Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
com/
Violence
Journal of Interpersonal
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0886260513505216
2014 29: 736 originally published online 18 November 2013 J Interpers Violence
and Petar Colovic
Jasmina Kodzopeljic, Snezana Smederevac, Dusanka Mitrovic, Bojana Dinic
Person-Centered Approach
School Bullying in Adolescence and Personality Traits: A
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/29/4/736.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
2
(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 clus-
ters 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 scor-
ing higher. The Bullies scored higher than adapted on Superiority (Positive
Valences facet). The Adapted scored higher than the Victims on Warmth
(Extraversions 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.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Kodopelji et al. 747
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
Table 2. Means, Standard deviations, and Post Hoc Tests for BF+2 Variables by
the Three-Cluster Classification.
1-Adapted 2-Victims 3-Bullies
Scheffe Post
Hoc F(2, 372)
2
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Anxiety 7.16** .04 33.90 (8.98) 38.96 (9.06) 35.01 (8.33) 2 > 1 and 3
Depression 37.43*** .17 18.95 (5.89) 26.70 (7.82) 23.12 (7.05) 2 > 3 > 1
Negative affect 19.86*** .10 31.22 (8.73) 39.32 (8.75) 34.62 (9.24) 2 > 3 > 1
Warmth 3.86* .02 33.18 (3.67) 31.75 (4.33) 32.25 (4.29) 1 > 2
Positive affect 2.51 .01 34.20 (3.49) 33.34 (4.46) 33.22 (4.26)
Sociability 6.01** .03 31.43 (4.71) 30.08 (5.68) 32.96 (3.68) 3 > 2
Self-discipline 14.10*** .07 26.27 (6.74) 22.36 (6.27) 22.48 (6.45) 1 > 2 and 3
Persistence 1.81 .01 42.24 (6.45) 40.94 (6.97) 40.90 (5.26)
Cautiousness 2.51 .01 31.58 (5.04) 31.91 (5.61) 30.14 (5.56)
Anger 36.04*** .16 24.03 (7.07) 27.68 (6.93) 31.68 (6.54) 3 > 2 > 1
Disagreeableness 10.52*** .05 26.82 (6.44) 26.45 (7.10) 30.79 (7.42) 3 > 1 and 2
Tough-mindedness 18.77*** .09 31.34 (6.63) 33.51 (6.02) 36.56 (6.38) 3 > 1 and 2
Intellect 3.81* .02 46.98 (8.30) 48.94 (8.75) 44.89 (7.39) 2 > 3
Novelty seeking 2.03 .01 27.07 (4.20) 27.62 (4.45) 28.15 (3.82)
Superiority 3.32* .02 42.53 (10.07) 43.34 (10.94) 45.99 (9.51) 3 > 1
Positive self-concept 0.57 .00 41.57 (6.00) 41.17 (6.58) 42.28 (5.87)
Manipulative style 39.29*** .17 23.31 (7.19) 28.19 (7.17) 31.74 (8.68) 3 > 2 > 1
Negative self-concept 50.57*** .21 15.64 (3.86) 20.21 (5.85) 20.79 (5.26) 2 and 3 > 1
Neuroticism 24.77*** .12 84.07 (20.05) 104.98 (21.86) 93.07 (20.96) 2 > 3 > 1
Extraversion 3.02* .02 98.81 (9.44) 95.17 (11.52) 98.42 (9.85) 1 > 2
Conscientiousness 7.29** .04 100.08 (14.80) 95.21 (15.60) 93.31 (12.70) 1 > 3
Aggressiveness 34.77*** .16 82.19 (15.35) 87.64 (14.27) 99.06 (15.23) 3 > 1
Openness 1.82 .01 74.04 (10.51) 76.54 (10.94) 73.04 (9.19)
Positive valence 2.32 .01 84.10 (14.75) 84.51 (15.85) 88.32 (13.89)
Negative valence 63.62** .26 38.96 (9.32) 48.40 (10.23) 52.53 (11.12) 2 and 3 > 1
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.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
748 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(4)
Behavior, which implies a negative attitude toward violence. Adapted adoles-
cents are more emotionally stable than the other two groups, which is sup-
ported 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 temperament-
based. Rather, the Adapted express most prominently those aspects of extro-
verted 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 self-
esteem 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 refer-
ring 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 strate-
gies. Therefore, although bully-victims were not identified as a separate clus-
ter, 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
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Kodopelji 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; Dini, Kodopelji, & olovi, 2010; Kodopelji,
Smederevac, & Dini, 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 signifi-
cantly from the Adapted regarding the scores on Disagreeableness and
Tough-Mindedness. In this context, Anger for Victims can represent the reac-
tion 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 clus-
ters 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 con-
frontations 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 traitsnamely, negative
self-evaluation may represent a consequence of perceiving oneself as a per-
son 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 com-
mon 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 clus-
ter Adapted on Extraversion, their scores on Neuroticism were lower than in
the cluster Victims but higher than in the cluster Adapted. Although Bullies
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 mani-
festation 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 pro-
nounced 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, sup-
ported by manipulative behavioral patterns and negative self-assessment,
also contributes to this. It has already been mentioned that Negative Self-
Concept 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 question-
naire) 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 bul-
lies 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 gen-
der 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
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Kodopelji 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 ade-
quate 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 con-
tributes 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 behav-
ior can be a basis for plausible typology of adolescents. This typology is
congruent with the dominant approach in research of personality, which pro-
poses 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 exhib-
ited. However, typical bystanders behavior is not included in the measures
that were applied in this study. Therefore, all conclusions regarding bystand-
ers role may be treated as hypothetical.
