AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 28, pages 257–272 (2002)

The Perceived Consequences of Responding

to Bullying With Aggression: A Study of Male
and Female Adult Prisoners
Jane L. Ireland* and John Archer

Psychology Department, Ashworth Hospital Authority, Liverpool, United Kingdom

Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

This research addresses whether prisoners who bully others and/or are victimised themselves can be
distinguished by the perceptions that they have of the consequences about using aggression as a solu-
tion to being bullied. Male and female adult prisoners (n = 406) were required to complete a self-
report behavioural checklist (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist [DIPC]) that addressed
the level of bullying behaviour at their present institution. Prisoners were also required to complete a
questionnaire (Bullying Social Problem Solving Questionnaire [BSPSQ]) that provided them with
five different bullying situations and asked them what would be the consequences if they were to
respond aggressively to each. Four categories of prisoners were examined: pure bullies, pure victims,
those who reported both bullying others and being victimised themselves (bully/victims), and those
not involved in bullying/victimisation. Pure bullies reported significantly more positive than negative
consequences of aggression compared with the overall category mean in response to theft-related
bullying. Bully/victims reported significantly more positive than negative consequences compared
with the overall category mean in response to indirect and indirect-physical bullying. Those not in-
volved reported significantly more negative than positive consequences compared with the overall
category mean in response to all scenarios except one involving indirect-physical bullying. Males
reported significantly more positive than negative consequences compared with females for all types
of bullying. Aggr. Behav. 28:257–272, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Key words: bullying; consequences of aggression; gender differences; prisoners

INTRODUCTION
Aggressive relationships between individuals can be categorised into two distinct types: sym-
metrical or high-conflict relationships, in which both members aggress toward and are victimised
by the other member, and asymmetrical or low-conflict relationships, in which one member adopts
the role of aggressor and the other the role of victim [Perry et al., 1992]. Bullying represents the
latter category of aggressive relationship [Olweus, 1996] and is a distinct form of aggression that
can be either direct or indirect in nature [Rivers and Smith, 1994]. Bullying is not limited to chil-
dren but can occur among adults as well [Randall, 1997] in a variety of environmental settings,

*Correspondence to: Jane L. Ireland, Psychology Department, Ashworth Hospital, Parkbourn, Liverpool, L31 1HW.
Received 5 February 2001; amended version accepted 12 March 2001
Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience. wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.80001

© 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

258 Ireland and Archer

such as prisons [Ireland and Archer, 1996], the armed forces [Randall, 1997], and the workplace
[Baron et al., 1999], although the majority of research into the workplace has used terms other than
bullying, such as “workplace violence” and “workplace mistreatment” [Spratlen, 1995].
Bullying among prisoners has long been recognised as a serious issue. In 1991, the British
National Prison Survey found that approximately one fifth of prisoners indicated that they did
not feel safe from being injured or bullied by other prisoners and that almost 1 in 10 stated that
they had been assaulted by another prisoner in a 6-month period [Walmsley et al., 1992]. The
ability to dominate and aggress toward others through bullying does carry with it a certain de-
gree of [high] status from both prisoners and staff [Connell and Farrington, 1996]. In contrast,
being seen as a victim of bullying is stigmatising.
The majority of research in prisons has addressed the nature and extent of bullying. Recently,
researchers have begun to move away from addressing these areas to assessing variables that
may aide the identification of those involved in bullying so as to further understand what moti-
vates and maintains bullying behaviour among prisoners. This research has included an exami-
nation of personal variables (e.g., age, offence, and sentence length) and behavioural
characteristics (e.g., negative behaviour toward staff and drug-related behaviour) associated
with bullies and victims, and also attitudes toward bullying [Ireland and Ireland, 2000], self-
esteem [Duckworth, 1998], and social problem-solving [Ireland, 2001a].
The role of social problem-solving in relation to bullying among prisoners has been relatively
under-researched, although it may prove important [Ireland, 2001a], with social-cognitive abili-
ties viewed as antecedents of good social adjustment [Kaukiainen et al., 1999]. However, the
majority of research addressing social problem-solving and aggression has focused on samples
of children and adolescents. Research into adults is limited, and, thus, a review of studies in-
volving children and adolescents is relevant to the present study, although their applicability to
an adult sample is not known.
Dodge [1986] proposed a social information-processing model to explain how individuals
solve social problems. A number of steps to the process were described: encoding social cues in
the environment, forming a mental representation and interpretation of these cues, searching for
a possible behavioural response, deciding on a response, and, finally, enacting the chosen re-
sponse [Quiggle et al., 1992]. Dodge [1986] argued that deficits within any of these steps could
lead to an aggressive behavioural response in certain individuals. Indeed, Pakaslahti and
Keltikangas-Järvinen [1996] reported that “studies have shown that aggressive adolescents de-
tect situations as hostile, consider few facts, select inappropriate and aggressive goals, produce
few problem-solving solutions, which are qualitatively poor, ineffective, and aggressive, and
evaluate aggressive responses as favourable” (p 250). Keltikangas-Järvinen and Pakaslahti [1999]
state how aggressive children and adolescents appear to use aggression as a way of dealing with
interpersonal conflict situations more than non-aggressive children and adolescents. However,
it is worth recognising that in certain environments, an aggressive response to a social problem
may be advantageous and not necessarily an indication of a deficit. In a prison environment, for
example, where the range of solutions to a social problem involving conflict may be limited,
violence may represent an adaptive response.
An individual’s ability to predict consequences accurately may be of particular interest. The
beliefs that an individual holds regarding the consequences of behaving in a specific way to
solve a social problem may determine their response to it. Richard and Dodge [1982] refer to
previous researchers’ views that if enough solutions are produced in response to a social prob-
lem, the most effective solution will be available to the person to use. But they argue that the
single ability of producing many solutions may not be enough to explain all of the variance in
 Responding to Bullying with Aggression 259

