Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://yas.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Youth & Society can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://yas.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://yas.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/28/0044118X14547876.refs.html
What is This?
Article
Youth & Society
1 –21
Why Do Students Bully? © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
An Analysis of Motives sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X14547876
Behind Violence in yas.sagepub.com
Schools
Julia Fluck1
Abstract
Research on school bullying and violence has always been working with
taxonomies of bullying to categorize aggressive acts. Researchers distinguish
between direct and indirect or between physical, verbal, and relational
bullying. Cyberbullying is categorized either by type of action or by type
of medium. In this article, we propose another kind of categorization: the
taxonomy of reasons. A questionnaire was developed that asks for the five
dimensions “instrumental,” “power,” “sadism,” “ideology,” and “revenge.”
It was tested with middle-school children in Germany. While bullies claim
that their reasons were mostly revenge, victims mostly insinuate sadism and
power. Both groups claim that ideology and instrumental violence play a
little role. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) show that at least four of
the theoretically proposed dimensions make sense (except instrumentality).
A qualitative analysis of open answers shows that for future questionnaires,
the taxonomy should include additional dimensions, such as peer pressure
and lack of self-control.
Keywords
aggressive behavior/bullying, violent behavior, victimization, measurement
development
Corresponding Author:
Julia Fluck, Center for Educational Research, University Koblenz-Landau, Buergerstraße 23,
Landau 76829, Germany.
Email: fluck@zepf.uni-landau.de
Bullying in Schools
Although bullying in schools (defined as “aggressive behavior normally
characterized by repetition and imbalance of power”; Smith & Brain, 2000,
p. 1) has probably existed as long as schools themselves, we can look back on
a rather short period of research of only a bit more than 30 years. During this
time, information was gathered about criteria for definition, personality traits
of bullies and victims, forms of bullying, gender differences, coping strate-
gies, and consequences (Smith & Brain, 2000). Studies have shown early that
there are some cultural differences in understanding bullying (Smith, Cowie,
Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002). Compared with Western cultures, the Japanese
phenomenon “ijime,” for example, relies more on relational than on direct
aggression (Akiba, 2004). However, researchers mostly agree on the concep-
tual definitions of bullying. Of course, that does not mean there are no differ-
ences in, for example, prevalence rates among countries (for a detailed
comparison of countries, see Smith et al., 1999).
This article reviews existing taxonomies (categorization systems) for tra-
ditional bullying and cyberbullying and proposes to add a new taxonomy by
type of reason. Taxonomies are an important area of research for two reasons:
First, by defining categories of a phenomenon, they form a rationale for oper-
ationalizing the construct. Questionnaire items are developed based on those
categories, which makes it important to establish exhaustive taxonomies that
cover all aspects of a phenomenon. Second, taxonomies can be used as a
foundation for more elaborate research questions. For example, only the dis-
tinction between physical, verbal, and relational forms of bullying made it
possible to understand gender differences. Especially for new phenomena,
like cyberbullying, good taxonomies are crucial for understanding more
about their true nature.
Cyberbullying
Since the new millennium, research has started to focus on a new type of
violence among children and adolescents that uses the fast evolving new
media as a method to bully others. Early studies have focused mostly on the
prevalence of cyberbullying and on the differences to traditional bullying.
Only of late, researchers try to cover the basics, which have so far been
neglected: conceptualization, methodology, and theoretical foundation
(Bauman, Cross, & Walker, 2013). A consensus has not been reached on defi-
nition (Tokunaga, 2010), measurement (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009), or cat-
egorization. In this article, we follow the definition by Smith et al. (2008)
“[Cyberbullying is] an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or
individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against
a victim who cannot easily defend him- or herself” (p. 376). For a critical
discussion of the definition, see Smith, Del Barrio, and Tokunaga (2013) and
Bauman, Underwood, and Card (2013).
Clearly, the different types of cyberbullying are not equal in terms of the skills
needed to engage in the behavior as well as the impact they have on victims. It
would be interesting to determine if there is an association between a
perpetrator’s motivation (e.g., revenge vs. fun) and the type of media used to
cyberbully. (p. 185)
revenge, ideology, and sadism. Pinker (2011) takes up this taxonomy of rea-
sons (TOR) but adds a fifth category: power—arguing that the need for power
is a special kind of instrumental violence that is universal in human beings
(McClelland, 1987). In this study, we used the five-factor variant—assuming
that if power were not inherently different from instrumental bullying, this
would be displayed in the data.