The results of this research emphasize the general importance of person-
centered 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.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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, neigh-
borhood, 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 clus-
ter validation. Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1-22.
Carney, A., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in school: Perspective on understand-
ing and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International,
22, 364-382.
Connor, D. F. (1988). Overt categorical aggression in referred children and ado-
lescents. 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 preva-
lence of bullying and victimization: A cross-national and methodological analy-
sis. 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 inves-
tigation. 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 social-
psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Childrens treatment by peers: Victims of
relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Kodopelji et al. 753
Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Do
these criteria conform to teenagers perception of bullying? A role-based analy-
sis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1889-1910.
Dini, B., Kodopelji, J., & olovi, P. (2010, November). Korelati psiholokog
i fizikog nasilja kod srednjokolaca [Correlates of psychological and physical
violence in high school students]. Poster presented at III Znastveno-nauni skup,
Psihosocijalni aspekti nasilja u suvremenom drutvu izazov obitelji, koli 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 ado-
lescence: 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 perspec-
tive (pp. 173-185). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008).The role of bystanders in stu-
dents 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 aggres-
siveness. 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 overcon-
trollers? 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 rela-
tionships as moderators of interpersonal conflict in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 42, 148-164.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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.
Kodopelji, J., Smederevac, S., & olovi, P. (2010). Razlike u uestalosti i oblic-
ima nasilnog ponaanja izmeu uenika osnovnih i srednjih kola [Frequency and
manifestations of bullying: Differences between primary and secondary school
students]. Primenjena psihologija, 3, 289-305.
Kodopelji, J., Smederevac, S., & Dini, B. (2010, November). Prediktori uestalosti
vrnjakog nasilja u srednjoj koli [Predictors of peer violence frequency in high
school]. Poster presented at III Znastveno-nauni skup, Psihosocijalni aspekti
nasilja u suvremenom drutvu izazov obitelji, koli i zajednici, Osijek, Croatia.
Maksimovi, J., Rakovi, D., Jovanovi, I., & olovi, P. (2008). Povezanost
vrnjakog nasilja, osobina linosti i vaspitnih stavova [Relations between bul-
lying, personality traits and parenting practices]. Primenjena Psihologija, 1,
124-144.
Maynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association
with Eysenks personality dimensions in 8- to 13 year-olds. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67, 51-54.
Mitrovi, D., Kodopelji, J., & olovi, P. (2011, October). Prediktori nasilnog
ponaanja na osnovnokolskom uzrastu: Osobine linosti dece i vaspitni stavovi
roditelja [Predictors of violent behavior in the primary-school age: Childrens
personality traits and parenting styles]. Paper presented at the Scientific confer-
ence 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 ado-
lescence: 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.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Kodopelji et al. 755
Popadi, D., & Plut, D. (2007). Nasilje u osnovnim kolama u Srbiji: Oblici i uestalost
[Violence in primary schools in SerbiaForms 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 personal-
ity 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, overcon-
trolled, 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). Self-
evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as pre-
dictors of adolescents participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268-1278.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjrkqvist, K., sterman, 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 adjust-
ment. 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., & olovi, P. (2011, October). Osobine linosti, porodina i socijalna
interakcija kao prediktori izloenosti vrnjakom nasilju na osnovnokolskom
uzrastu [Bullying in primary schools: The predictors of victimization]. Paper
presented at the Scientific conference Current trends in psychology, Novi Sad,
Serbia.
Smederevac, S., Mitrovi, D., & olovi, 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 inci-
dents. School Psychology International, 24, 131-146.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 question-
naire 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 childrens 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 Kodopelji, 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.
Sneana 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.
Duanka Mitrovi, 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 Dini, 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
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Kodopelji et al. 757
Predictors (funded by Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological
Development). Her main research interest is the study of aggressive behavior, includ-
ing the assessment of various aspects of aggression.
Petar olovi, 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.
at University Library Utrecht on March 5, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from