problem-solving behaviours. Two additional skills may also be involved: the generation of ef-
fective solutions and the evaluation of each potential solution.
Relating this to aggression, Quiggle et al. [1992] found that aggressive children, in compari-
son to non-aggressive children, showed a tendency toward evaluating aggressive behaviour more
favourably. Similarly, Boldizar et al. [1989] found that aggressive children attached more value
to the positive and rewarding outcomes of aggression and less to the negative outcomes than
non-aggressive children. This was supported by Pierce and Cohen [1995], who stated that hos-
tile responses were evaluated more favourably by aggressive than non-aggressive children.
Lochman and Dodge [1994] found that adolescent boys rated as moderately aggressive held
higher expectations that aggressive behaviour would produce positive results than adolescents
rated as severely aggressive and that older boys anticipated more favourable outcomes for ag-
gressive behaviour than younger boys. Lochman and Dodge [1994] concluded from this that
outcome evaluation favouring aggression was one of the key characteristics of aggressive chil-
dren. Perry et al. [1986] found that aggressive children were more assured of their ability to
utilise aggression to obtain their desired reward. From this it was suggested that the aggressive
child had learned to value what can be achieved through aggression, and, thus, they were more
likely than non-aggressive children to resort to aggression to get what they want. The aggressive
child therefore formulates strong beliefs about the positive consequences of the use of aggres-
sion and attaches less value to negative consequences [Pierce and Cohen, 1995].
To relate this more specifically to bullying, Randall [1997] describes the bully as invariably
perceiving the intentions of others as hostile, thus seeking revenge against them. This “revenge
motif” allows the bully to hold a favourable attitude toward violence as a way of solving prob-
lems. Slee [1993] reported that children who bullied, and those who were the victims of bullying
differed in their beliefs about the consequences of responding to aggression with aggression.
Bullies reported that they feared getting into trouble, whereas victims feared retaliation and an
escalation of the aggression. Sutton et al. [1996] offer a different perspective on the issue of
social cognition and bullying, stating that “social cognition and the ‘theory of mind, an ability to
understand and manipulate the mental states of others, may be seen as highly adaptive skills in
bullying” (p 1). Although concerned more with social perspective taking and the initial stages of
Dodge’s model, Sutton et al. [1996] suggest that some children who bully may actually be very
good at processing social information and that they may use this skill to their advantage. They
argue that the view of the bully as an individual lacking in social perspective-taking skills is
based not on empirical research studying bullies but on the extrapolation of findings concerning
aggressive or conduct-disordered children, which fails to take into account the different meth-
ods used to bully others [Sutton et al., 1996]. They argue against a simple application of Dodge’s
model, suggesting that bullies may process the first two stages of the model accurately (i.e.,
perceiving and interpreting social cues) but that they may differ with regard to goal selection,
response strategy generation, and response decisions [Sutton et al., 1999]; it may be that bullies
view the cost and benefits of aggression differently than the other groups.
Gender differences are prominent in various forms of aggression [e.g., Archer and Haigh,
1997; Björkqvist, 1994, Geen, 1998] and are important with relation to how individuals evalu-
ate solutions to social problems. Deluty [1983] found that when asking children to judge aggres-
sive, assertive, and submissive solutions to interpersonal conflict situations, boys rated aggressive
solutions as significantly more “good,” “strong,” “wise,” “successful,” “kind,” and “brave” than
girls did. Deluty [1985] reported that aggressive boys tended to judge aggressive solutions posi-
tively, in terms of what would make them “feel best,” whereas aggressive girls judged aggres-
sive solutions in terms of their success. Archer (unpublished data, 1999), among a student sample,
260 Ireland and Archer

found that males rated aggression and fighting more positively than did females. These different
evaluations of aggression and conflict would be expected from a socialisation view, since boys
are socialised to a greater extent into assimilating an aggressive [masculine] self-image, an im-
age that is reinforced by the rules and roles of an institutional environment [Askew, 1989].
The aim of the present study was to assess whether adult bullies and victims differed in their
perceptions of the consequences associated with using aggression as a response to being bullied.
Prisoners were asked to complete a self-report behavioural checklist (Direct and Indirect Pris-
oner Behaviour Checklist [DIPC]) that addressed direct and indirect forms of bullying behaviour
at their present institution. The questionnaire asked prisoners what behaviours they had engaged
in and what they had experienced in the previous week. Prisoners also completed a question-
naire (Bullying Social Problem Solving Questionnaire [BSPSQ]) that provided them with five
different bullying scenarios and asked them what the consequences would be if they were to
respond aggressively to them. The aim was to assess one of the skills identified by Richard and
Dodge [1982] as important for social problem-solving, namely, the evaluation of (aggressive)
solutions as measured by the possible consequences that an aggressive response could entail.
The study was exploratory, with no research addressing this element of problem-solving with a
prisoner sample. In addition, the majority of research into bullying among prisoners has focused
on the nature and extent of the problem. How prisoners view aggression as a strategy for dealing
with being bullied has not been explored. It was predicted that those engaging in bullying others
would be more likely to report a positive outcome, whereas victims would be more likely to
report a negative outcome. It was also predicted that there would be a gender difference, with
males perceiving aggression to have more positive consequences than females.

METHOD
Participants
A total of 406 adult prisoners from four separate prisons in England took part in the study. Of
these, 196 were female and 210 were male.
Female participants. The mean age of the adult female sample was 30.4 years; 71.7% were
of White ethnic origin, 18.8% were West Indian/Afro-Caribbean, 1% were Asian (Indian sub-
continent), 6.3% were Mixed, and 2.1% were classified as “other.” The mean length of sentence
being served (excluding those on remand and those serving life sentences) was 38 months, and
the mean total length of time served in a penal institution throughout their lifetime was 24
months. 75.9% of the sample was sentenced. Of these, 27.8% were serving for a violent offence,
14.9% for an acquisitive offence, 31.8% for drug-related offences, 0.7% for a sex offence, and
10% for other offences (driving offences, bigamy, etc.); 3.4% were serving a life sentence for
murder, and 11.4% of the sample did not state the offence with which they were charged. The
female sample was taken from two prisons, which housed both young and adult prisoners to-
gether (note, only adult prisoners were sampled for this study).
Male participants. The mean age of the adult male sample was 34.5 years; 82.2% were of
White ethnic origin, 7.7% were West Indian/Afro-Caribbean, 2.9% were Asian (Indian sub-
continent), and 7.2% were Mixed. The mean length of sentence being served (excluding those
serving life sentences) was 107.9 months, and the mean total length of time served in a penal
institution throughout their lifetime was 94.5 months. All were sentenced. With regard to of-
fences, 42.4% were serving for a violent offence, 4.3% for an acquisitive offence, 12.9% for
drug-related offences, 16.7% for a sex offence, and 3.4% for other offences (driving offences,
criminal damage, etc.); 15.2% were serving a life sentence for murder, and 5.2% of the sample
 Responding to Bullying with Aggression 261

