Journal of Youth and Adolescence

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01285-z

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Classroom Status Hierarchy Moderates the Association between

Social Dominance Goals and Bullying Behavior in Middle Childhood
and Early Adolescence
Bin Pan1 Liang Zhang
●
1 ●
Linqin Ji1 Claire F. Garandeau2 Christina Salmivalli1,2 Wenxin Zhang1
● ● ●

Received: 10 April 2020 / Accepted: 1 July 2020

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Social dominance goals represent desires to be powerful and prominent among peers. Previous studies have documented that
endorsing social dominance goals is positively associated with bullying behavior. However, little is known about how
classroom context moderates the social dominance goals–bullying association. The present study examined the role of
classroom status hierarchy in the longitudinal association between social dominance goals and bullying in a sample of 1,603
1234567890();,:

children attending 17 grade 3 classrooms (n = 558, 46.2% girls, Mage = 9.33 years, SD = 0.44), 15 grade 4 classrooms (n =
1234567890();,:

491, 45.0% girls, Mage = 10.31 years, SD = 0.38) and 16 grade 7 classrooms (n = 554, 49.3% girls, Mage = 13.2 years, SD =
0.46) in China, followed for 1 year. Classroom peer status hierarchy was assessed by the within-classroom standard
deviation in perceived popularity. Social dominance goals were obtained through self-reports. Bullying was measured via
peer nomination. The multilevel models revealed that social dominance goals at Wave 1 predicted increases in bullying at
Wave 2 only in classrooms with higher status hierarchies, after controlling for gender, grade, classroom size, and classroom
gender distribution. These findings indicate that children who strive for social dominance goals are more likely to bully
others when power is less equally distributed in the classroom.
Keywords Classroom status hierarchy Social dominance goals Bullying Multilevel analysis
● ● ●

Introduction dominance goals and bullying, defined as repeated aggres-

From an evolutionary perspective (Pellegrini 2002; Salmi-
valli and Peets 2008), most bullying behaviors are goal-
oriented and motivated by a desire for social dominance,
that is a desire for high status, influence, and visibility
among peers. There is indeed evidence that those who
endorse social dominance goals are more likely to engage in
bullying behavior (Caravita and Cillessen 2012; Olthof
et al. 2011; Sijtsema et al. 2009). As goals and goal-
concordant behaviors could be activated and aroused by
social contexts (Lindenberg 2013), it is critical to under-
stand the role of context in the association between social
sion against a more vulnerable peer (Olweus 2013).
Classroom status hierarchy is a possible contextual factor
that moderates this association (Garandeau et al. 2011). A
clear status hierarchy, which reflects strong classroom
inequalities in social status, might promote bullying beha-
vior among social dominance-oriented children by making
bullying more socially rewarding and mitigating risks of
physical hurt and social costs (Reijntjes et al. 2013). Using a
1-year longitudinal design, the present study examines the
moderating role of classroom status hierarchy in the pro-
spective association between social dominance goals and
bullying behavior with a large Chinese sample.

Social Dominance Goals and Bullying

* Liang Zhang
zhangliang1@sdnu.edu.cn
Social dominance goals refer to desires to be powerful and
prominent among peers (Jarvinen and Nicholls 1996; Kiefer
1
Department of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, and Ryan 2008). An evolutionary approach has identified
Jinan, China bullying behavior as a strategy to establish and maintain social
2
Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland dominance within the group (Hawley 1999; Volk et al. 2012)

