Who Becomes a Bullying Perpetrator After the Experience of Bullying Victimization? The Moderating Role of Self-esteem
It is well known that victims of bullying could become a bullying perpetrator later on. However, there are some cases where victims do not become bullies after being bullied. What constitutes the differences between the two groups, who show different response strategies despite the similar experiences of victimization, is the main question that the current study poses. Based on the threatened egotism theory, the current longitudinal study postulates that there could be possible moderating effects of self-esteem in the relationship between prior bullying victimization and subsequent bullying perpetration. The data was drawn from 3,660 Korean secondary students (51.5% male) in the Seoul Education Longitudinal Study for 2 waves (7th to 8th grades). The results from structural equation modeling indicated that there is a significant interaction effect between bullying victimization and self-esteem in the 7th grade, in prediction to bullying perpetration in the 8th grade, after controlling for the prior level of bullying victimization and perpetration experiences, demographic and background characteristics (i.e., gender and family income), students’ school-environmental factor (i.e., perceived seriousness of school bullying), individual factor (i.e., self-control) and family-environmental factor (i.e., parent–child relationship). Students with higher self-esteem were the most likely to engage in future bullying perpetration in response to bullying victimization, while the students with lower self-esteem were the least likely to engage in future bullying perpetration. Educators who examine adolescents’ social problems should pay closer attention to self-esteem, as well as their bullying and victimization experiences, in order to provide appropriate interventions.
KeywordsBullying victimization Bullying perpetration Self-esteem Moderating effects
BC conceived of the study, participated in its design and performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript; SP participated in the interpretation of the data and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Data Sharing and Declaration
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Seoul Education Research & Information Institute but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. However, data are available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the Seoul Education Research & Information Institute (http://www.serii.re.kr/board/lst.do?method=getList&mcode=S021&page=1).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Arbuckle, J. L (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In: In G. A. Marcoulides, R. E. Schumacker, (eds.) Advanced structural equationmodeling: Issues and techniques. (pp. 243–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Barker, E. D., Arseneault, L., Brendgen, M., Fontaine, N., & Maughan, B. (2008). Joint development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: relations to delinquency and self-harm. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(9), 1030–1038.Google Scholar
- Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (1996). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, G., & Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: a reciprocal effects model elucidating the complex nature of bullying, psychological determinants and the central role of self-concept. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying implications for the classroom (pp. 63–135). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nickerson, A, Mele, D., & Osborne-Oliver, K. M. (2010). Parent–child relationships and bullying. In: S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage, (eds.) Handbook of bullying in schools:An international perspective . (pp. 187–197). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Olweus, D. (2007). The Olweus bullying questionnaire. Center City, MN: Hazelden.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147–174). New York/London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Seoul Education Research & Information Institute. (2011), SELS 2010 User’s Manual. (Report No. 2011-17). Retrieved from Seoul Education Research & Information Institute website:http://www.serii.re.kr/board/viw.do?method=boardview&mcode=S021&seq=14501&listType=.