J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
DOI 10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Clueless or Powerful? Identifying Subtypes of Bullies
in Adolescence
Margot Peeters • Antonius H. N. Cillessen •
Ron H. J. Scholte
Received: 8 August 2009 / Accepted: 6 November 2009 / Published online: 22 November 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract This study examined the heterogeneity of bul-
lying among adolescents. It was hypothesized that bullying
behavior serves different social functions and, depending
on these functions, bullies will differ in their skills, status
and social behavior. In a total sample of 806 8th graders,
120 adolescents (52 boys, 68 girls) were identified as
bullies based on peer nominations. An additional group of
50 adolescents (25 boys, 25 girls) served as the non-bully
comparison group. Cluster analysis revealed three corre-
sponding bully subtypes for boys and girls: a popular-
socially intelligent group, a popular moderate group, and
an unpopular-less socially intelligent group. Follow-up
analyses showed that the clusters differed significantly
from each other in physical and verbal aggression, lead-
ership, network centrality, peer rejection, and self-percep-
tions of bullying. The results confirm the heterogeneous
nature of bullies and the complex nature of bullying in the
adolescent peer group.
Keywords Bullying
Social intelligence

Machiavellianism
Popularity
Relational aggression
Introduction
Lacking empathy or social understanding and being
exceptionally aggressive have traditionally been associated
with bullying (Pellegrini et al. 1999; Sutton et al. 1999a).
M. Peeters (&)
A. H. N. Cillessen
R. H. J. Scholte
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen,
P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
e-mail: peetersmargot@gmail.com
A. H. N. Cillessen
e-mail: a.cillessen@psych.ru.nl
At the same time, other results associate bullying with
good understanding of social relationships, social power,
and covered aggressive assaults directed at the victim
(Salmivalli et al. 2000; Sutton et al. 1999a). This duality
has lead researchers to the assumption that bullies are not a
uniform group. Indeed, previous studies have examined the
heterogeneity of bullying. For example, Salmivalli and
Nieminen (2002) made a distinction between bullies and
bully-victims (students who bully but are also bullied), and
found that bully-victims were the most aggressive sub-
group of bullies. Another approach to the heterogeneity of
bullying is to examine different roles in the bullying pro-
cess. Salmivalli et al. (1996), identified roles such as
ringleader bullies versus assistants, and associated these
roles with social status. These studies describe different
types of bullies; their results indicate that bullying behavior
varies among adolescents.
In spite of these developments, more can be learned
about the heterogeneity of bullying. For example, few
studies have explored differences in social skills among
bullies and their associations with different social functions
of bullying. It may also be the case, consistent with the
work of Salmivalli et al. (1996) that different bully roles or
functions are associated with differences in social status.
Furthermore, social-cognitive skills may differ between
types of bullies. Bullies may be found along the range of
the social competence continuum and vary in social intel-
ligence. A broader picture of the heterogeneous nature of
bullying is needed as our understanding of the behavior of
bullies affects the design and effectiveness of interventions
(Arsenio and Lemerise 2001; Sutton et al. 1999b).
The goal of this study was exactly this: to examine the
social functions of bullying and to identify different types
of bullies based on patterns of behaviors, status, and social
skills. Below, these constructs that may differentiate bullies
123
1042
from each other are discussed. Specifically, differences
between bullies are addressed in terms of social intelli-
gence, Machiavellian beliefs, popularity, and aggression.
Do Bullies Differ in Social Intelligence?
The social information processing framework (SIP) has
been used in previous research to understand children’s
social behavior and adjustment. In a reformulation of this
framework, Crick and Dodge (1994) distinguished six steps
(p. 76) in a child’s behavioral response to a social stimulus:
(1) encoding of cues, (2) interpretation of these cues, (3)
clarification of goals, (4) response access or construction,
(5) response decision, and (6) behavioral enactment.
According to this model, incompetent, maladaptive
behaviors, such as persistent aggression, are the result of
deficits in one or more of these steps (Sutton et al. 1999a).
Although the model explains a range of social behaviors
(Crick and Dodge 1999), it has primarily been applied to
the display of aggression. The SIP framework provides an
understanding of the social information processing of
children’s aggression in general. Even though the model
does not aim specifically at bullying, Crick and Dodge
(1999) argued that bullying is a type of aggression, and
therefore the model would apply to bullying as well.
Crick and Dodge (1994) proposed that chronic aggression
is the result of chronic processing styles. These persisting
processing styles are called biases or deficits because they
are the tendency to respond in a consistent manner to
ambiguous social cues. The SIP framework emphasizes that
not all aggression is maladaptive or incompetent. Incidental
self defense, for example, is not the result of processing
deficits, but is an adaptive response to threatening social
situations (Crick and Dodge 1999). But the authors argue that
persisting aggression, such as bullying, is the result of a
deficient information processing style. They acknowledge
that some bullies may be proficient at a particular step of the
SIP cycle, but they are deficient in at least one of the six SIP
steps. They reject the possibility that completely competent
social cognitions can precede maladaptive behavior, such as
bullying (Arsenio and Lemerise 2001; Crick and Dodge
1999). A study by Coie et al. (1991) verified this idea. They
found that aggressive children, such as bullies, attribute
hostile intentions to peers and subsequently react with
exaggerated aggression. This indicates that aggressive chil-
dren incorrectly encode or interpret social cues and exhibit
behavioral responses that are not normative.
In contrast, Sutton et al. (1999b) introduced a different
theoretical framework that challenges the stereotypical
view of the bully. According to these authors, bullying is an
interaction between two or more participants in a structured
group. Some bullies misuse their skills to manipulate the
relationships in the group with the intention to change its
123
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
structure and obtain more power. Sutton et al. argued that
the effectiveness of bullying is determined by the bully’s
ability to attribute internal mental states to themselves and
others, or ‘‘theory of mind’’ (Bartsch and Wellman 1989).
This awareness of the thoughts and beliefs of others enables
them to predict and anticipate their behavior (Sutton et al.
1999b). Understanding the perspective of others and being
able to manipulate their thoughts demonstrates the presence
of social intelligence. Therefore, Sutton et al. (1999b)
argued that at least some bullies are socially intelligent and
have superior theory of mind skills.
Previous studies indicate that the use of relational
aggression sometimes demands social intelligence. For
example, Björkqvist and colleagues found that the efficient
use of relational aggression requires social intelligence.
This sophisticated form of aggression demands under-
standing social relations (Björkqvist et al. 1992, 2000).
Putallaz et al. (2007) also suggested that a lack of social
intelligence may lead to an insufficient aggressive attack.
These interpretations suggest that some bullies may be
socially intelligent, depending on the type of aggression
that they use to harass their victims.
These two theoretical models imply different assump-
tions about the causes of bullying. The SIP framework
assumes that bullying is a result of social deficits. Crick
and Dodge (1999) describe the bully as socially inadequate
and define bullying as maladaptive behavior. Sutton and
colleagues see bullying as socially undesirable, but argue
that bullying may be very efficient, depending on the