did not state the offence with which they were charged. The male sample was taken from two
prisons, both of which housed solely adult prisoners.
Measures
Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC) [Ireland, 19981]. The DIPC
incorporates a modified version of a behavioural checklist originally devised by Beck and Smith
[1995] and included an Indirect Victimisation Index (IVI) created by Ireland [1997]. The DIPC
provided participants with a number of discrete behaviours indicative of “being bullied” or of
“bullying others.” Participants were asked to identify which had occurred to them or which they
had engaged in, in the previous week, by indicating, “yes” or “no” to each item. The term “bul-
lying” was not used in the checklist, thus avoiding problems with defining this form of aggres-
sion [e.g., Ireland, 1999a]. Behaviours recorded on the DIPC involve physical, psychological/
verbal, sex-related, theft-related, and indirect types of bullying. The working definition of prison
bullying, which the DIPC was based on, is as follows: “an individual is being bullied when they
are the victim of direct and/or indirect aggression happening on a weekly basis, by the same or
different perpetrator(s). Severe single incidences of aggression can be viewed as bullying, as
can ‘one-off’ incidences of aggression where the individual either believes or fears that they are
at risk of future victimisation by the same perpetrator or others” [Ireland, 2001b].
Bullying Social Problem Solving Questionnaire (BSPSQ) [Ireland, 1999b1]. The BSPSQ
is a vignette-style questionnaire that involves five different scenarios describing incidents of
bullying that could occur between prisoners. The specific situations were based on the most
common forms of self-reported “victimisation” within each category reported by adult prison-
ers [Ireland, 1997]. The situations were limited to “prisoner to prisoner” situations and did not
include any situations that may occur between prisoners and officers. The scenarios also speci-
fied that each incident described had happened “more than once” or had been “going on for
quite a while,” thus fitting accepted definitions of bullying and ensuring that bullying rather
than victimisation was being measured. The five different scenarios were based on indirect-
physical,2 theft-related, sexual, psychological/verbal, and indirect types of bullying. The order
of the scenarios was counterbalanced across the sample. A description of each scenario is as
follows:

1. Indirect-physical bullying: “You go into your cell/dorm to find that your radio has been
thrown onto the floor and is now broken. This is the second time in the past week that your
property has been deliberately damaged by another prisoner. You have found out which
prisoner has done this.”
2. Theft-related bullying: “You go into your cell/dorm to find that your tobacco has been
stolen. This is the second time in the past week that a prisoner has stolen your tobacco. You
have found out which prisoner has done this.”
3. Sexual bullying: “A prisoner has been sexually harassing you by making sexual comments
or remarks to you. The same prisoner has been harassing you in this way for the past
week.”

1
Permission to use either the DIPC or the BSPSQ must be obtained from the author prior to use.
2
An example of indirect-physical bullying was chosen since this represented one of the most frequent forms reported
by adult prisoners in Ireland [1997]. It was also considered that including a scenario where a prisoner had been directly
physically assaulted (e.g., hit/kicked) by the same prisoner on two occasions in the previous week (thus fitting the
definition of bullying) before reacting would be unrealistic.
262 Ireland and Archer

4. Verbal bullying: “A prisoner has been calling you names in front of other prisoners. He or
she has done this more than once in the past week.”
5. Indirect bullying: “Another prisoner has been gossiping and spreading rumours about you.
This has been going on for quite while.”

It is worth noting that prisoners were not asked to choose a consequence based on how they
would actually respond to the situation: they were simply asked what would happen if they were
to be aggressive. Their actual response to the situation was not of interest in the present paper.
Six possible consequences were provided based on an examination of previous research on
beliefs about aggression involving children. This research showed that children hold positive,
neutral, or negative beliefs about using aggression to obtain a goal [Pierce and Cohen, 1995;
Slee, 1993]. The specific consequences were based on school- and prison-based research that
suggested them as possible consequences of aggression. Two positive responses (i.e., “other
prisoners would respect you” and “you would feel better”), three negative responses (i.e., “the
situation would get worse,” “you would feel worse,” and “you would get into trouble with the
officers”), and one neutral response (i.e., “the situation would not change”) were included. Pris-
oners could only select one of the responses. All responses were piloted on a sample of prisoners
prior to their use in the final study (see below).
Procedure
Pilot study. A total of 25 adult male and 19 adult female prisoners completed a version of the
BSPSQ. The procedure for administering the questionnaire to both genders was identical to that
employed for the final study (see the “Main Study” sub-section) with the exception that all
individual prisoners were asked for feedback on any problems that they had identified with the
BSPSQ. Prisoners were also asked whether the scenarios were realistic. On the basis of this pilot
study, a number of modifications were made to the BSPSQ, mainly related to the format and
wording of the questionnaire. No prisoners, when asked for feedback, reported that the situa-
tions were unrealistic and unlikely to happen.
Main study. The questionnaires for the final study were administered from May to July
1998. With the exception of one of the female prisons (which will be discussed separately), all
prisoners completed the questionnaires individually in their cells. Officers unlocked each cell
door or flap individually, and prisoners were asked, by the researcher, if they were willing to
take part in the research. It was made clear to all prisoners that they did not have to take part and
could decline if they wished. They were asked to read the preceding information contained on a
coversheet, including a description of the research and an explanation of its purpose. The
coversheet also included a statement informing prisoners of the confidentiality of their responses,
stating that no one but the researcher would see their individual responses and that no one would
come back to them to ask about what they had written. The anonymity of the questionnaires was
also verbally stressed to the prisoners, and they were informed not to place their name or pris-
oner identification number on the form. All prisoners were provided with an envelope into which
to place the completed questionnaire, and they were informed that the researcher would be back
in approximately 1 hour to collect the questionnaire.
In one of the female prisons, most of the procedure was identical, except that prisoners did not
complete the questionnaires in individual cells. Instead, they were seated in available rooms,
usually wing offices or association rooms, at separate corners, facing away from one another.
Wing offices were used because at this establishment prisoners did not have individual cells.
Prisoners were verbally informed not to confer or discuss the questions with any other prisoners,
 Responding to Bullying with Aggression 263

were provided with an envelope into which to place their questionnaire, and were requested to
hand it to the researcher on leaving the room.
In all establishments, all prisoners present at the time of sampling were approached in this
way. “Unavailable” prisoners included those absent for a number of reasons, e.g., they could be
working elsewhere in the prison, receiving a visit, attending an education class, or attending
court.
On the basis of the DIPC checklist, prisoners were separated into four bully-categories. If
they reported at least one bully item and no victim items they were classified as “pure bullies”;
if they reported at least one bully item and one victim item they were classified “bully/vic-
tims”; if they reported at least one victim item and no bully items they were classified “pure
victims”; and if they reported no bully or victim items they were classified as “not-involved.”
Individuals were only classified into one category. All defaced, non-completed questionnaires
(total = 8.8%) were disregarded and were not entered into the analysis. This included prisoners
who had completed the BSPSQ but not the DIPC since there would be no way of allocating
them to any of the above categories. Results were analysed via SPSS using descriptive statis-
tics and Logit analysis.

RESULTS
Classification Into the Different Bully-Categories Based on the DIPC
Table I shows the breakdown of the sample according to the bully-category to which they
belonged. All categories should be viewed as distinct from one another. Not all the sample
completed both the DIPC and the BSPSQ.3 The following results are based on those who com-
pleted both the DIPC and the BSPSQ: 328 prisoners responded to the indirect-physical scenario
(174 males and 154 females), 326 to the theft-related scenario (173 males and 153 females), 323
to the sex-related scenario (173 males and 150 females), 330 to the verbal scenario (177 males
and 153 females), and 332 to the indirect scenario (178 males and 154 females).
All participants who completed the BSPSQ incorrectly are presented as “missing” in the en-
suing results. The majority of these involved participants providing more that one consequence
rather than omitting to answer the item.