A questionnaire that tries to cover all common motives and order them
along theoretically as well as empirically founded dimensions has not yet
been developed for the study of bullying motives. However, the issue of
motives has been addressed in theoretical as well as in empirical works. In
the following overview, the five types of reasons of the TOR are presented
and discussed with regard to school bullying and violence.
Instrumental Violence
We call behavior instrumental violence when the perpetrator attacks the vic-
tim to reach an aim he or she cannot reach with non-violent means. Olweus
(1993) suggests that a common reason for bullying is the fact that the bullies
often blackmail their victims to give them money or valuable items. However,
little is known if this motive plays a significant role and what other kinds of
instrumental violence might be important for bullying.
Power
Violence motivated by a need to exercise power occurs when the perpetrator
hopes to secure or to enhance his or her position within a social entity. This
issue has been addressed on the outskirts of research on gender differences,
which often focuses on the reasons why girls use different kinds of violence
than boys (Coyne et al., 2006; Siann, Callaghan, Glissov, Lockhart, &
Rawson, 1994). The means they use may be different, but the aims they use
them for are the same. Boys as well as girls use violence to maintain or
improve their position in the “pecking order” of the class.
Revenge
Children and adolescents as well as adults can react angry and aggressive
when being threatened and attacked, especially when they feel the attack was
unjustified. Especially in the context of cyberbullying, the question is dis-
cussed if this might be a medium for the physically weak to take revenge on
their real-life bullies.
Ideology
In-group/out-group phenomena play an important role in human interactions
and can eventually lead to violence toward individuals who we perceive to
belong to the out-group (Brewer, 1999). When it comes to bullying, the traits
that increase the chance of becoming a schoolyard victim seem to be rather
psychological ones (e.g., low self-esteem, shyness, introversion) than vari-
ables such as ethnicity, social status, outer appearance, sexual orientation,
religious affiliation, and other obvious traits that distinguish the individual
from the majority (Siann et al., 1994). Thus, we can expect that ideologist
reasons play a rather minor role.
Sadism
Sadism sounds like a rather harsh term for interactions between children and
adolescents. But sadism does not necessarily include needles and pins but
merely describes the feeling of joy that is being drawn from watching another
person suffer. In the classroom, this can simply mean that fellow students are
harassed out of boredom, which was indeed one of the main reasons girls
named for bullying others (Owens, Shute, & Slee, 2000).
The TOR was designed to categorize acts of violent and antisocial behav-
ior in human adults, ranging from gossip to robbery and much more serious
forms of violence such as (mass) murder. This study aims to find out if the
five categories are also applicable to the living environment of middle-school
students in an educational context. Three major questions are in focus here:
1. What are the most common motives for bullying in schools (includ-
ing cyberbullying)?
2. Is the empirical factor structure identical with the theoretical concept
as proposed by Baumeister (2001) and Pinker (2011)?
3. Are there any additional reasons relevant in the everyday life of mid-
dle-school students that are not covered by the TOR?
Method
Participants
A questionnaire was presented to 578 middle-school students from five
schools from a rural area in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, by
teachers in training. Rhineland-Palatinate is one of 16 German states, wealth
and educational level are consistent with the German average. The schools
Frequency (in %)
Note. The letters in the item name indicate the theoretically assumed affiliation to a
dimension. R = revenge; M = power; S = sadism; Z = instrumental; I = ideology.
Results
Most Common Motives
Table 1 gives an overview on the motives rated most common by the bullies.
The five-point scale is here being transformed into a three-point-scale with
the values “never,” “seldom,” and “often.” The rationale behind this is the
fact that bullying requires—per definition—that victimization occurs repeat-
edly and over a longer period of time. When incidents occur more seldom,
some authors speak of “soft” or “less severe” bullying (Borg, 1999). In any
case, even seldom acts can be described as “violence” because violence does
not demand repetition as a criterion. We can use those incidents to get a clear
picture on the existence and distribution of motives, but we have to keep in
mind that—strictly speaking—this is not bullying.
The rating of the bullies yields a rather clear picture: The items for revenge
are on the very top of the list followed by (less frequently) the items on power
and sadism. Sadistic behavior was however attributed more often to fun than
to boredom. Bullying motivated by ideology seems to play a rather minor
role, and instrumental violence seems to occur on only very few occasions.
The perspective of the victims as presented in Table 2 yields a somewhat
different picture.
The victims attribute the bullies’ behavior mostly to sadism or an urge for
power. Revenge and ideology also play a role. When it comes to ideology, it
is interesting to observe that the victims agree with the bullies on the fact that
belonging to a minority is not a very common reason for being bullied. The
same results were found with regard to instrumental bullying.