context in which it occurs (Sutton et al. 2001). Because
both theoretical assumptions are supported by empirical
results, it seems incorrect to reject one of them. The
solution is to assume that some bullies are socially intel-
ligent and victimize for their personal advantage. Others
may be less socially intelligent, and may attribute hostile
intent to others or are unable or unwilling to choose an
appropriate response (Archer 2001; Crick and Dodge
1994). Therefore, we hypothesize that bullies are a heter-
ogeneous group and can be found at both extremes of the
social competence continuum.
Do Bullies Differ in Machiavellian Beliefs?
Beliefs and impressions that we have about others are a
result of previous social experiences. These experiences not
only affect the impressions of specific others but also our
general belief in human nature (Sutton and Keogh 2001).
Differences in the perception of the human nature have been
described as part of the construct of Machiavellianism
(Christie and Geis 1970; Sutton and Keogh 2001). Christie
and Geis (1970) characterized the ‘‘Machiavellian’’ indi-
vidual as someone who restrains emotional involvement
in interpersonal relations and has little concerns with
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
conventional standards of morality. The Machiavellian
easily lies and deceives and effectively controls interactions
with others. They also believe that they can easily manip-
ulate others in social and interpersonal situations (Andreou
2004).
Christie and Geis’ (1970) definition of the Machiavel-
lian presents the image of a person lacking empathy and
affect, a characteristic that has also been found in bullies.
Gini (2006), for example, found that bullying is associated
with moral disengagement and a lack of emotional under-
standing. Bullies are less empathic than their peers (Gini
et al. 2007) and more likely justify the use of aggressive
behavior without feeling guilty (Gini 2006). Similarly,
Björkqvist et al. (2000) found that aggression is associated
with a lack of empathic responsiveness. Andreou (2004)
found that bullying was associated with a lack of faith in
human nature, and specifically for girls with acceptance of
manipulation in social interactions.
Sutton and Keogh (2000) suggested that there is an
association between Machiavellianism and relational
aggression. Several studies support this expectation.
Björkqvist et al. (1992) defined indirect aggression as a way
to inflict pain on others without being identified as the per-
petrator. Spreading rumors and manipulating relationships
(i.e., relational aggression) are such indirect means to pro-
voke others that are also typical Machiavellian traits. Fur-
thermore, Sutton and Keogh (2000) found that bullies hold
more Machiavellian beliefs than non-bullies. They proposed
that different types of Machiavellianism may exist among
different groups. Relationally aggressive bullies, for exam-
ple, may have much stronger Machiavellian beliefs than
physically aggressive bullies.
Thus, previous research suggests that some bullies are
effective in controlling and manipulating social situations.
Prior studies also indicate that bullies accept inappropriate
behavior more easily than non-bullies, and may interpret
their behavior as efficient and justified. Therefore, we
assume that bullies hold more Machiavellian beliefs than
non-bullies, and that bullies who are relationally aggressive
in particular distinguish themselves from non-bullies on
this measure.
Do Bullies Differ in Popularity?
The traditional method of defining peer status distinguishes
five sociometric types (popular, rejected, neglected, con-
troversial, and average). This classification system identi-
fies sociometrically popular children as those who are
well-liked by their peers, a status type characterized by
prosocial traits (Coie et al. 1982). Recently, a second type
of popularity has been proposed, perceived popularity.
While sociometric popularity is a measure of peer accep-
tance and represents a pleasant and prosocial behavior
1043
style, perceived popularity indicates social power and
reputation and represents a more dominant and aggressive
behavioral style (de Bruyn and Cillessen 2006; Parkhurst
and Hopmeyer 1998; Rodkin et al. 2000). Thus, although
both popularity types indicate high status, they reflect
different behavioral profiles.
Bullying has traditionally been linked to peer rejection.
It has been suggested that aggression and disruptive
behavior, like bullying, is related to low acceptance (Coie
et al. 1982; Dodge et al. 1982). Indeed, a negative asso-
ciation between bullying and peer acceptance has been
established (Pellegrini et al. 1999). However, recent studies
have shown that aggressive children, such as bullies, can be
disliked by their peers but also perceived as popular
(Caravita et al. 2008; Cillessen and Rose 2005; Farmer
et al. 2003). These studies indicate that there are differ-
ences among bullies in peer status.
Estell et al. (2007) hypothesized that bullies would be
rated as popular but would not be well-liked by their peers.
Indeed, they found that bullies were rejected by peers
(disliked) or socially controversial (liked by some and
disliked by others). At the same time, they were perceived
as central members of the peer group and socially well-
integrated. Findings by Vaillancourt et al. (2003) also
supported the perception of the bully as either a rejected
member of the peer group, or a popular member. There-
fore, we assume that bullies differ in their popularity.
Do Bullies Differ in Relational Aggression?
Spreading rumors, telling lies, gossiping and social exclu-
sion are sophisticated forms of aggression that are defined
as indirect or relational aggression (Björkqvist et al. 1992;
Salmivalli et al. 2000). Compared to verbal and physical
aggression, relational aggression is less outspoken. It is
more difficult to identify the perpetrator, and avoiding
accusations of deliberately harming others is exactly the
intention of the aggressor (Björkqvist et al. 1992; Garan-
deau and Cillessen 2006).
It has often been suggested that the type and amount of
aggressive behavior differs between genders. Boys are
perceived by peers as more overtly aggressive, while girls
seem to use more indirect means to harm others (Salmivalli
et al. 2000). In contrast, Putallaz et al. (2007) indicated that
gender differences in physical and relational aggression are
often minimal. That is, girls as well as boys display com-
parable amounts of relational aggression. However, boys
tend to use equal amounts of physical and relational
aggression, while girls are more inclined to harm others by
indirect means.
Traditionally, social intelligence or social competence is
linked to adjustment and aggression to maladjustment
(Crick and Dodge 1994). However, Björkqvist et al. (2000)
123
1044
indicated that social intelligence is a neutral concept
because it does not exclude the use of aggression. In a
conflict situation, a socially intelligent adolescent still has
the option to solve the problem aggressively rather than
peacefully. Thus, aggression and social intelligence are not
mutually exclusive, and the likelihood that they go together
is larger when a relationally aggressive solution is chosen.
Björkqvist et al. (1992) argued that indirect aggression
requires influence in a social network. Indeed, it has been
found that although relational aggression is negatively
associated with social preference, it is positively associated
with perceived popularity (e.g., Cillessen and Mayeux
2004).
Thus, it has been argued that relational aggression
requires social intelligence, social power, and the skills to
manipulate a group. A good understanding of relationships
and a central position in the peer group appear necessary to
relationally victimize others (Björkqvist et al. 1992; Sutton
et al. 1999b). Xie et al. (2002) found that the use of rela-
tional aggression did not lead children to be excluded from
the peer group. Instead, high network centrality enabled
them to use relational aggression even more. Therefore, it
was hypothesized that some bullies are particularly rela-
tionally aggressive, especially when they are also central or
powerful in the peer group.
The Current Study
The overall goal of this study was to identify types of
bullies that differ in social intelligence, Machiavellian
beliefs, relational aggression, and popularity. These con-
structs were selected based on their associations with bul-
lying in recent studies (e.g., Andreou 2004; Sutton and