TABLE I. Classification of Participants According to the DIPC*

Males (n = 210) Females (n = 196) Overall (n = 406)
Bully-category % (n) % (n) % (n)
Pure bully 17.1 (36) 11.2 (22) 14.3 (58)
Bully/victim 33.8 (71) 36.2 (71) 35.0 (142)
Pure victim 21.0 (44) 25.0 (49) 22.9 (93)
Not-involved 28.1 (59) 28.0 (54) 27.8 (113)
*Individuals were classified into one category only, and all percentages are rounded.
DIPC = Direct and Indirect Behaviour Checklist.

3
The full sample was retained here to provide a true description of the prevalence of each of the four different groups.
Analysis of the DIPC findings and descriptive characteristics associated with each bully-category (e.g., offence, age,
institutional history and prison-based behaviours) are to be published separately [Ireland, 2001b]. In addition, an
analysis of a separate section of the BSPSQ (associated with the number and sequencing of generated solutions to
bullying) have been published in an earlier paper [Ireland, 2001a].
264 Ireland and Archer

Individual consequences of aggression. Three-way frequency analyses were performed

to develop Logit models for each of the six pre-determined consequences of aggression.
As mentioned previously, prisoners were only allowed to select one of the six consequences
for each bullying scenario. In each model, the dichotomous dependent variable represented
the specific consequence chosen for each situation (e.g., for the consequence, “You would
get into trouble with the officers,” 1 = chosen, 2 = not chosen). The categorical indepen-
dent variables for each model were gender (coded as 1 for male and 2 for female) and
bully-category (coded as 1 for pure bully, 2 for bully/victim, 3 for pure victim, and 4 for
not-involved). Since there were no directional hypotheses made regarding individual con-
sequences, levels of significance for z scores were stricter and were limited to 1.96 (.05)
and 2.58 (.01).
Positive vs. negative consequences of aggression. Since it was predicted that those
engaged in bullying others would be more likely to report a positive outcome than victims
who would report a negative consequence, and that males would report a more positive
outcome than females, a further model was used to examine the collapsed categories of
positive vs. negative consequences. The consequences were collapsed into positive and
negative, with “Other prisoners would respect you” and “You would feel better” represent-
ing positive categories and “You would get into trouble with the officers,” “The situation
would get worse,” and “You would feel worse” representing negative categories. In each
model the dichotomous dependent variable represented the consequence chosen (e.g., 1 for
positive and 2 for negative). The categorical independent variables remained the same as
for previous models. Since directions were predicted regarding positive and negative con-
sequences, levels of significance for z scores were kept to 1.65 (.05) and 2.37 (.01).
A preliminary run with a saturated model was carried out on all models (for individual
and collapsed consequences) first to identify effects whose parameters differed from zero.
Any effects with non-significant parameters were deleted from the model: if an effect had
more than one level, the effect was retained if at least one parameter was significant. In all
cases, model fit was ascertained following an examination of standardised residuals and
the likelihood ratio G2. For post hoc contrasts (e.g., higher-order interactions between gen-
der, bully-category, and the dependant variable), P values were restricted to .01 (z = 2.58)
for acceptance into the model.4
Simple contrasts were chosen for all factors apart from bully-category where deviation
parameter estimates were chosen instead so that each bully-category could be compared
with the overall (pooled) mean effect. This method was chosen since there was no control
group. The aim of the present research was to look at all groups in turn.
The results for individual consequences are presented first, followed by positive vs. nega-
tive consequences. Each bullying scenario was analysed separately so that the responses to
each different type of bullying could be explored. Regarding individual consequences, the
results are presented below, overall and for males and females in Table II, and for each
bully-category in Table III. Table IV gives positive vs. negative consequences overall and
for males and females, and Table V gives the findings for each bully-category.

4
With this criteria, no significant higher-order interactions were found and thus the results presented are limited to
overall gender and overall bully-category.
 Responding to Bullying with Aggression 265
TABLE II. Percentage of Prisoners Selecting Each Individual Consequence Across Each Situation
Individual consequencea
You would The Other You The
get into situation prisoners would situation
trouble with would get would feel would not You would
the officers worse respect you better change feel worse
Scenario % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Indirect-physical
Overall n = 302 32.8 (99) 17.2 (52) 8.9 (27) 28.1 (85) 8.9 (27) 4.0 (12)
Males n = 158, 16m 30.4 (48) 13.9 (22) 10.8 (17) 37.3 (59) 5.1 (8) 2.5 (4)
Females n = 144, 10m 35.4 (51) 20.8 (30) 6.9 (10) 18.1 (26) 13.2 (19) 5.6 (8)
Theft-related
Overall n = 293 29.4 (86) 16.4 (48) 12.3 (36) 30.4 (89) 7.8 (23) 3.8 (11)
Males n = 157, 16m 24.8 (39) 14.6 (23) 17.2 (27) 35.0 (55) 5.7 (9) 2.5 (4)
Females n = 136, 17m 34.6 (47) 18.4 (25) 6.6 (9) 25.0 (34) 10.3 (14) 5.1 (7)
Sexual
Overall n = 297 31 (92) 17.5 (52) 5.7 (17) 35 (59) 6.4 (19) 4.4 (13)
Males n = 161, 12m 31.1 (50) 9.9 (16) 8.1 (13) 44.7 (72) 3.1 (5) 3.1 (5)
Females n = 136, 14m 30.9 (42) 26.5 (36) 2.9 (4) 23.5 (32) 10.3 (14) 5.9 (8)
Verbal
Overall n = 298 24.2 (72) 22.5 (67) 8.4 (25) 32.3 (96) 7.4 (22) 5.4 (16)
Males n = 156, 21m 20.5 (32) 18.6 (29) 10.9 (17) 38.5 (60) 5.8 (9) 5.8 (9)
Females n = 142, 11m 28.2 (40) 26.8 (38) 5.6 (8) 25.4 (36) 9.2 (13) 4.9 (7)
Indirect
Overall n = 301 25.6 (77) 21.6 (65) 7.3 (22) 32.3 (97) 9.6 (29) 3.7 (11)
Males n = 158, 20m 23.4 (37) 17.7 (28) 10.8 (17) 37.3 (59) 7.6 (12) 3.2 (5)
Females n = 143, 11m 28 (40) 25.9 (37) 3.5 (5) 26.6 (38) 11.9 (17) 4.2 (6)
a
Prisoners were allowed to respond to one consequence per scenario only. m = missing.