and empirical evidence shows that this strategy can be effec-
tive (e.g., Reijntjes et al. 2013). By picking on more vulnerable
peers, bullies can induce obedience and feelings of fear in their
peers (Volk et al. 2012), and further consolidate their dominant
position in the peer group (Pellegrini and Long 2002).
Therefore, children who are oriented to social dominance are
inclined to display bullying.
The positive association between dominance-like goals and
bullying among children and adolescents has been reported by
a substantial body of studies. For example, a cross-sectional
study reported that the endorsement of agentic goals (i.e., aims
toward power, mastery, and status) was positively associated
with bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence,
especially for children who were perceived as popular in the
classroom (Caravita and Cillessen 2012). Moreover, using a
dyadic approach, a study found that adolescents’ probability
of being a bully in bully-victim dyads was related to a high
level of agentic goals (Sijtsema et al. 2009). Furthermore,
another study found that bullies reported more desire to gain
power, dominance, and prestige than their peers in early
adolescence (Olthof et al. 2011).
Classroom Status Hierarchy and the Social
Dominance Goals–Bullying Association
Social dominance goals alone are likely insufficient to
explain bullying behavior. According to the goal-framing
theory (Lindenberg 2013), individuals become more sensi-
tive to the information about opportunities to realize their
goals when their specific goals are activated. Children who
view social dominance as their major goal will pay special
attention to the potential benefits and costs of bullying
behavior in the social contexts in which they find themselves
(Pouwels et al. 2019), as such behavior is their customary
means of attaining dominance. If they detect the cues that
bullying may facilitate the realization of their goals, at
minimal costs for themselves, they are more likely to engage
in bullying (Veenstra et al. 2007). Thus, it is important to
investigate how contextual factors influence the association
between social dominance goals and bullying behavior.
Social status hierarchy is a pervasive and fundamental
feature of social organization in human groups (Halevy
et al. 2011). In classroom settings, status hierarchy has been
generally operationalized as the standard deviation in per-
ceived popularity among the students in a classroom (Gar-
andeau et al. 2011; Zwaan et al. 2013). As perceived
popularity reflects power, dominance, and visibility among
peers (Cillessen and Marks 2011), classroom status hier-
archy represents the distribution of power and dominance in
the classroom. In classrooms with high levels of status
hierarchy, only few students are perceived as “popular” and
hold the power in the classroom, while in low-hierarchy
classrooms, children’s social status is relatively egalitarian.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
A longitudinal study found that a high level of status hier-
archy predicted increases in bullying 6 months later in a
sample of 11,296 adolescents from 583 classes in Finland
(Garandeau et al. 2014).
Highly hierarchical contexts may encourage children
who strive for social dominance to engage in bullying,
because such contexts might make it more likely that bul-
lying behaviors are rewarded with social benefits in the
form of high popularity. Consistent with this proposition,
several cross-sectional studies have found that in middle
childhood the association between aggression and popu-
larity was stronger in hierarchical classrooms where a small
number of students play a prominent role in interpersonal
connections (Ahn et al. 2010), and where levels of per-
ceived popularity vary considerably across students (Gar-
andeau et al. 2011, but see Zwaan et al. 2013). Similarly, a
recent longitudinal study revealed that higher levels of
classroom status hierarchy led to higher aggression–popu-
larity norms in the classroom (i.e., stronger positive within-
classroom association between bullying and popularity)
during adolescence (Laninga-Wijnen et al. 2019). Further-
more, dominance positions are scarce and valuable in highly
hierarchical classrooms (Garandeau et al. 2014). The pop-
ular children in such classrooms possess more power and
visibility than in the classrooms where social status is more
equally distributed. The salient reputational rewards
attached to bullying in such social environments should
increase the accessibility of social dominance goals, thereby
facilitating and reinforcing the bullying behavior of children
who desire dominance (Custers and Aarts 2010).
In addition to bringing social benefits to bullying chil-
dren, hierarchical classrooms might also reduce the costs of
bullying. The potential costs of bullying, such as physical
harm and loss of social approval, might often inhibit the
motivation to bully others (Veenstra et al. 2007). However,
victimized children are more likely to be unpopular and
rejected in highly hierarchical classrooms (Ahn et al. 2010).
Due to their low status, victims are less likely to resist or
receive protection from other peers when being bullied
(Huitsing et al. 2014). Therefore, children who endorse
social dominance goals may pick on these easy targets to
gain dominance at a low cost (Sijtsema et al. 2009).
Taken together, the above findings suggest that class-
room status hierarchy may relate to higher benefits and
lower costs for bullying behaviors. In classrooms of higher
status hierarchy, dominance-hungry children may be more
motivated to engage in bullying behavior due to the clear
social rewards of bullying and the victims’ higher vulner-
ability. However, to date, no study has investigated the role
of classroom status hierarchy in the association between
social dominance goals and bullying. Therefore, the present
study tests whether it has a moderating effect on social
dominance goals–bullying associations.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Other Possible Moderators of Social Dominance
Goals–Bullying Associations
Individual- and classroom-level demographic factors are
suspected to be predictive of the association between social
dominance goals and bullying behavior (e.g., Caravita and
Cillessen 2012). Therefore, the current study examined the
moderating effects of gender, grade, classroom size, and
classroom gender distribution.
Gender
Gender is an important factor to consider when examining
the association between social dominance goals and bully-
ing behavior (Rose and Rudolph 2006). Bullying, especially
physical bullying, was more common in boys (Smith et al.
2019). In China, both physical and relational bullying were
more prevalent among boys (Zhang et al. 2016), as col-
lectivistic cultures may inhibit the use of physical aggres-
sion but facilitate relational aggression for both genders
(Chen et al. 2019). Moreover, bullying is more likely to be
rewarded with status among boys than among girls (de
Bruyn et al. 2010; Caravita and Cillessen 2012). Therefore,
boys are more likely to regard bullying as an effective
approach to obtain social dominance (Rose and Rudolph
2006). Compared to girls, boys who endorse social dom-
inance goals are more likely to engage in physical aggres-
sion (Kiefer and Wang 2016; Ojanen et al. 2012) and less
likely to follow school rules (Kiefer and Ryan 2008).
Therefore, boys who endorse social dominance goals are
more likely than girls to engage in bullying.
Grade
The association of social dominance goals with bullying
behavior may be different in middle childhood and in
early adolescence. Along with the developmental transi-
tion from childhood to adolescence, children transit from
elementary schools to secondary schools. During the re-
establishment of dominance in a new, larger social system
(Pellegrini and Long 2002), both endorsement of social
dominance goals and bullying behavior tend to increase
(LaFontana and Cillessen 2010). Furthermore, bullying is
increasingly reinforced by social rewards in peer inter-
actions from middle childhood to early adolescence
(Caravita and Cillessen 2012; Cillessen and Mayeux
2004; Garandeau et al. 2011). These findings led us to
expect that children who strive more for social dominance
might be more likely to bully others in early adolescence
than in middle childhood. However, a study found that the
correlation coefficients between agentic goals and bully-
ing in middle childhood and early adolescence were 0.06
and 0.09, respectively, which indicated that differences
across age groups were not significant, according to
Fisher’s r-to-Z comparison (Caravita and Cillessen 2012).
To compare the social dominance goals–bullying asso-
ciation in middle childhood and in early adolescence,
potential grade differences were examined using third-,
fourth- and seventh-graders.
Classroom size
Classroom size, referring to the number of students in a
classroom, is related to classroom bullying rates. There is
often a higher prevalence of bullying in smaller classrooms
(e.g., Garandeau et al. 2014, 2019). Besides, the link
between bullying and popularity may be stronger in smaller
classrooms than in larger classrooms (Garandeau et al.
2019, the Austrian sample; but see Garandeau et al. 2019,
the Dutch sample). As bullying may bring more social
rewards in smaller classrooms, children who strive for
social dominance might be more likely to bully others in
such contexts. Therefore, this study explored whether
classroom size moderated social dominance goals–bullying
association in the present study.
Classroom gender distribution
Classroom gender distribution might be associated with class
norms related to bullying. Due to its higher normativeness
among boys (Caravita and Cillessen 2012; Smith et al. 2019),
bullying is more likely to be reinforced, and less likely to be
punished by peers in classrooms with a higher proportion of
boys (Laninga-Wijnen et al. 2020). Partly supporting this
notion, a study found that a high ratio of boys in the class-
room strengthened the popularity–aggression association
among boys (Zwaan et al. 2013). Given that the unbalanced
classroom gender distribution is assumed to promote gender-
specific behavior (Kuppens et al. 2008), there was a reason to
expect that social dominance goals predict increases in bul-
lying especially in classrooms with a higher proportion
of boys.
Cultural consideration
Chinese culture is characterized as vertical-collectivistic
with emphasis on both interdependence and hierarchy
among peers (Schwartz et al. 2010; Triandis 1995). One the
one hand, due to the significance of interdependence, Chi-
nese children can be more concerned with establishing
harmonious peer relationships than acquiring social dom-
inance in the classroom (Wright et al. 2014). Moreover,
bullying behavior is highly discouraged in Chinese culture,
because it may threaten group cohesion (Chen et al. 2019).
Accordingly, bullies are more likely to be unpopular and be
rejected by peers (Ji et al. 2016). One the other hand,