Keogh 2000) and their importance in recent debates on the
nature of bullying (see Arsenio and Lemerise 2001; Crick
and Dodge 1999; Sutton et al. 1999c, 2001). It was
hypothesized that the social function of bullying in the peer
group depends on the status and position of the bully in the
peer network. Different provisions of bullying behavior
will demand different skills and influence levels. Thus, our
goal was to identify different types of bullies and the
unique behaviors, status positions, and social-cognitive
skills characteristic for each.
Method
Participants
Participants were 806 adolescents (353 boys, 453 girls; M
age = 13.37 years, SD = .57) in Grade 8 of two secondary
schools in The Netherlands. Students were in three
123
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
secondary school tracks: pre-vocational (159 boys, 187
girls), general secondary (83 boys, 125 girls), and college
preparatory (111 boys, 141 girls). The ethnic composition
of the sample was 92.9% Dutch/Caucasian, .1% Moroccan,
.4% Turkish, and 3.5% of other ethnic or national origin
(3.1% did not specify their origin). Grade 8 was chosen
because this is an age group in which reports of bullying
are particularly high (see Nansel et al. 2001; Olweus 1994).
Passive parental permission was obtained through a letter.
Parents were informed about the purpose of the study and
the voluntary nature of participation. Parents could react to
this letter if they did not agree that their child would par-
ticipate in the study. Students completed a questionnaire in
their classroom under the guidance of a researcher who
explained the procedures and the confidentiality of the
answers.
Peer Nomination Measures
A standard sociometric instrument was used that included
nine peer nomination questions. The reference group was
the classroom. For each question, students could name an
unlimited number of peers from their own classroom. Both
same-sex and other-sex nominations were allowed. Self
nominations were not allowed.
The following constructs were assessed: perceived
popularity (‘‘classmates who are most popular’’), rejection
(‘‘classmates you like the least’’, a continuous measure of
rejection), bullying (‘‘is a bully’’), physical aggression
(‘‘hit, kick or push others’’), verbal aggression (‘‘call others
names, laugh at them, or threaten to hurt them’’), relational
aggression (two items: ‘‘gossip or speak badly about oth-
ers,’’ and ‘‘ignore or exclude others’’), and leadership
(‘‘classmates who take the lead’’). For each question, the
number of nominations received was counted for each
student and standardized to z-scores within classrooms to
control for differences in classroom size. For bullying,
nominations received were also standardized within gender
(see Solberg and Olweus 2003). For relational aggression,
the average of the two standardized scores (r = .70) was
taken.
A within-classroom friendship nomination was also
used. The matrix of best friend nominations in the class-
room was analyzed with UCINET 6 (Borgatti et al. 2002)
to compute a network centrality score for each student. The
Bonacich (1987) power index was chosen as the measure
of network centrality. According to this index, students
received a network centrality score that is a weighted
function of reciprocal friends they have in the classroom,
and the power of the peers that they have ties with. The
Bonacich power index is generally recognized as an
important measure of social network centrality.
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
Self-Report Measures
Bullying
Students completed the bullying subscale of the Dutch
version of the Olweus (1989) Bully/Victim Questionnaire
(Sentse et al. 2007). The scale includes five items (e.g.,
‘‘How often have you bullied others in the last year?’’) that
are rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from ‘‘never’’ to
‘‘several times’’. The internal reliability of this scale was
good (a = .70).
Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism was measured with a Dutch translation
of the 20-item Kiddie Mach. The Kiddie Mach was origi-
nally designed by Christie and Geis (1970) to assess
Machiavellianism in children and adolescents. A Greek
translation of the original measure was recently used suc-
cessfully by Andreou (2004). The items of this scale
measure Machiavellian beliefs (e.g., ‘‘Anyone who com-
pletely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble’’) and are
rated on a 5-point scale (1 = disagree very much;
5 = agree very much). The measure yields an overall
Machiavellianism score that is the average of the scores for
the 20 items.
The translation of the original scale was completed by
two researchers separately. Consensus about the proper
translation of each item was reached between them. A third
translator then checked if the translations agreed with the
original items. The test–retest reliability of this new
translation was tested on an independent sample of 44 7th
graders from one of the schools involved in this project but
who were not part of the actual study. They completed the
measure twice across 9 weeks in the fall of the school year.
The test–retest correlation of the overall Machiavellianism
score in this sample was .62. Cronbach’s a of the scale was
.76 at Time 1 and .70 at Time 2. Thus, the psychometric
properties of the scale were acceptable for inclusion in the
actual study. The internal consistency reliability of the 20-
item scale in the total sample of 806 participants in this
study was .61 (Cronbach’s a).
Social Intelligence
Social intelligence was measured with a translation of the
Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera et al. 2001). The
Dutch translation was used successfully in a recent study
by Meijs et al. (in press). The scale consists of 21 items
(e.g., ‘‘I can predict other people’s behavior’’), that are
scored on a 7-point scale (1 = does not describe me at all;
7 = describes me very well). The internal reliability of the
scale was found to be satisfactory (Cronbach’s a = .78).
1045
Identification of Bullies
Participants who scored in the top 15% of the distribution
of the standardized bullying score (standardized within
classrooms and gender) were identified as bullies. This is a
relatively strict criterion but has been used more often to
identify bullies in previous studies (see e.g., Camodeca
et al. 2003), and is also otherwise a common criterion to
identify subgroups in peer relations research using socio-
metric measures (see Cillessen 2009). As a result, 120 of
the 806 participants (14.9%) were identified as bullies. This
method yielded a bully sample of 52 boys with an average
standardized bully score of 2.04 (SD = .84), and a bully
sample of 68 girls with an average standardized bully score
of 1.79 (SD = 1.49). For comparison purposes, 25 boys
and 25 girls were randomly selected from the remainder of
the sample to form the non-bully comparison group.
Results
Analysis Strategy
The analyses of this paper proceeded in two steps. First,
cluster analysis was conducted on the subsamples of male
and female bullies to identify subtypes. Second, the
resulting clusters were examined on a number of new
variables, to validate their nature.
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for
bullying, the clustering variables, and the profiling vari-
ables by gender in the analysis sample (N = 170). Gender
comparisons indicated that boys scored significantly higher
than girls on peer- and self-reported bullying, physical and
verbal aggression, rejection, leadership, and Machiavel-
lianism. Girls scored higher than boys on social network
centrality.
Table 2 shows the intercorrelations between the same
variables by gender in the analysis sample. The correlations
in general followed a meaningful pattern that is common
for these constructs in other research. Notice in particular
that, for both genders, all measures of aggression were
positively correlated with each other, as well as with bul-
lying. All correlations were compared by gender using
Fisher’s r-to-z transformations. As can be seen in Table 2,
a number of correlations were significantly different by
gender. In particular, the association between bullying and
physical aggression was stronger for boys than for girls.
Cluster Analysis
Based on the considerations given above, the clustering
variables were perceived popularity and relational aggres-
sion (from peer nominations), and social intelligence and
123
1046 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study variables in the analysis sample (N = 170)