Individual Consequences of Aggressive Responding

1. Indirect-physical bullying: Males were more likely than females to report the consequence,
“You would feel better” (λ = 1.01, z = 3.69, P < .01). Females were more likely than males to
report the consequence, “The situation would not change” (λ = –1.05, z = –2.39, P < .05).
2. Theft-related bullying: Males were more likely than females to report the consequence,
“Other prisoners would respect you” (λ = 1.05, z = 2.55, P < .05). More pure bullies
reported this consequence compared with the overall mean (λ = .80, z = 2.40, P < .05).
More members of the not-involved category reported the consequence, “You would get
into trouble with the officers” compared with the overall mean (λ = .48, z = 2.27, P < .05).
Female bully/victims were more likely than male bully/victims to report this consequence
(λ = –1.00, z = –2.26, P < .05).
3. Sex-related bullying: Females were more likely than males to report the consequences “The
situation would get worse” (λ = –1.18, z = –3.61, P < .01) and “The situation would not
change” (λ = –.61, z = –2.36, P < .05). Males were more likely than females to report the
consequence “You would feel better” (λ = .97, z = 3.76, P < .01).
4. Verbal bullying: Males were more likely than females to reporting the consequence, “You
would feel better” (λ = .58, z = 2.27, P < .05). Fewer bully/victims reported the conse-
quence, “You would get into trouble with the officers” compared with the overall mean (λ
= –.48, z = –2.06, P <.05).
266 Ireland and Archer
TABLE III. Percentage of Prisoners Selecting Each Individual Consequence for Each Situation Across
Bully-Category
Individual consequencea
You would The Other You The
get into situation prisoners would situation
trouble with would get would feel would not You would
the officers worse respect you better change feel worse
Scenario % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Indirect-physical
Pure bully n = 43, 8m 34.9 (15) 14.0 (6) 16.3 (7) 20.9 (9) 11.6 (5) 2.3 (1)
Bully/victim n = 108, 10m 29.6 (32) 13.9 (15) 10.2 (11) 34.3 (37) 7.4 (8) 4.6 (5)
Pure victim n = 69, 2m 36.2 (25) 20.3 (14) 14.3 (3) 24.6 (17) 10.1 (7) 4.3 (3)
Not-involved n = 82, 6m 32.9 (27) 20.7 (17) 7.3 (6) 26.8 (22) 8.5 (7) 3.7 (3)
Theft-related
Pure bully n = 44, 7m 25.0 (11) 9.1 (4) 22.7 (10) 31.8 (14) 6.8 (3) 4.5 (2)
Bully/victim n = 105, 12m 23.8 (25) 16.2 (17) 16.2 (17) 33.3 (35) 7.6 (8) 2.9 (3)
Pure victim n = 63, 3m 28.6 (18) 17.5 (11) 6.3 (4) 31.7 (20) 11.1 (7) 4.8 (3)
Not-involved n = 81, 1m 39.0 (32) 19.5 (16) 6.1 (5) 24.4 (20) 6.1 (5) 3.7 (3)
Sexual
Pure bully n = 42, 4m 31.0 (13) 9.5 (4) 7.1 (3) 38.1 (16) 11.9 (5) 2.4 (1)
Bully/victim n = 106, 11m 28.3 (30) 16.0 (17) 7.5 (8) 37.7 (40) 7.5 (8) 2.8 (3)
Pure victim n = 67 31.3 (21) 19.4 (13) 6.0 (4) 32.8 (22) 11.1 (7) 4.8 (3)
Not-involved n = 82, 11m 34.1 (28) 22.0 (18) 2.4 (2) 31.7 (26) 2.4 (2) 7.3 (6)
Verbal
Pure bully n = 41, 6m 22.0 (9) 12.2 (5) 9.8 (4) 43.9 (18) 4.9 (2) 7.3 (3)
Bully/victim n = 113, 6m 16.8 (19) 24.8 (28) 11.5 (13) 33.6 (38) 8.8 (10) 4.4 (5)
Pure victim n = 65, 5m 27.7 (18) 21.5 (14) 6.2 (4) 27.7 (18) 10.8 (7) 6.2 (4)
Not-involved n = 79, 15m 32.9 (26) 25.3 (20) 5.1 (4) 27.8 (22) 3.8 (3) 5.1 (4)
Indirect
Pure bully n = 44, 6m 29.5 (13) 15.9 (7) 4.5 (2) 43.2 (19) 4.5 (2) 2.3 (1)
Bully/victim n = 110, 12m 19.1 (21) 20.9 (23) 10.0 (11) 34.5 (38) 12.7 (14) 2.7 (3)
Pure victim n = 69, 2m 21.7 (15) 23.2 (16) 10.1 (7) 29 (20) 8.7 (6) 7.2 (5)
Not-involved n = 78, 12m 35.9 (28) 24.4 (19) 2.6 (2) 25.6 (20) 9.0 (7) 2.6 (2)
a
Prisoners were allowed to respond to one consequence per scenario only. m = missing.

5. Indirect bullying: More males reported the consequence, “Other prisoners would re-
spect you” than females (λ = 1.29, z = 2.44, P < .05). There was a trend for more
males than females to report the consequence, “You would feel better” (λ = .48, z =
1.89, P < .10).
Positive vs. Negative Consequences5
Gender differences. Males were more likely than females to report positive consequences in
relation to all five scenarios (indirect-physical, λ = .94, z = 3.62, P < .01; theft-related, λ = .84,
z = 3.26, P < .01; sex-related, λ = 1.05, z = 4.07, P < .01; verbal, λ = .74, z = 2.92, P < .01; and
indirect, λ = .77, z = 3.00, P < .01).

5
Neutral responses were not included in this analysis, and thus the percentages presented for negative and positive
consequences were calculated excluding this category.
 Responding to Bullying with Aggression 267
TABLE IV. Percentage of Prisoners Selecting Each Overall Consequence Across Each Situation
Overall consequencea
Positive Negative Neutral
Scenario % (n) % (n) % (n)
Indirect-physical
Overall n = 302 37.1 (112) 54 (163) 8.9 (27)
Males n = 158, 16m 48.1 (76) 46.8 (74) 5.1 (8)
Females n = 144, 10m 25 (36) 61.8 (89) 13.2 (19)
Theft-related
Overall n = 293 42.7 (125) 49.5 (145) 7.8 (23)
Males n = 157, 16m 52.2 (82) 42.0 (66) 5.7 (9)
Females n = 136, 17m 31.6 (43) 58.1 (79) 10.3 (14)
Sexual
Overall n = 297 40.7 (121) 52.9 (157) 6.4 (19)
Males n = 161, 12m 52.8 (85) 44.1 (71) 3.1 (5)
Females n = 136, 14m 26.5 (36) 63.2 (86) 10.3 (14)
Verbal
Overall n = 298 40.6 (121) 52 (155) 7.4 (22)
Males n = 156, 21m 49.4 (77) 44.9 (70) 5.8 (9)
Females n = 142, 11m 31.0 (44) 59.9 (85) 9.2 (13)
Indirect
Overall n = 301 39.5 (119) 50.8 (153) 9.9 (29)
Males n = 158, 20m 48.1 (76) 44.3 (70) 7.6 (12)
Females n = 143, 11m 30.1 (43) 58 (83) 12.5 (17)
a
Responses were placed into one category only. m = missing.