The bullies’ perspective. Probably due to very little variance in the instrumen-
tal items (instrumental bullying was hardly ever reported and by the bullies
even less than by the victims; see above), the model containing all five fac-
tors did not converge. The results of the non-converging solution indicated a
misfit of the factor “instrumental bullying,” so in a second step, the factor
instrumental bullying was removed from the model (as it has little practical
relevance anyway) and a four-factor-version was being calculated. The
results of this model are depicted on the left side of Figure 1. Only a single
adaption had to be made with the four-factor-solution: Item I_15 (victim was
fan of an unpopular group) showed loadings >1 with the ideology factor.
Instead of fixing the variance a more conservative approach was used and the
item was removed from the model (Chen, Bollen, Paxton, Curran, & Kirby,
2001).
As visible on the left side of Figure 1, all items have factor loadings >.50,
except for Item 4_M (victim stood between bully and his friends) with a load-
ing of only λ = .26. This is not surprising as the other two items on the factor
(bully wants to show who is stronger; bully wanted to demonstrate power)
are both about the relationship between bully and victim and 4_M is about the
relationship between the bully and a third party. In spite of the rather low fac-
tor loading, the item is left in the model for theoretical reasons. The fit indices
Frequency (in %)
Note. The letters in the item name indicate the theoretically assumed affiliation to a
dimension. R = revenge; M = power; S = sadism; Z = instrumental; I = ideology.
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) show that the model fits the data
very well. (The fit indices used in this analysis can be interpreted as follows:
The CFI indicates acceptable model fit when >.90 and good model fit when
>.95; ideally, values should even exceed .97. The TLI has similar criteria and
demand values >.95 for acceptable and >.97 for good model fit. The RMSEA
shows good model fit when 0 < RMSEA < .05 and acceptable model fit when
.05 < RMSEA < .08; T. A. Brown, 2006; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger,
& Müller, 2003).
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of reasons from the bullies’ (left side) and
from the victim’s (right side) perspective.
Note. CFI = comparative fit indices; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation
The victims’ perspective. The CFA over the victims’ answers is portrayed on
the right side of Figure 1. For the victims’ perspective, the theoretically
assumed factor structure could be verified without any adaptations. All items
show satisfactory factor loadings of λ ≥ .30. The intercorrelations between
the latent factors are all rather high with .57 ≤ r ≤ .94 and higher than the
intercorrelations in the bullies’ perspective. The highest correlation (r = .94)
is between “sadism” and “power”; “instrumental bullying” and “power” (r =
.86) share 74% of their variance. However, the model fit is not entirely satis-
factory: While the RMSEA is in the range of acceptable model fit, CFI and
TLI indicate sub-standard model fit.
Number of Number of
Key word incidents Key word incidents
Revenge 36 Peer pressure 49
Fun 26 Provocation 20
Social status 13 Self-defense 9
(power)
Deserved attack 7 Coping with 7
(revenge) emotions
Being different 6 Antipathy 7
(ideology)
Thoughtlessness 6
kinds of reasons. Table 3 shows how frequent the different key words were
assigned.
First, let us consider the reasons consistent with the TOR taxonomy (see
the left-hand side of Table 3). The order of the frequencies seems to validate
the findings from the quantitative item analysis. Revenge is named most often,
followed by fun (sadistic) and power. Seven participants explicitly mention
that the victim simply deserved being bullied without further explaining how
or why they deserved this kind of treatment. Bullying out of ideological rea-
sons was mentioned only 6 times (3%) where bullies justified their behavior
with the victim being “different” or “weird.” Instrumental bullying in the form
of blackmail for money or valuables was not mentioned at all.
The right-hand side of Table 3 shows the key words that were at first sight
inconsistent with the TOR. Forty-nine students name “peer pressure” as a
reason for bullying someone. With 26% of all mentioned reasons, peer pres-
sure seems to play a huge role as a motivator. Seven of the participants
explicitly use this word, which has to the reader a negative connotation of
being coerced into something. This feeling is evident from wordings such as
“in order not to be bullied as well (boy, 14)” or “[I bullied] maybe a little.
Only for the others to see that I am on their side . . . (girl, 13).” However, the
group can also foster rather positive feelings: “It makes me feel good being
part of a group (boy, 15).”
Provocation is also mentioned very often as a reason for violence, but
other motives also seem to play (although probably a minor) a role:
Discussion
Most Common Motives
It is no surprise that bullies and victims differ in their assessment of motives.