Boys (N = 77) Girls (N = 93) Gender difference
M SD M SD t p

Social intelligence 4.80 .60 4.90 .53 -1.14 .261

Machiavellianism 2.58 .44 2.43 .33 2.47 .015
Relational aggression -.75 1.32 .91 1.27 -.80 .424
Perceived popularity .71 1.05 .46 .84 1.69 .094
Bullying 1.84 1.48 .71 1.09 5.57 .001
Physical aggression 1.41 1.44 -.13 .84 8.29 .001
Verbal aggression 1.60 1.45 .39 1.21 5.83 .001
Social rejection .73 1.22 .12 .95 3.58 .001
Leadership 1.03 1.47 .46 1.25 2.69 .008
Network centrality 3.63 2.31 4.78 2.80 -2.93 .004
Self-reported bullying 9.41 3.59 8.13 2.39 2.68 .008
Means that are italicized were significantly different by gender

Table 2 Correlations between study variables in the analysis sample (N = 170)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Social intelligence .05 .35* .30* .24* .07 .28* .12 .38* .11 .17
2. Machiavellianism -.56* .24* .19 .19 .12 .19 .21* .22* .06 .15
3. Relational aggression .23* -.20 .55* .73* .28* .66* .39* .69* .02 .34*
4. Perceived popularity .39* -.19 .39* .50* .02 .31* .01 .64* .33* .33*
5. Bullying .09 .02 .66* .45* .28* .74* .49* .65* -.07 .13
6. Physical aggression .01 -.13 .44* .30* .55* .54* .39* .25* -.28* -.01
7. Verbal aggression .15 -.05 .71* .47* .85* .67* .49* .56* -.13 .11
8. Social rejection -.14 .09 .54* .03 .42* .41* .51* .23* -.19 .02
9. Leadership .26* -.16 .66* .65* .59* .54* .62* .32* .03 .24*
10. Network centrality .26* -.02 .16 .46* .14 .07 .16 -.02 .23* .27*
11. Self-report bullying -.10 .25* .10 .10 .32* .37* .35* .32* .17 .09
Correlations italicized were significantly different by gender. Girls above the diagonal, boys below the diagonal
* p \ .05

Machiavellianism (from self-reports). A hierarchical clus-
ter procedure was used, starting with one cluster containing
all of the observations. Similar to previous studies in this
field (e.g., Cillessen et al. 1992; Estell et al. 2002), Ward’s
clustering method based on squared Euclidian distances
between cases on each clustering variable was used.
Ward’s method minimizes the variance within clusters and
maximizes between-group variance (Estell et al. 2002; Hair
and Black 2000).
For boys, a three-cluster solution was identified as the
most optimal solution to differentiate the boys on the four
clustering variables. The first cluster, including 14 boys, was
set apart from the remaining bullies based on social intelli-
gence and popularity. This cluster was significantly more
socially intelligent than the rest, M’s = 5.42 versus 4.68,
F(1, 50) = 15.37, p \ .001, and significantly more popular,
M’s = 1.94 versus .72, F(1, 50) = 39.03, p \ .001. The
second cluster, including 28 boys, was differentiated from
the remaining boys based on relational aggression. This
group was significantly less relationally aggressive then the
rest, M’s = .17 versus 2.15, F(1, 50) = 118.77, p \ .001.
The third cluster, including 10 boys, differed significantly
from the first two (see below), but not on a single variable.
The clustering process for girls also generated a three-
cluster solution. The first cluster, including 31 girls, was set
apart from the remaining girls based on relational aggres-
sion. The girls in this cluster were significantly more rela-
tionally aggressive than the remaining girls, M’s = 2.21
versus .42, F(1, 66) = 180.14, p \ .001. The second clus-
ter, including 20 girls, significantly differed from the other
clusters (see below), but not on a single variable. The
remaining 17 girls had significantly lower scores on social
intelligence than the other girls, M’s = 4.58 versus 5.07,
F(1, 66) = 14.90, p \ .001.