Differences across bully-category. Differences were restricted to the pure bully, bully/vic-
tim, and not-involved categories.
Pure bully. More members of this category reported positive than negative consequences
compared with the overall mean in response to theft-related bullying (λ = .44, z = 1.67, P < .05).
Bully/victim. More members of this category reported positive than negative consequences
compared with the overall mean in response to indirect (λ = .33, z = 1.68, P < .05) and indirect-
physical (λ = .38, z = 1.88, P < .05) bullying.
Not-involved. More members of this category reported negative than positive consequences
compared with the overall mean in response to theft-related (λ = .44, z = 1.67, P < .05), sexual (λ
= –.38, z = –1.74, P < .05), verbal (λ = –.43, z = –1.96, P < .05), and indirect (λ = –.56, z = –2.47,
P < .01) bullying.

DISCUSSION
A number of differences were observed between gender and across bully-category regarding
the perceived consequences of using aggression to solve a conflict situation involving bullying.
Both the pure bully and the bully/victim category reported more positive than negative conse-
quences of aggression compared with the overall mean in response to some of the scenarios
(theft-related for pure bullies, indirect and indirect-physical for bully/victims). This is consis-
tent with previous research suggesting that aggressive children and adolescents evaluate hostile
and aggressive responses more favourably than non-aggressive children [e.g., Boldizar et al.,
1989; Pakaslahti and Keltikangas-Järvinen, 1996; Pierce and Cohen, 1995; Quiggle et al., 1992]
and that aggressive children have learned to value what can be achieved through aggression
268 Ireland and Archer
TABLE V. Percentage of Prisoners Selecting Each Overall Consequence Across for Each Situation Across
Bully-Category
Overall consequencea
Positive Negative Neutral
Scenario % (n) % (n) % (n)
Indirect-physical
Pure bully n = 43, 8m 37.2 (16) 51.2 (22) 11.6 (5)
Bully/victim n = 108, 10m 44.4 (48) 48.1 (52) 7.4 (8)
Pure victim n = 69, 2m 29.0 (20) 60.9 (42) 10.1 (7)
Not-involved n = 82, 6m 34.1 (28) 57.3 (47) 8.5 (7)
Theft-related
Pure bully n = 44, 7m 54.5 (24) 38.6 (17) 6.8 (3)
Bully/victim n = 105, 12m 49.5 (52) 42.9 (45) 7.6 (8)
Pure victim n = 63, 3m 38.1 (24) 50.8 (32) 11.1 (7)
Not-involved n = 81, 11m 30.9 (25) 63.0 (51) 6.2 (5)
Sexual
Pure bully n = 42, 4m 45.2 (19) 42.9 (18) 11.9 (5)
Bully/victim n = 106, 11m 45.3 (48) 47.2 (50) 7.5 (8)
Pure victim n = 67m 38.8 (26) 55.2 (37) 6.0 (4)
Not-involved n = 82, 11m 34.1 (28) 63.4 (52) 2.4 (2)
Verbal
Pure bully n = 41, 6m 53.7 (22) 41.5 (17) 4.9 (2)
Bully/victim n = 113, 6m 45.1 (51) 46.0 (52) 8.8 (10)
Pure victim n = 65, 5m 33.8 (22) 55.4 (36) 10.8 (7)
Not-involved n = 79, 15m 32.9 (26) 63.3 (50) 3.8 (3)
Indirect
Pure bully n = 44, 6m 47.7 (21) 47.7 (21) 4.5 (2)
Bully/victim n = 110, 12m 44.5 (49) 42.7 (47) 12.7 (14)
Pure victim n = 69, 2m 39.1 (27) 52.2 (36) 8.7 (6)
Not-involved n = 78, 12m 28.2 (22) 62.8 (49) 9.0 (7)
a
Responses were placed into one category only. m = missing.

[Perry et al., 1986]. These findings are also consistent with Randall [1997], who states that
bullies hold favourable attitudes toward violence and the use of violence to solve problems.
Thus, the hypothesis that those who engaged in bullying others would be more likely to report a
positive outcome was supported, but only in relation to some scenarios.
The positive consequences reported by the pure bully and bully/victim categories contrast with
those not-involved, who reported significantly more negative than positive consequences com-
pared with the overall mean for all scenarios (aside from indirect-physical, which did not reach
significance). Pure victims did not differ from the overall mean on any scenarios. Thus, the hy-
pothesis that victims would be more likely to report a negative outcome was not supported.
The finding that those who engaged in bullying viewed the benefits of aggression differently
from those in other categories could be explained with reference to the prisoner peer group. In a
prison environment, the peer group may encourage the use of aggression as an appropriate and
successful method of obtaining power over others. As previously discussed, bullying in prison
provides a certain degree of status to the bully [Connell and Farrington, 1996], and pure bullies
in the present study did report the belief (in response to theft-related bullying) that being aggres-
sive encourages other prisoners to respect you. Bullies may therefore have learned what can be
achieved through aggression and as a result value this behaviour.
 Responding to Bullying with Aggression 269