Human beings process information in ways that allow them to keep a positive
picture of themselves. Both bullies and victims find themselves in situations
where—without justification—their self-worth is threatened. For the bully,
hurting others is in contrast to the self-perception of being a nice person,
whereas being bullied by others might be contradictory to the picture of one-
self as a likable person. For both groups, the result is cognitive dissonance
(Festinger, 1957), which can be overcome by reasonable explanations for
those situations. It is known from research on aggression in general
(Baumeister, 2001) that victims and offenders give very different reasons for
an attack: Offenders can usually justify their behavior with solid reasons that
make it seem like they did not have any other choice but choosing violent
means. Such reasons include being provoked, defense or revenge against ear-
lier attacks by the victim and so on. Victims, however, claim that the perpe-
trators did not actually have any comprehensible reason at all. Instead, they
think the offenders have acted purely out of their evil spirit, without the
slightest reason or provocation. Baumeister (2001) calls this phenomenon
“the myth of pure evil.” The objective “truth” probably lies somewhere in
between both perspectives. Due to the fact that both groups use such self-
justifications for the reduction of their own cognitive dissonance, all parties
involved actually believe in the accuracy of their perspective (i.e., they do not
just lie to others to convince third parties, although the deception of others
might play a role as well as self-deception).
The results of the frequency analyses over the most common motives fit
perfectly within the theoretical framework of the “myth of pure evil.”
Opinions differ quite a lot when it comes to the most common motives. While
bullies give revenge as the most common motive and name sadism and power
only in second place, it is the other way round with the victims, that is, the
victim more often sees the bullying as something that happens either out of
no reason at all (but just for the fun of doing it) or motivated by “lower”
motives (such as the gain or demonstration of power), whereas the bullies
argue with the justification of their behavior by revenge. This finding is con-
sistent with the literature and therefore not very surprising. More interesting
are the facts on which both groups agree: As expected, ideology plays a rather
small role as a motive for violence and bullying (Siann et al., 1994) and
instrumentality plays hardly a role at all. Olweus’ (1993) assumption on bul-
lies’ blackmailing for money or valuables seems to be falsified by the data—
occurrences like these are rather the exception than the rule. Still, in schools
from poorer environments, those material reasons might play a bigger role.
Future studies should focus on the question if social class might be factor that
enhances this kind of motivation.
sadism and power indicates that victims can hardly differentiate between
those two reasons.
As for the question of power and instrumental bullying, we have only the
victim data to check Pinker’s hypothesis that they are two different dimen-
sions (the factor “instrumental” was not included in the CFA model of the
bullies). Although the association is rather high, there remains 25% of non-
shared variance, which is why we can quite safely assume that, though
related, instrumental and power bullying are two different phenomena.
Practical Relevance
Studying motives is not only interesting for researchers who want to under-
stand the causes of human behavior. For teachers, social workers, and school
psychologists, it is also important to know and understand the dynamics
behind (cyber-)bullying. For them, it could be useful to investigate the situa-
tion in their school with a simple questionnaire containing TOR items. The
strategies for fighting bullying will depend on the most common motives in
this particular school.
The results of this study are also relevant for the assessment of bullying
and cyberbullying by questionnaires. Using all three of the currently existing
taxonomies takes little space and time, and yields a huge additional benefit in
information. As mentioned above, we suggest using all three taxonomies in
questionnaire studies. Researchers should also consider including open ques-
tions in their studies of new phenomena such as cyberbullying. The reality of
adolescents’ lives at school might (as was the case in this study) yield catego-
ries that were not thought off before.
Limitations
Bullying in schools is still a rather sensitive topic in German schools.
Therefore, the school administrators did not allow questions on parents’
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to establish a TOR for motives behind bullying in
schools. Based on an existing five-factor theory, most common motives were
identified, and the theoretically assumed factors were tested for factor valid-
ity. Open questions on motives were used to find additional reasons not cov-
ered in the original TOR.
The results show that the taxonomy of reasons can be applied to bullying
in schools, but some fine-tuning is needed for the taxonomy to reflect the
circumstances under which middle-school students live and learn together—
especially when it comes to the influence of the peer group.
Especially for new phenomena such as cyberbullying, good taxonomies
are crucial for understanding its true nature. They help us grasp a more accu-
rate concept of cyberbullying by providing insights on what exactly hap-
pened, how it was carried out, and what the underlying reasons were.
Questionnaires on bullying and on cyberbullying should therefore include
items on reasons. Those items should not replace items in established taxono-
mies but complement them with a further aspect that has been neglected until
now.
Future research needs to be done to develop and validate a revised TOR
scale that includes items on the motives from the qualitative results. Also, it
would be interesting to investigate the relationship between the different cat-
egories in TOA, TOM, and TOR: Do bullies choose different media and
actions, depending on their motives? The existing taxonomies (TOA and
TOM) should also be investigated more thoroughly. So far, they are used
without proof of validity.