123
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052 1047

The means and standard deviations of the clusters on the
four clustering variables are shown in Table 3. To further
identify each cluster, two analyses were conducted. First,
the three clusters were compared to each other on each
clustering variable in a three (Cluster) ANOVA. To
examine if the clusters differed in the extremity of their
bullying, this ANOVA was also run on the original bul-
lying score. Significant cluster effects were followed up
with a Tukey post-hoc comparison. Second, each cluster
was compared with the non-bully comparison group in a
two (Group: Cluster vs. Comparison) ANOVA. The results
of these analyses are also shown in Table 3.
The results for boys showed that Cluster 1 bullies were
socially intelligent and relationally aggressive. They were
perceived as popular by their classmates and scored low on
Machiavellianism. The differences with other bullies and
non-bullies were most evident for social intelligence and
popularity. Therefore, this group was labeled popular-
socially intelligent. Cluster 2 bullies were relatively pop-
ular and had average scores for social intelligence, rela-
tional aggression, and Machiavellianism. They only
differed from non-bullies in terms of popularity. Therefore,
they were labeled popular moderate. Cluster 3 bullies were
considerably relationally aggressive and had average
Machiavellian scores. Compared to other bullies and non-
bullies they were less popular and socially intelligent. The
differences with non-bullies and other bullies were most
obvious for popularity and social intelligence. Therefore,
this group was labeled low popular-low socially intelligent.
For girls, Cluster 1 bullies were socially intelligent and
above average Machiavellian beliefs. They were popular
and relationally aggressive. Differences with other bullies
and non-bullies were evident for popularity, social intelli-
gence, and relational aggression. Given the correspon-
dence of this cluster to the first cluster for boys, it was also
called popular-socially intelligent. Cluster 2 bullies were
moderately popular and above average in social intelli-
gence. They scored average on Machiavellianism and high
on relational aggression. Because of their generally mod-
erate scores on the clustering variables, they were called
popular moderate. Cluster 3 bullies were unpopular and
below average in Machiavellianism. They scored signifi-
cantly below other bullies on relational aggression and
social intelligence. Therefore, they were called low popu-
lar-low socially intelligent.
Cluster Profiling
To further validate the clusters, they were compared on
other variables that had not been used to identify them.
Therefore, a three (Cluster) ANOVA was conducted for
each gender on the scores for physical aggression, verbal
aggression, social rejection, leadership, network centrality,
and self-reported bullying. Significant cluster effects were
followed by Tukey post-hoc comparisons. Each cluster was
also compared to the non-bully comparison group in a two
(Group: Cluster vs. Comparison) ANOVA. Table 4 pre-
sents the results of these analyses.
For boys, popular-socially intelligent bullies scored
significantly higher than other bullies on leadership. They
also scored significantly higher than low popular-low
socially intelligent bullies on network centrality. They
scored significantly higher than non-bullies on physical
aggression, verbal aggression, leadership, social rejection,
and network centrality.
Popular-moderate bullies scored significantly lower on
the aggression measures than other bullies, however,
compared to non-bullies they were more aggressive. They
scored significantly lower than popular-socially intelligent
bullies on network centrality, social rejection, and leader-
ship, but their centrality and rejection scores did not differ
from non-bullies. Low popular-low socially intelligent

Table 3 Comparisons of bullying subtypes on clustering variables

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Non-bullies

Boys n = 14 n = 28 n = 10 n = 25 F(3, 73)

Social intelligence 5.42a (.52) 4.74b (.66) 4.51b (.52) 4.66 (.36) 8.17*
Machiavellianism 2.30a (.36) 2.73b (.47) 2.56ab (.45) 2.58 (.39) 4.39*
Relational aggression 2.03a (.62) .17b (.70) 2.31a (.54) -.16 (.81) 60.00*
Perceived popularity 1.94a (.24) .85b (.78) .36b (.30) .01 (1.14) 23.38*
Girls n = 31 n = 20 n = 17 n = 25 F(3, 89)
Social intelligence 5.13a (.35) 4.99a (.55) 4.58b (.49) 4.78 (.59) 7.99*
Machiavellianism 2.56a (.35) 2.46ab (.28) 2.27b (.34) 2.36 (.31) 4.17*
Relational aggression 2.21a (.50) .77b (.33) .01c (.56) -.15 .79) 132.66*
Perceived popularity 1.07a (.69) .77a (.52) -.22b (.62) -.07 (.70) 23.89*
Means within rows that do not share a subscript were significantly different between clusters. Cluster means that are italicized were significantly
different from the non-bully comparison group. Standard deviations are between parentheses
* p \ .05

123
1048 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052

Table 4 Comparisons of bullying subtypes on validation variables

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Non-bullies

Boys n = 14 n = 28 n = 10 n = 25 F(3, 73)

