In recent years, bullying research has transitioned from investigating the characteristics of the bully–victim dyad to examining bullying as a group-level process, in which the majority of children play some kind of role. This study used a shortened adaptation of the Participant Role Scale (PRS) to identify these roles in a representative sample of 2,050 Spanish children aged 8 to 13 years. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed three different roles, indicating that the adapted scale remains a reliable way to distinguish the Bully, Defender, and Outsider roles. In addition, measurement invariance of the adapted scale was examined to analyze possible gender differences among the roles. Peer status was assessed separately by gender through two sociometric procedures: the nominations-based method and the ratings-based method. Across genders, children in the Bully role were more often rated as rejected, whereas Defenders were more popular. Results suggest that although the PRS can reveal several different peer roles in the bullying process, a more clear distinction between bullying roles (i.e., Bully, Assistant, and Reinforcer) could better inform strategies for bullying interventions.
BoultonM.SmithP. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perception, and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315-329.
2.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
ByrneB. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872-882.
5.
ByrneB. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
7.
CillessenA. H. N.MayeuxL. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.
8.
CraigW. M.PeplerD. J. (1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization: An observational study. Excepcionality Education Canada, 5, 81-95.
9.
CoieJ. D.DodgeK. A.CoppotelliH. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
10.
CoieJ. D.DodgeK.KupersmidtJ. A. (1990). Peer group behaviour and social status. In AsherS.CoieJ. (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CookC.WilliamsK. R.GuerraN. G.KimT.SadekS. (2010). Predictors of childhood bullying and victimization. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83.
12.
CrapanzanoA. M.FrickP. J.ChildsJ.TerranovaA. M. (2011). Gender differences in the assessment, stability, and correlates to bullying roles in middle school children. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 677-694.
13.
EsleaM.MenesiniE.MoritaY.O’MooreM.Mora-MerchanJ. A.PereiraB.SmithP. K. (2004). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 71-83.
14.
EspelageD.MebaneS. E.SwearerS. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Moving beyond mean level differences. In EspelageD. L.SwearerS. M. (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
FarringtonD. P.TtofiM. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5(6). doi:10.4073/csr.2009.6
16.
FreyK. S.HirschsteinM. K.EdstromL. V.SnellJ. L. (2010). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 466-481.
17.
Gifford-SmithM. E.BrownellC. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235-284.
18.
GiniG.AlbieroP.BenelliB.AltoèG. (2008). Determinants of adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93-105.
19.
GoossensF.OlthofT.DekkerP. (2006). New participant role scales: Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 343-357.
20.
GuerraN. G.HuesmannR. L. (2004). A cognitive-ecological model of aggression. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 17, 177-203.
21.
GuerraN. G.WilliamsK. R.SadekS. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82, 295-310.
22.
HawleyP. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 213-235.
23.
HawkerD. S. J.BoultonM. 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.
24.
HawkinsD. L.PeplerD. J.CraigW. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.
25.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76-99). London, England: Sage.
26.
JuvonenJ.GalvánA. (2008). Peer contagion in involuntary social groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In PrinsteinM. J.DodgeK. A. (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 225-244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
KärnäA.VoetenM.PoskipartaE.SalmivalliC. (2010). Vulnerable children in varying classroom contexts: Bystanders’ behaviors moderate the effects of risk factor son victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 261-282.
28.
LagerspetzK. M.BjörkqvistK.BertsM.KingE. (1982). Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 45-52.
29.
MaassenG. H.AkkermansW.Van der LindenJ. L. (1996). Two dimensional sociometric status determination with rating scales. Small Group Research, 27, 56-78.
30.
MenesiniE.GiniG. (2000). Il bullismo come processo di gruppo: Adattamento e validazione del questionario “Ruoli dei partecipanti” alla popolazione italiana [Bullying as a group process: Adaptation and validation of the “Participant Roles” questionnaire in an Italian population]. Eta Evolutiva, 66, 18-32.
31.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2007). MPlus: Stastical analysis with latent variables user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
32.
NanselT. R.OverpeckM.PillaR. S.RuanW. J.Simons-MortonB.ScheidtP. (2001). Bullying behavior among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.
33.
NishinaA.JuvonenJ. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing bullying in middle school. Child Development, 76, 435-450.
34.
O’ConnellP.PeplerD.CraigW. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.
35.
OlweusD. (1999). Norway. In SmithP. K.MoritaY.Junger-TasJ.OlweusD.CatalanoR.SleeP. (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 359-375). London, England: Routledge.
36.
PellegriniA. D.LongJ. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary to secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280.
37.
PerrerS.AlsakerF. (2006). Social behaviour and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatriy, 47, 45-57.
PolaninJ. R.EspelageD. L.PigottT. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effect on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47-65.
40.
PöyhönenV.JuvonenJ.SalmivalliC. (2010). What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 143-163.
41.
RigbyK.SleeP.T. (1993). Children’s attitudes towards victims. In TattumD.P. (Ed.), Understanding and Managing Bullying (pp. 119-135). London: Heinemann Books.
42.
RiversI.PoteatV. P.NoretN.AshurstN. (2009). Observing bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 211-223.
43.
RodkinP. C. (2004). Peer ecologies of aggression and bullying. In EspelageD. L.SwearerS. M. (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 87-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
RusticusS. A.HubleyA. M.ZumboB. D. (2008). Measurement invariance of the Appearance Schemas Inventory–Revised and the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory across age and gender. Assessment, 15, 60-71.
45.
SalmivalliC. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112-120.
46.
SalmivalliC.IsaacsJ. (2005). Prospective relations between victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and children’s self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development, 76, 1161-1171.
47.
SalmivalliC.LagerspetzM.BjörkqvistK.ÖstermanD.KaukiainenA. (1996). Bullying as a group process. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.
48.
SalmivalliC.LappalainenM.LagerspetzM. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two year follow up. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 205-218.
49.
SchäferM.KornS. (2004). Bullying als gruppenphänomen: Eine adaptation des “participant role” -ansatzes [Bullying as a group phenomenon: An adaptation of the “participant role” approach]. Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 36, 19-29.
50.
SchwartzD. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192.
51.
SolbergM. E.OlweusD. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.
52.
SuttonJ.SmithP. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97-111.
53.
WardenD.MackinnonS. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 367-385.