How an individual evaluates the consequences of a particular solution, in this case an aggres-
sive one, is a skill that has been identified as an important step in solving a problem [Richard and
Dodge, 1982]. However, the model of social problem-solving proposed by Dodge [1986] is
based on the assumption that overt aggression and intimidation are not adaptive or productive
ways of dealing with others. This may be an over-optimistic assessment for the prison environ-
ment, where the ability to coerce others is likely to confer benefits and violence is often viewed
as an adaptive and effective response to conflict. Thus, the findings regarding those who bully
should, perhaps, not be viewed as an indication of a deficit in social cognition but rather as a bias
or “inclination”: those who bully others appear to be biased toward viewing the consequences of
aggression in positive as opposed to negative terms. The difference observed between pure
bullies and bully/victims suggests that any biases that bully/victims have in evaluating solutions
are restricted to conflict situations involving indirect and indirect-physical bullying, whereas for
pure bullies they are in relation to theft-related bullying. These findings highlight the impor-
tance of taking into account the environment in which social-cognitive processes are taking
place when interpreting results.
For all bullying scenarios, males were, as predicted, significantly more likely than females to
report more positive than negative consequences. This is consistent with the findings of Deluty
[1983] that boys rated aggressive alternatives more favourably than girls. In the present study,
the positive value that males placed on using aggression as a solution might result from the
aggressive self-image (or masculine stereotype) that they have been encouraged to adopt in the
male prison environment [Askew, 1989] and over the longer term through socialisation. How-
ever, it is worth noting that aggression is inconsistent with the feminine stereotype and is not a
valued attribute for females [White and Kowalski, 1994], regardless of whether the environ-
ment they are in promotes aggression. Associated with these stereotypes, males are more likely
to view aggressive behaviour as an appropriate and successful way of obtaining a goal and to
value it. This is consistent with findings that adult males evaluate aggression and fighting more
positively than females do (J. Archer, unpublished data, 1999). Gender differences in the indi-
vidual consequences of aggression found in the present study are consistent with this analysis.
Males were more likely than females to report that they would “feel better” if they responded to
indirect-physical, sexual, and verbal bullying aggressively (with a trend to report this for indi-
rect bullying). Females, however, were more likely to report the consequences “the situation
would not change” in response to indirect-physical and sexual bullying and “the situation would
get worse” for sexual bullying. Female bully/victims were also significantly more likely than
male bully/victims to report the consequence “you would get into trouble with the officers” as a
response to theft-related bullying. Overall, males seemed to judge aggressive solutions in terms
of what would make them “feel best,” whereas females judged them in terms of how successful
they would be in solving the problem. This could suggest that males focus more on the emo-
tional outcomes of aggression than females, who appear to focus more on instrumental out-
comes. Exploring this in more detail is perhaps one direction that future research could take.
There were some limitations in the present methodology that could have influenced the re-
sults. Although prisoners were assured of anonymity, they may still have been reluctant to dis-
close incidences of victimisation for fear of reprisals from their aggressors or fear of being
labelled as a victim, which is in itself stigmatising. In a prison environment, admitting to behaviour
categorised as bullying does carry with it a certain degree of status [Connell and Farrington,
1996]. This could have led to under-estimation of victimisation and over-estimation of the num-
ber of prisoners reporting behaviours that could be categorised as bullying others. This may
have affected the classification of prisoners into each of the four bully-categories. There are also
270 Ireland and Archer

problems inherent in sampling subjects from different prisons. For example, it was not possible
to match male and female prisoners in terms of the environmental setting of the prisons, security
categories (since male and female prisoners are categorised differently in the United Kingdom),
or on characteristics such as sentence length and institutional history.
It should also be acknowledged that the gender differences reported may actually reflect dif-
ferences between offence types. A higher proportion of males had committed a violent offence
(including murder) than females (57.6% vs. 31.2%). Although on one hand this could be inter-
preted as further support for the finding that males hold more positive beliefs about using ag-
gression than females because they are more likely to have a history of being aggressive anyway,
it should be acknowledged that the offence that prisoners presented with may have represented
a confounding variable. The present study did not control for offence type when conducting the
analysis for two reasons. First, it could not be reliably determined from the information pro-
vided by prisoners whether they had a history of violent offending. Prisoners were only asked to
provide details of their current conviction and not their pre-convictions. Second, one quarter of
the female sample was on remand and thus could not provide information on their offence.
Without knowing what their offence is, it is not be possible to say what proportion of them had
committed a violent offence. Thus, it cannot be said with any certainty that males were more
likely to have a current conviction for violence than females. However, controlling for offend-
ing history (notably past and present offences) may be a factor that future research addressing
gender differences among prisoners should consider.
Further limitations include prisoners’ responses to the BSPSQ question “In the above situ-
ation, if you were to respond to the prisoner in an aggressive way, which one of the following
do you think would be most likely to happen?” This question is open to the prisoner’s percep-
tions of what they considered an aggressive response to be. The present study did not control
for their interpretation of this question. The number of pre-determined consequences pro-
vided was also limited; little is known about prison-based bullying with regards to how indi-
viduals may respond to bullying and the motivations behind this. Future research could address
in more detail the number and type of possible consequences associated with responding to
bullying aggressively. There are also difficulties inherent in using self-reports in a forensic
setting [Crighton and Towl, 1995], where prisoners may feel obliged to complete them, or to
complete them positively if they are not assured that their responses will remain anonymous.
This latter issue may be particularly relevant to the present study, with researchers suggesting
that older (as opposed to younger) prisoners may be more likely to use the response style of
impression management when responding to measures to present themselves in a favourable
light [Weekes, 1993]. Finally, there are also problems in comparing the present findings with
previous research involving aggressive or disruptive children/adolescents; extrapolating find-
ings from such research to that addressing bullying behaviour is of questionable valuable
[Sutton et al., 1996].
However, the research does address an area not previously explored: prisoners’ perceptions
about the consequences of responding aggressively to an incident of bullying. The present re-
sults have a number of implications for tackling bullying and victimisation in prisons. The find-
ing that those who bully others perceive a positive outcome for using aggression suggests that
any intervention with them should address what is maintaining these positive judgments. Their
opinions about using other non-aggressive alternatives could also be examined. It could be specu-
lated that one factor that helps to maintain their positive judgments is a view that aggression is
an effective way of dealing with conflict in a prison setting and that it can lead to social rewards
in the form of status among their peers. In view of this, intervention may be better focused
 Responding to Bullying with Aggression 271

toward searching for other effective ways of obtaining social rewards from the peer group aside
from their use of aggression. The present results could also be considered in relation to Sutton et
al.’s [1996] “theory of mind” and the suggestion that bullies are in fact skilled at social problem-
solving. In a prison environment, it may be that the consequences they perceive are accurate,
which would suggest that they are, in contrast to the other bully-categories, actually skilled in
evaluating their use of aggression.
By moving beyond a purely descriptive analysis to addressing perceptions about the con-
sequences of aggression among the different bully-categories involved in bullying/victim-
isation, the present research has shown how such components can contribute to the
improvement of bullying intervention programs. However, more research is needed into the
role of social cognition and bullying behaviour among prisoners before any firm conclusions
can be drawn. There are a number of directions that future research could take. First, it would
be worth addressing staff perceptions of how prisoners should deal with bullying, particu-
larly whether staff consider that using aggression in such a situation would be an effective
(and adaptive) response for a prisoner. Second, the present study focused on hypothetical
bullying situations. Future research could ask prisoners how they have dealt with actual
incidents of bullying that have occurred to them. Prisoners could be asked to rate the effec-
tiveness of their responses. If aggression is an adaptive response to bullying in a prison, we
could expect prisoners to rate aggressive responses as more effective than non-aggressive
responses. Finally, it would also be worth exploring the earlier stages of Dodge’s [1986]
model and assessing whether adult bullies possess skills in social perspective taking (i.e.,
theory of mind) [Sutton et al., 1996].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Central
Lancashire. Thanks to Philip Birch and Carol Ireland for help with data collection and to Stasia
Osiowy for help with the development of the BSPSQ.