Verbal aggression 2.85a (1.20) 1.66b (.92) 2.96a (.62) .28 (1.17) 10.69*
Physical aggression 2.20 (1.30) 1.54 (1.21) 1.95 (1.81) .56 (1.30) 1.18
Social rejection .96ab (1.35) .43a (.98) 2.06b (.99) .37 (1.17) 8.29*
Leadership 2.78a (.93) .72b (1.21) 1.58b (1.38) .13 (1.07) 14.37*
Network centrality 5.32a (1.96) 3.72ab (2.14) 3.17b (2.02) 2.93 (2.34) 3.89*
Self-reported bullying 9.57 (3.32) 10.26 (3.95) 10.50 (2.72) 7.92 (3.32) .24
Girls n = 31 n = 20 n = 17 n = 25 F(3, 89)
Verbal aggression 1.22a (1.42) .01b (.65) .17b (1.16) -.19 (.69) 7.90*
Physical aggression .01 (1.12) -.18 (.69) -.02 (.97) -.35 (.27) .26
Social rejection .49a (.94) -.20b (.50) .19ab (.94) -.15 (1.11) 4.190*
Leadership 1.61a (1.31) .36b (.76) -.32b (.54) -.36 (.58) 21.79*
Network centrality 4.78 (2.94) 5.92 (2.44) 4.08 (2.76) 4.37 (2.78) 2.14
Self-reported bullying 8.87a (2.28) 9.25a (2.73) 7.18b (1.85) 6.69 (1.84) 4.16*
Means within rows that do not share a subscript were significantly different between clusters. Cluster means that are italicized were significantly
different from the non-bully comparison group. Standard deviations are between parentheses
* p \ .05

bullies looked like popular-socially intelligent bullies, with
the exception of network centrality, social rejection, and
leadership. For network centrality, they did not differ from
non-bullies, but for leadership and social rejection, they
scored significantly higher than non-bullies. They scored
significantly lower than popular-socially intelligent bullies
on leadership and network centrality.
For girls, popular-socially intelligent bullies were more
verbally aggressive than other bullies. They also scored
significantly higher on leadership and social rejection.
They were more physically aggressive than non-bullies.
Popular-moderate bullies were more central members of
the peer group than non-bullies. They differed significantly
from non-bullies on all measures except verbal aggression
and rejection. Nevertheless, their mean scores on the five
profiling variables did not distinguish them from the other
bullies. Low popular-low socially intelligent bullies were
physically and verbally more aggressive than non-bullies.
They did not differ from other bullies or non-bullies in
social rejection. They scored lower on self-reported bul-
lying than the other two groups. One would expect them to
score higher on self-reported bullying than non-bullies, but
this difference was not significant.
Discussion
This study confirmed the need to differentiate between
bullies instead of assuming that bullies are a homogeneous
group. The results supported Sutton et al.’s (1999a)
hypothesis that at least some bullies are socially intelligent
and have the ability to manipulate the peer group. At the
same time, the results also indicated that not all bullies can
be typified as socially intelligent and well-accepted peer
group members. This is in agreement with Crick and
Dodge’s (1994) assumption that aversive behavior such as
bullying is the result of incompetencies or deficiencies,
such as a malfunctioning social information processing
system. The current study demonstrated significant diver-
sity among bullies in the degree of social intelligence and
status. A similar bullying profile was found for both gen-
ders that included in both cases a socially intelligent and
powerful group and a less socially intelligent and unpop-
ular group.
It was hypothesized that the social function of bullying
differs between bullies and is associated with status, skills,
and position in the peer network. Different functions of
bullying will demand different skills and levels of social
influence. Indeed, the results suggest that the identified
profiles of bullies reflect variation in the social function of
bullying. Our analyses showed that high social status is
accompanied by social intelligence and the use of relational
aggression. The bullies with this set of characteristics, the
popular-socially intelligent bullies, may use their skills to
gain dominance. Their centrality in the group would enable
them to persuade others to ignore the victim and believe
their backbiting. In this case, bullying is used to acquire
power and influence.
Our findings are consistent with previous findings of
strong associations between relational aggression, per-
ceived popularity, and social intelligence. This suggests
that these three concepts are unified, and that popularity
and social intelligence may be preconditions for the use of
relational aggression (Björkqvist et al. 1992; Salmivalli

