This study focused on the dyadic defending relationships of victimized children in grades 3, 4, and 5 (N = 7481 children from 356 school classes, mean ages 10—12 years). Most of the victims (72.3%) had at least one defender. Being defended was positively related to victims’ adjustment and social status. Analyses on victim—defender dyads showed that they were usually same-gender relationships. Victims usually liked their defenders and perceived them as popular, although the latter effect was weaker. Also other classmates perceived defenders as popular, indicating that defenders enjoy a high status among their peers in general.
Andreou E., & Metallidou P. ( 2004). The relationship of academic and social cognition to behaviour in bullying situations among Greek primary school children. Educational Psychology, 24, 27-41.
2.
Caravita, S., DiBlasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140-163.
3.
Cooley, C.H. ( 1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner’s.
4.
Davidson, L.M., & Demaray, M.K. ( 2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36, 383-405.
5.
Demaray, M.K., & Malecki, C.K. ( 2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471-489.
6.
Dijkstra, J.K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. ( 2008). Beyond the class norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 1289-1299.
7.
Egan, S., & Perry, D. ( 1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299-309.
8.
Fox, C.L., & Boulton, M.J. ( 2006). Friendship as a moderator of the relationship between social skills problems and peer victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 110-121.
9.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467-476.
10.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93-105.
11.
Goossens, F., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. ( 2006). New Participant Role Scales: Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 343-357.
12.
Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N.R. (1998). Relational self-worth: Differences in perceived worth as a person across interpersonal contexts among adolescents. Child Development, 69, 756-766.
13.
Hawker, D.S.J., & Boulton, M.J. ( 2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.
14.
Hodges, E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. ( 1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101.
15.
Hodges, E., Malone, M., & Perry, D. ( 1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology , 33, 1032-1039.
16.
Holt, M.K., & Espelage, D.L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984-994.
17.
Juvonen, J., & Galvan, A. ( 2008). Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In M.J. Prinstein & K.A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 225-244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. ( 2001). Self-views versus peer perceptions of victims status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105-124). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
Lodge, J., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). The role of peer bystanders in school bullying: Positive steps toward promoting peaceful schools. Theory into Practice, 44, 329-336.
20.
Maccoby, E.E. ( 1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Malecki, C.K., & Demaray, M.K. ( 2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39, 1-18.
22.
Mayeux, L., Underwood, M.K., & Risser, S.D. ( 2007). Perspectives on the ethics of sociometric research with children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 53-78.
23.
Mead, G.H. ( 1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Nickerson, A.B., Mele, D., & Princiotta, D. (2008). Attachment and empathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions . Journal of School Psychology, 46, 687-703.
25.
Olweus, D. ( 1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Mimeo . Bergen: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen.
26.
Pellegrini, A.D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. ( 1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216-224.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to defend the victimized peer? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 143-163.
29.
Pöyhönen, V., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). New directions in research and practice addressing bullying: Focus on defending behavior. In D. Pepler & W. Craig (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. 26-43). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouseTM.
30.
Prinstein, M.J., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310-342.
31.
Ray, G., Cohen, R., Secrist, M., & Duncan, M. ( 1997). Relating aggressive and victimization behaviors to children’s sociometric status and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 95-108.
32.
Rigby, K. ( 1997). Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 202-220.
33.
Rodkin, P.C., & Berger, C. ( 2008). Who bullies whom? Social status asymmetries by victim gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 473-485.
34.
Rodkin, P.C., Farmer, T.W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. ( 2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.
35.
Rosenberg, M. ( 1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Salmivalli, C. ( 1998). Intelligent, attractive, well-behaving, unhappy: The structure of adolescents’ self-concept and its relations to their social behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 333-354.
37.
Salmivalli, C., & Isaacs, J. ( 2005). Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and children’s self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development, 76, 1161-1171.
38.
Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2010). From peer putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 441-454). New York: Routledge .
39.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1999). Self-evaluated 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.
40.
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.
41.
Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. ( 2005). ‘‘I’m OK but you’re not’’ and other peer-relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children’s social goals. Developmental Psychology, 41, 363-375.
42.
Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. ( 2009). Pre-adolescents’ peer-relational schemas and social goals across relational contexts. Social Development, 18, 817-832.
43.
Schuster, B. ( 2001). Rejection and victimization by peers. Social perception and social behavior mechanisms (290th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
44.
Sijtsema, J.J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57-67.
45.
Solberg, M.E., & Olweus, D. ( 2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.
46.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B.J.H., Winter, A.F.D., Verhulst, F.C., & Ormel, J. ( 2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Development, 78, 1843-1854.
47.
Zijlstra, B., van Duijn, M., & Snijders, T. ( 2009). MCMC estimation for the p2 network regression model with crossed random effects. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 62, 143-166.
48.
Zijlstra, B.J.H., Veenstra, R., & Van Duijn, M.A.J. (2008). A multilevel p2 model with covariates for the analysis of binary bully-victim network data in multiple classrooms. In N.A. Card, J.P. Selig, & T.D. Little (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 369-389). New York, NY : Routledge.