In the future, researchers and practitioners should also consider distin-
guishing between the person(s) who initiated a behavior and all those who
only bully out of peer pressure. The latter group is distinct from the initiating
bullies as well as from the bystanders and deserves more attention.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
References
Aboujaoude, E., & Koran, L. M. (2010). Impulse control disorders. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
Criminology, 30, 47-88.
Akiba, M. (2004). Nature and correlates of ijime—Bullying in Japanese middle school.
International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 216-236. doi:10.1016/j.
ijer.2005.07.002
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of
affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human
Development, 41, 387-397. doi:10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3
Bauman, S., Cross, D., & Walker, J. L. (Eds.). (2013). Principles of cyberbullying
research: Definitions, measures, and methodology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bauman, S., Underwood, M. K., & Card, N. (2013). Definitions: Another perspective
and a proposal for beginning with cyberaggression. In S. Bauman, D. Cross, &
J. L. Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures,
and methodology (pp. 41-46). New York, NY: Routledge.
Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty (1st Holt paperback
ed.). New York, NY: Holt.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A new method for an old behavior.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 265-277.
Borg, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of bullying among primary and secondary
school children. Educational Research, 41, 137-153.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?
Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429-444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126
Brown, B. B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R. M. Lerner & L. D.
Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 363-394).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (Methodology
in the social sciences). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions
in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological
Methods & Research, 29, 468-508. doi:10.1177/0049124101029004003
Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2006). “We’re not friends anymore! Unless . . . ”: The
frequency and harmfulness of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 32, 294-307.
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face
bullying. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182-188.
doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182
Erdur-Baker, O. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gen-
der and frequent and risky usage of Internet-mediated communication tools. New
Media & Society, 12, 109-125. doi:10.1177/1461444809341260
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Katzer, C. (2008). Tatort Internet: Cyberbullying und sexuelle Viktimisierung
von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Chatrooms [The Internet as a crime scene:
Cyberbullying and sexual victimization of childen and adolescents in chat-
rooms]. Forum Kriminalprävention, 3, 26-33.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who are the
victims? Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
21, 25-36. doi:10.1027/1864-1105.21.1.25
Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2008). Electronic bullying among middle school stu-
dents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22-S30.
Lösel, F., & Bliesener, T. (1999). Germany. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas,
D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-
national perspective (pp. 225-249). London, England: Routledge.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measure-
ment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 230-232.
doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.230
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R.,
. . .Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A com-
parison across six European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15, 455-463. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford,
UK, Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. Educational Leadership, 60(6),
12-17.
Ortega, R., Calmaestra, J., & Mora Merchán, J. (2008). Cyberbullying. International
Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8, 183-192.
Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!” Indirect aggres-
sion among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67-83.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among
youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth & Society, 43, 727-751.
Petermann, F. (2003). Klinische Kinderpsychologie Band 8: Bullying unter Schülern.
Erscheinungsformen, Risikobedingungen und Interventionskonzepte [Clinical
child psychology issue 8: Bullying among pupils: appearance, risk factors and
concepts for intervention]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New
York, NY: Viking.
Riebel, J. (2008). Spotten, Schimpfen, Schlagen . . . Gewalt unter Schülern—Bullying
und Cyberbullying [Taunting, harassing, punching… Violence among pupils:
bullying and cyberbullying]. Landau, Germany: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of
structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
Seals, D., & Young, Y. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relation-
ship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem and depression. Adolescence,
38, 735-747.
Sharp, S., & Smith, P. K. (1991). Bullying in the UK schools: The DES sheffield bul-
lying project. Early Child Development and Care, 77, 47-55.
Siann, G., Callaghan, M., Glissov, P., Lockhart, R., & Rawson, L. (1994). Who gets
bullied? The effect of school, gender and ethnic group. Educational Research,
36, 123-134.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bully-
ing? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2007.00611.x
Smith, P. K. (2009). Cyberbullying. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology,
217(4), 180-181. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.180
Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of
research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1-9.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. (2002). Definitions
of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a
fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119-1133.
Smith, P. K., Del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). Definitions of bullying
and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In S. Bauman, D. Cross, & J. L.
Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and
methodology (pp. 26-40.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. & Slee, P. (Eds.).
(1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London,
England: Routledge.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and
synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 277-287.
Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge
of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research
Press.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors and
targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1308-1316.
Author Biography
Julia Fluck is a researcher and lecturer at the Center for Educational Research. Her
research interests are psychological diagnostics and school bullying and violence as
well as cyberbullying.