123
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
et al. 2000). Putallaz et al. (2007) suggested, that the
indirect character of relational aggression demands social
intelligence to cover the aggressive acts. Surprisingly, we
found that male bullies who were unpopular and lacking
social intelligence were also highly relationally aggressive.
Thus, at least for boys, relational aggression may not
always require social intelligence.
Findings by Xie et al. (2002) may explain this excep-
tional finding. They distinguished social aggression from
direct relational aggression. Social aggression referred to
covert aggressive attacks, such as gossiping, while direct
relational aggression referred to more visible attacks, such
as ignoring or excluding others. The respondents in their
study saw social aggression as provoking behavior causing
the most damage, while direct relational aggression was
perceived as reactive. It is perhaps the concealed nature of
social aggression that demands social intelligence, which
may explain why unpopular-low socially intelligent bullies
were seen as relationally aggressive but lacking social
intelligence.
The results reported by Xie et al. (2002) may also
contribute to typifying this last group as socially deficient,
in agreement with Crick and Dodge (1999). They
hypothesized that bullies attribute hostile intent to
ambiguous cues and therefore respond with excessive
aggression. Unpopular-less socially intelligent bullies may
use more direct relational aggression than popular-socially
intelligent bullies, who may use more social aggression.
The reactive nature of direct relational aggression as
proposed by Xie et al. (2002) is consistent with the per-
spective of the bully proposed by Crick and Dodge (1999)
and the unpopular-socially less intelligent group of bullies
in this study.
The social functions of bullying by unpopular-low
socially intelligent bullies may be more intuitive or auto-
matic. Perceiving ambiguous cues as hostile may reflec-
tively trigger defending behavior. These bullies may
respond with aggression because they feel threatened.
Their aggression may be more reactive, and thus have a
different function than the bullying of popular-socially
intelligent bullies that may be more instrumental to gain
dominance.
While for boys the less popular and less socially intel-
ligent bullies were the most rejected ones, for girls social
rejection was associated with high social intelligence and
status. Contrary to boys, the popular-socially skilled female
bullies were the most disliked. They scored significantly
higher on rejection than moderate-popular bullies and non-
bullies.
Before explaining the gender differences, we emphasize
that the received dislike nominations are a measure for
social rejection (Coie et al. 1982). Because the cluster
analyses require continuous scores, the standardized dislike
1049
nominations were used as a measure of social rejection
instead of the categorical status types. However, the socio-
metric status type ‘‘rejected’’ is a two-dimensional construct
based on both liked and disliked nominations. It is therefore
different from the continuous measure used here. It is pos-
sible that the bullies in our sample received not only disliked
nominations but also liked nominations and, as a result,
would be classified as sociometrically ‘‘controversial.’’
The gender differences in the social rejection of bully
types may be explained by gender differences in relation-
ships with peers more generally. They may explain why,
contrary to their male counterparts, popular-socially skilled
female bullies scored significantly higher on social rejec-
tion than moderate-popular bullies and non-bullies. Eder
(1985) introduced the ‘‘cycle of popularity’’ to describe
how disliking and popularity in girls go hand in hand.
Indeed, recent findings support the assumption that high
status does not exclude the possibility of social rejection
(Caravita et al. 2008; Estell et al. 2007). The cycle of
popularity (Eder 1985) addressed the role of friendships
with popular girls in adolescence. Being friends with
popular girls is important for one’s own status, however,
popular girls tend to avoid affiliations with lower-status
girls. Because they reject the offers of friendship from
lower-status peers, popular girls are also the most disliked
girls. Consistent with Eder’s cycle of popularity (1985), the
most popular girls in our study were also the most disliked
ones.
Cillessen and Borch (2006) examined the development
trajectories of sociometric and perceived popularity and the
associations with aggression. The effect of relational
aggression on perceived popularity changed over time.
Cillessen and Mayeux (2004) also discussed the changing
association between aggression and perceived popularity
across development. These studies indicate that these group
constructs are sensitive to developmental changes. It is
possible that the different social functions of bullying are a
reflection of developmental changes, and that the different
subtypes of bullies are in fact adolescents at different
stages of social cognitive and behavioral development.
Furthermore, the different types of bullies may also
represent different responses to normal social contextual
changes taking place in adolescence. Pellegrini and Long
(2002) indicated that the transition from primary to sec-
ondary school, and the disruptions of peer relationships that
come with it, may increase bullying behavior depending on
adolescents’ needs to establish centrality in a peer group. If
being central in a peer network is important, bullying may
be an efficient (but undesirable) way to accomplish it.
Individual differences between adolescents in this need
may also influence their bully subtype classification.
In summary, our results highlight the significance of
differentiating between bullies, and identifying unique
123
1050
profiles of bully types. Gender appears to play a role in
determining these profiles. Most importantly, bully types
can be described by the different social functions or pro-
visions that bullying may have for each of them. Thus, our
classification of bullies primarily reflects a functional
approach to bullying. Underlying functions, combined
with available social-cognitive and behavioral skills, and
afforded by a certain position in the peer group, may
interact to determine an adolescent male of female’s bul-
lying classification. The functional approach also has to be
a developmental approach, as functions, skills, and peer
group structures change across developmental time.
Changes and transitions during adolescence are associated
with bullying behavior, and these developmental changes
may also influence the social functions and provisions of
bullying behavior.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although we found significant diversity in behavior, status,
and skills among bullies, differences with non-bullies were
not always obvious. The clustering variables in our study
clearly showed their usefulness in differentiating among
bullies; however, some of them did not distinguish all types
of bullies from non-bullies. Therefore, it may be useful to
include existing scales, such as the Participants Roles
measure (Salmivalli et al. 1996), in a future study. Sepa-
rating non-bullies who help the victim from those who
assist or reinforce the bully may lead to a clearer distinc-
tion between non-bullies who have a pro-bullying attitude
and those who have an anti-bullying attitude. This may
change the differentiation of bullies from non-bullies.
Currently, the non-bullies were a random sample of all
non-bullies existing in the larger normative sample,
ignoring any differentiation that may exist among them.
Nevertheless, our main goal was to identify bully types and
the clustering variables used in our study showed their
relevance for this goal.
Our current study also did not examine the possible
influences of classroom or school norms. Multilevel anal-
ysis would be required to examine the influence of class-
room or school variables on the associations among the
clustering and profiling variables. However, the effects of
classrooms or schools may have been small as the two
schools in this study were quite similar and the overall
sample rather homogenous in many ways. Nevertheless,
the issue of school or classroom contextual effects is an
important one that has been generally undervalued in peer
relations research and deserves more attention in future
research.
Another limitation is the non-inferential and descriptive
nature of cluster analysis (Hair and Black 2000). Cluster
analysis requires few statistical assumptions and will
123
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
always create a cluster solution. Some groups will always
be found. Nevertheless, valid groups are not always found
and the groups identified in our study clearly had validity.
Thus, despite the inherent exploratory nature of cluster
analysis, we believe in its value in the current study, as also
demonstrated in previous peer relations projects (e.g.,
Cillessen et al. 1992; Estell et al. 2002; French 1990;
Salmivalli and Kaukiainen 2004).
A final limitation is that we only measured eighth
graders at one point in time. Inclusion of other age groups
and longitudinal designs could identify developmental
changes in bullying classifications and perhaps reveal
variation in bully subtypes across development. This would
be consistent with the developmental functional approach
advocated above.
Still to be explored are the motives for bullying. The
current study identified types of bullies and their behav-
ioral, social-cognitive, and status profiles. Motivation was
not considered. Yet, there may be important differences
between bully subtypes in underlying motives. In a recent
study, LaFontana and Cillessen (in press) documented
developmental changes in children and adolescents’ needs
to high status and popularity. Coincidentally, the peak of
this need appears to be somewhere around the age of the
participants of the current study. Yet, there also appear to
be large individual differences in this need. Thus, exam-
ining the degree to which adolescents prioritize peer status
and how this is related to bullying aggression seems an
important avenue for follow-up research.
The findings of this study have implications for the
design of anti-bullying programs. A single ‘‘one size fits
all’’ intervention strategy for reducing bullying behavior
may not be sufficient. It may be of crucial importance to
adjust bullying intervention programs to the bullying sub-
types one is working with. For some bullying situations it
may be necessary to target the whole peer network, for
instance by means of changing the attitudes of bystanders
(Salmivalli et al. 2005) or restructuring classroom networks
as suggested by Salmivalli (1999). Because socially intel-
ligent bullies have the skills to interact and use the social
structure to harass victims, group interventions may be the
best choice to reduce their bullying. Individual interven-
tions, such as self-reflection or feedback about social
behavior (Salmivalli 1999), may be more appropriate for
bullies who are less well-connected and whose bullying is
more driven by individual forces rather than carried by the
structure of the peer network.
This study uniquely contributes to our understanding of
bullying behavior. The bully profiles that were identified
and the differences among them suggest that bullying in
adolescence may serve a variety of social functions that are
not a homogenous set. A framework was also provided to
relate the various social functions of bullying to
