–9.

17.

Crick

N. R.

, Casas

J. F.

, & Nelson

D. A.

(2002). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of peer maltreatment: Studies of relational victimization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–8721.00177.

18.

De Bolle

, & Tackett

J. L.

(2013). Anchoring bullying and victimization in children within a five–factor model–based person–centred framework. European Journal of Personality, 27, 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1901.

19.

Denissen

J. J. A.

, Geenen

, Selfhout

, & van Aken

M. A. G.

(2008a). Single–item Big Five ratings in a social network design. European Journal of Personality, 22, 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.662.

20.

Denissen

J. J. A.

, Geenen

, van Aken

M. A. G.

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Potter

(2008b). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845229.

21.

Denissen

J. J. A.

, van Aken

M. A. G.

, Penke

, & Wood

(2013). Self–regulation underlies temperament and personality: An integrative developmental framework. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12050.

22.

Downey

, & Feldman

S. I.

(1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.70.6.1327.

23.

Edwards

J. R.

(2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In Drasgow

, & Schmitt

(Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

24.

Edwards

J. R.

(2007). The relationship between person–environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. Perspectives on Organizational Fit, 209–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2009.01160_6.x.

25.

Furnham

, Richards

S. C.

, & Paulhus

D. L.

(2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018.

26.

Furr

R. M.

(2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2008.00521.x.

27.

Graham

, & Juvonen

(1998). Self–blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012–1649.34.3.587.

28.

Hong

J. S.

, & Espelage

D. L.

(2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003.

29.

Horowitz

J. A.

, Vessey

J. A.

, Carlson

K. L.

, Bradley

J. F.

, Montoya

, McCullough

, & David

(2004). Teasing and bullying experiences of middle school students. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 10, 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390304267862.

30.

Huitsing

, Veenstra

, Sainio

, & Salmivalli

(2012). “It must be me” or “ It could be them?”: The impact of the social network position of bullies and victims on victims’ adjustment. Social Networks, 34, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.07.002.

31.

Jakobwitz

, & Egan

(2006). The Dark Triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006.

32.

Jensen–Campbell

L. A.

, Adams

, Perry

D. G.

, Workman

K. A.

, Furdella

J. Q.

, Egan

S. K.

, & Graziano

W. G.

(2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 224–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348.

33.

Jensen–Campbell

L. A.

, & Malcolm

K. T.

(2007). The importance of conscientiousness in adolescent interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296104.

34.

John

O. P.

, Donahue

E. M.

, & Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

35.

John

O. P.

, & Robins

R. W.

(1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1993.tb00781.x.

36.

Jonason

P. K.

, & Webster

G. D.

(2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265.

37.

Juvonen

, Nishina

, & Graham

(2001). Self–views versus peer perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In Juvonen

, & Graham

(Eds.), Peer harrassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105–124). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

38.

Klimstra

T. A.

, Hale

W. W.

, Raaijmakers

Q. A. W.

, Branje

S. J. T.

, & Meeus

W. H.

(2009). Maturation of personality in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 898–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014746.

39.

Klimstra

T. a.

, Luyckx

, Hale

W. W.

, Goossens

, & Meeus

W. H. J.

(2010). Longitudinal associations between personality profile stability and adjustment in college students: Distinguishing among overall stability, distinctive stability, and within–time normativeness. Journal of Personality, 78, 1163–1184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2010.00646.x.

40.

Klimstra

T. A.

, Sijtsema

J. J.

, Henrichs

, & Cima

(2014). The Dark Triad of personality in adolescence: Psychometric properties of a concise measure and associations with adolescent adjustment from a multi–informant perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.09.001.

41.

Ladd

G. W.

, & Kochenderfer–Ladd

(2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross–informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040–3590.14.1.74.

42.

Laird

R. D.

, & De Los Reyes

(2013). Testing informant discrepancies as predictors of early adolescent psychopathology: Why difference scores cannot tell you what you want to know and how polynomial regression may. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802–012–9659–y.

43.

Little

R. J.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097–0258(19970830)16:16<1859::AID–SIM593>3.0.CO;2–3

44.

McCrae

R. R.

, & Costa

P. T.

(1987). Validation of the five–factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.52.1.81.

45.

Montoya

R. M.

, Horton

R. S.

, & Kirchner

(2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta–analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700.