REFERENCES
Archer J, Haigh A. 1997. Do beliefs about aggression pre-
dict self-reported aggression? Br J Soc Psychol 36:
83–105.
Askew S. 1989. Aggressive behaviour in boys: to what
extent is it institutionalised? In: Tattum DP, Lane DA,
editors. Bullying in schools. Stoke on Trent: Trentham
Books. p 59–71.
Baron RA, Neuman J, Geddes D. 1999. Social and per-
sonal determinants of workplace aggression: evidence
for the impact of perceived injustice and the type A
behaviour pattern. Aggr Behav 25:281–296.
Beck G, Smith PK. 1995. An alternative assessment of
the prevalence of bullying among young offenders.
In: Beck G, Ireland J. Measuring bullying in prisons.
Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Division of Crimi-
nological and Legal Psychology Conference, Septem-
ber 15–17, Newbold Revel, London.
Björkqvist K. 1994. Sex differences in physical, verbal,
and indirect aggression: a review of recent research.
Sex Roles 30:177–188.
Boldizar JP, Perry DG, Perry LC. 1989. Outcome values
and aggression. Child Dev 60:571–579.
Connell A, Farrington D. 1996. Bullying amongst incar-
cerated young prisoners: developing an interview
schedule and some preliminary results. J Adolesc
19:75–93.
Crighton D, Towl GJ. 1995. Evaluation issues in group-
work. In: Towl GJ, editor. Groupwork in prisons: is-
sues in criminological and legal psychology. Leicester:
The British Psychological Society. p 23:9–14.
Deluty RH. 1983. Children’s evaluations of aggressive,
assertive and submissive responses. J Clin Child
Psychol 12:124–129.
Deluty RH. 1985. Cognitive mediation of aggressive, as-
sertive, and submissive behaviour in children. Int J
Behav Dev 8:355–369.
Dodge KA. 1986. A social information processing model
of social competence in children. In: Perlmutter M,
editor. Eighteenth Annual Minnesota Symposium on
Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p 77–125.
272 Ireland and Archer
Duckworth N. 1998, July. Can young people in a se-
cure environment be identified as potential victims
of bullying, by their behaviour within the secure
centre environment? MSc Dissertation, University
of Birmingham.
Geen RG. 1998. Processes and personal variables in af-
fective aggression. In: Geen RG, Donnerstein E, edi-
tors. Human aggression: theories, research and
implications for social policy. London: Academic
Press. p 1–17.
Ireland JL. 1997. Bullying amongst prisoners: a study of
gender differences, provictim attitudes and empathy.
MSc dissertation. Manchester, UK: The Manchester
Metropolitan University.
Ireland JL. 1998. Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour
Checklist (DIPC), University of Central Lancashire.
Ireland JL. 1999a. Bullying behaviours amongst male and
female prisoners: a study of young prisoners and
adults. Aggr Behav 25:161–178.
Ireland JL. 1999b. Bullying Social Problem Solving Ques-
tionnaire (BSPSQ). Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Central Lancashire.
Ireland JL. 2001a. The relationship between social prob-
lem-solving and bullying among male and female adult
prisoners. Aggr Behav 27:297–312.
Ireland JL. 2001b. Bullying behaviour among male and
female adult prisoners: a study of perpetrator and
victim characteristics. Legal Criminol Psychol 6:
229–246.
Ireland JL, Archer J. 1996. Descriptive analysis of bully-
ing in male and female adult prisoners. J Community
Appl Soc Psychol 6:35–47.
Ireland CA, Ireland JL. 2000. Descriptive analysis of the
nature and extent of bullying behaviour in a maximum-
security prison. Aggr Behav 26:213–233.
Kaukiainen A, Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, Österman K,
Salmivalli C, Rothberg S, Ahlbom A. 1999. The rela-
tionship between social intelligence, empathy, and
three types of aggression. Aggr Behav 25:81–89.
Keltikangas-Järvinen L, Pakaslahti L. 1999. Develop-
ment of social problem-solving strategies and
changes in aggressive behaviour: a 7-year follow-up
from childhood to late adolescence. Aggr Behav 25:
269–279.
Lochman JE, Dodge KA. 1994. Social-cognitive pro-
cesses of severely violent, moderately aggressive,
and nonaggressive boys. J Consult Clin Psychol 62:
366–374.
Olweus D. 1996. Bully/victim problems in school. Pros-
pects 26:331–359.
Pakaslahti L, Keltikangas-Järvinen L. 1996. Social ac-
ceptance and the relationship between aggressive prob-
lem-solving strategies and aggressive behaviour in
14-year-old adolescents. Eur J Pers 10:249–261.
Perry DG, Perry LC, Ramussen P. 1986. Cognitive so-
cial learning mediators of aggression. Child Dev 57:
700–711.
Perry DG, Perry LC, Kennedy E. 1992. Conflict and the
development of antisocial behaviour. In: Shantz CU,
Hartup WW, editors. Conflict in child and adolescent
development. London: Cambridge University Press.
Pierce KA, Cohen R. 1995. Aggressors and their victims:
toward a contextual framework for understanding
children’s aggressor-victim relationships. Dev Rev
15:292–310.
Quiggle NL, Garber J, Panak WF, Dodge KA. 1992. So-
cial information processing in aggressive and de-
pressed children. Child Dev 63:1305–1320.
Randall P. 1997. Adult bullying: perpetrators and victims.
London: Routledge.
Richard BA, Dodge KA. 1982. Social maladjustment and
problem solving in school-aged children. J Consult
Clin Psychol 50:226–233.
Rivers I, Smith PK. 1994. Types of bullying behaviour
and their correlates. Aggr Behav 20:359–368.
Slee PT. 1993. Bullying: a preliminary investigation of
its nature and the effects of social cognition. Early
Child Dev Care 87:47–57.
Spratlen LP. 1995. Interpersonal conflict which includes
mistreatment in a university workplace. Violence Vict
10:285–297.
Sutton J, Smith PK, Swettenhem J. 1996. Bullying: per-
spectives from social cognition. Paper presented at the
British Psychological Society Annual Conference,
April, London, UK.
Sutton J, Smith PK, Swettenhem J. 1999. Bullying and
“theory of mind”: a critique of the “social skills defi-
cit” view of anti-social behaviour. Soc Dev 8:117–127.
Walmsely R, Howard E, White S. 1992. The National
Prison Survey 1991: main findings. London: HMSO.
Weekes JR. 1993. Offender typologies: identifying treat-
ment-relevant personality characteristics. Res Of-
fender Program Issues 5:10–12.
White JW, Kowalski RM. 1994. Deconstructing the myth
of the non-aggressive woman: a feminist analysis.
Psychol Women Q 18:487–508.