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
developmental changes in adolescence. Recognizing the
cross-sectional functional heterogeneity of bullying, in
conjunction with its longitudinal developmental variability
may be the next big challenge in bullying research.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by a Master’s
Research Grant from the Behavioural Science Institute to the first
author. The authors are grateful to the students who participated in
this study. Special thanks are also due to the teachers and adminis-
trators of the Valuas College, Venlo and the BBC College, Panningen,
The Netherlands who made this research possible.
References
Andreou, E. (2004). Bully/victim problems and their association with
Machiavellianism and self-efficacy in Greek primary school
children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 297–
309.
Archer, J. (2001). A strategic approach to aggression. Social
Development, 10, 267–271.
Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. A. (2001). Varieties of childhood
bullying: Values, emotion process, and social competence.
Social Development, 10, 59–73.
Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. (1989). Young children’s attribution of
action to beliefs and desires. Child Development, 60, 946–964.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do
girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends regarding
direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–
127.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukianen, A. (2000). Social
intelligence - empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 5, 191–200.
Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures.
American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1170–1182.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for
windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA:
Analytic Technologies.
Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Schuengel, F. E., & Terwogt, M. M.
(2003). Links between social information processing in middle
childhood and involvement in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 29,
116–127.
Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Unique and
interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement
in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. New
York: Academic Press.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Borch, C. (2006). Developmental trajectories
of adolescent popularity: A growth curve modelling analysis.
Journal of Adolescence, 29, 935–959.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to
reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association
between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75,
147–163.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in
the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
14, 102–105.
Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin,
W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer
interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). New York:
Guilford.
Cillessen, A. H. N., van IJzendoorn, H. W., van Lieshout, C. F. M., &
Hartup, W. W. (1992). Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys:
Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63, 893–905.
1051
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and
types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 18, 557–570.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of
aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes
in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 62, 812–826.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of
social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social
adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1999). ‘‘Superiority’’ is in the eye of
the beholder: A comment on Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham.
Social Development, 8, 128–131.
de Bruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Heterogeneity of girls’
consensual popularity: Academic and interpersonal behavioral
profiles. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 435–445.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns
of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of
social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 10, 389–410.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations
among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154–165.
Estell, D. B., Cairns, R. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2002).
Aggression in inner-city early elementary classrooms: Individual
and peer-group configurations. Merrill -Palmer Quarterly, 48,
52–76.
Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2007). Bullies and victims
in rural African American youth: Behavioral characteristics and
social network placement. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 145–159.
Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, L., O’Neal, K. K., & Cairns, B.
D. (2003). Rejected bullies or popular leaders? The social
relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African American early
adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 99, 992–1004.
French, D. C. (1990). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected girls. Child
Development, 61, 2028–2031.
Garandeau, C. F., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). From indirect
aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on
bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 11, 612–625.
Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying:
What’s wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528–539.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy
predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggres-
sive Behavior, 33, 467–476.
Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. (2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm &
P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multi-
variate statistics (pp. 147–205). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (in press). Developmental
changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and
adolescence. Social Development.
Meijs, N., Cillessen, A. H. N., Scholte, R. H. J., Segers, E., &
Spijkerman, R. (in press). Social intelligence and academic
achievement as predictors of adolescent popularity. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J. K., Simons-
Morten, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US
youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
Olweus, D. (1989). The Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo,
Bergen, Norwegen.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a
school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and
peer perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer
status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144.
123
1052
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies,
victims, and aggressive victims: Factors related to group
affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 216–234.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of
bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition
from primary school through secondary school. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280.
Putallaz, M., Grimes, L. C., Foster, J. K., Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie,
J. D., & Dearing, K. (2007). Overt and relational aggression and
victimization: Multiple perspectives within the school setting.
Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523–547.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & van Acker, R. (2000).
Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial config-
urations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14–24.
Salmivalli, C. (1999). The participant role approach to school
bullying: Implications for interventions. Journal of Adolescence,
22, 453–459.
Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). Female aggression revisited:
Variable- and person-centered approaches to studying gender
differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive Behav-
ior, 30, 158–163.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression
and sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of
aggression matter? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41,
17–24.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying
intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75, 465–487.
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.
Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive
aggression among school bullies, victims and bully-victims.
Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30–44.
Sentse, M., Scholte, R., Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2007). Person-
group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation
with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35,
1009–1019.
Silvera, D. H., Martinussen, M., & Dahl, T. I. (2001). The Tromsø
social intelligence scale: A self-report measure of social
intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313–319.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school
bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive
Behavior, 29, 239–268.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1041–1052
Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school:
Relationships with bullying, machiavellianism and personality.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 443–456.
Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2001). Components of machiavellian beliefs
in children: Relationships with personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 30, 137–148.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999a). Social cognition
and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999b). Bullying and
‘‘theory of mind’’. A critique of the ‘‘social skills deficit’’ view of
antisocial behavior. Social Development, 8, 117–127.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999c). Socially
undesirable need not be incompetent: A response to Crick and
Dodge. Social Development, 8, 132–134.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2001). It’s easy, it works,
and it makes me feel good. A response to Arsenio and Lemerise.
Social Development, 10, 74–78.
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is
power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157–176.
Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002).
Aggressive behaviors in social interaction and developmental
adaptation: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during
early adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205–224.
Author Biographies
Margot Peeters received her research master degree in Behavioral
Sciences at the Radboud University of Nijmegen. Her major research
interests include consequences and determinants of bullying behavior.
Antonius H. N. Cillessen is professor of psychology in the
Behavioral Science Institute at the Radboud University of Nijmegen.
His major research interests include peer rejection and popularity,
aggression, and research methods for developmental psychology. He
received his Ph.D. in developmental psychology at the Radboud
University of Nijmegen.
Ron H. J. Scholte is associate professor of education in the
Behavioural Science Institute at the Radboud University of Nijmegen.
His major research interests include family and peer relationships and
behavior problems in childhood and adolescence. He received his
Ph.D. in social sciences at the Radboud University of Nijmegen.