46.

Nangle

D. W.

, Erdley

C. A.

, & Gold

J. A.

(1996). A reflection on the popularity construct: The importance of who likes or dislikes a child. Behavior Therapy, 27, 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005–7894(96)80021–9

47.

Nangle

D. W.

, Erdley

C. A.

, Zeff

K. R.

, Stanchfield

L. L.

, & Gold

J. A.

(2004). Opposites do not attract: Social status and behavioral–style concordances and discordances among children and the peers who like or dislike them. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000030295.43586.32.

48.

Oldenburg

, Barrera

, Olthof

, Goossens

, van der Meulen

, Vermande

, … Veenstra

(2015). Peer and self–reported victimization: Do non–victimized students give victimization nominations to classmates who are self–reported victims? Journal of School Psychology, 53, 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.05.003.

49.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. (D. Olweus, Ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

50.

Paulhus

D. L.

, & Williams

K. M.

(2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092–6566(02)00505–6

51.

Reijntjes

, Kamphuis

J. H.

, Prinzie

, & Telch

M. J.

(2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta–analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009.

52.

Saklofske

D. H.

, & Yackulic

R. A.

(1989). Personality predictors of loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191–8869(89)90011–1

53.

Salmivalli

(2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.

54.

Salmivalli

, Lagerspetz

, Bjorkqvist

, Österman

, & Kaukiainen

(1996). Bullying as a group process: Particiant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098–2337(1996)22

55.

Saucier

, & Srivastava

(2015). What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the Big Five and alternatives. In Mikulincer

, & Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 283–305), Personality and Individual Differences 4. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343–013.

56.

Schönbrodt

(2016). RSA: An R package for response surface analysis. Retrieved from https://cran.r–project.org/package=RSA

57.

Selfhout

, Denissen

, Branje

, & Meeus

(2009). In the eye of the beholder: Perceived, actual, and peer–rated similarity in personality, communication, and friendship intensity during the acquaintanceship process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1152–1165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014468.

58.

Sentse

, Scholte

, Salmivalli

, & Voeten

(2007). Person–group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802–007–9150–3.

59.

Shanock

L. R.

, Baran

B. E.

, Gentry

W. A.

, Pattison

S. C.

, & Heggestad

E. D.

(2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869–010–9183–4.

60.

Solberg

M. E.

, & Olweus

(2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10047.

61.

Soto

C. J.

, John

O. P.

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Potter

(2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross–sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717.

62.

Stokes

J. P.

(1985). The relation of social network and individual difference variables to loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 981–990. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.48.4.981.

63.

Stormshak

E. A.

, Bierman

K. L.

, Bruschi

, Dodge

K. A.

, Coie

J. D.

, & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.02.002.A.

64.

Tani

, Greenman

P. S.

, Schneider

B. H.

, & Fregoso

(2003). Bullying and the Big Five: A study of childhood personality and participant roles in bullying incidents. School Psychology International, 24, 131–146.

65.

Teppers

, Klimstra

T. A.

, Damme

C. V.

, Luyckx

, Vanhalst

, & Goossens

(2013). Personality traits, loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness in adolescence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1045–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513481445.

66.

Ttofi

M. M.

, Farrington

D. P.

, & Lösel

(2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta–analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.002.

67.

Ttofi

M. M.

, Farrington

D. P.

, Losel

, & Loeber

(2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta–analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/17596591111132873.

68.

Vazire

(2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908.

69.

Veenstra

, Lindenberg

, Zijlstra

B. J. H.

, De Winter

A. F.

, Verhulst

F. C.

, & Ormel

(2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual–perspective theory. Child Development, 78, 1843–1854.

70.

Velásquez

A. M.

, Bukowski

W. M.

, & Saldarriaga

L. M.

(2013). Adjusting for group size effects in peer nomination data. Social Development, 22, 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12029.

71.

Wright

J. C.

, Giammarino

, & Parad

H. W.

(1986). Social status in small groups: Individual–group similarity and the social “misfit”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.50.3.523.

72.

van Zalk

, & Denissen

(2015). Idiosyncratic versus social consensus approaches to personality: Self–view, perceived, and peer–view similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000035.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

Person–Group Dissimilarity in Personality and Peer Victimization

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material