Chinese classrooms are hierarchical in terms of status, as
teachers formally appoint specific children to leadership
positions (Schwartz et al. 2010). Reflecting the vertical
feature in collectivism, each group member has a clear
position in the social hierarchy and is willing to sacrifice
their own interests for the collective well-being (Chen et al.
2018; Schwartz et al. 2010). As such, victimizing low-status
students could be recognized as a legitimate means to
maintain social order and reinforce their roles in the group
(Schwartz et al. 2010), especially in the classroom with
clear hierarchy. Therefore, the Chinese cultural context
provides an ideal setting for testing the function of class-
room status hierarchy.
Current Study
Although the association between social dominance goals
and bullying is well established in the extant literature,
much remains unknown about how the classroom context
affects the extent to which the pursuit of social dominance
translates into bullying behavior (Kiefer and Ryan 2008). In
the current 1-year longitudinal study, a large sample of
more than 1600 Chinese students in middle childhood
(grade 3 and grade 4) and early adolescence (grade 7) from
41 classrooms was recruited to examine how classroom
hierarchy moderated the associations between social dom-
inance goals and bullying behavior. The central hypothesis
of this study was that the association between social dom-
inance goals and bullying was stronger in classrooms with
higher levels of status hierarchy. In addition, gender, grade,
classroom size and classroom gender distribution are
included as possible moderators of social dominance
goals–bullying association. The hypotheses were as fol-
lows: (1) boys and older children who desire social dom-
inance will be more likely to engage in bullying; (2) the
association between social dominance goals and bullying
will be stronger in the classrooms with fewer students and
higher proportion of boys.
Method
Participants and Procedures
At Wave 1, participants were 1,603 children from in grade 3
(n = 558, 46.2% girls, Mage = 9.33 years, SD = 0.44), grade
4 (n = 491, 45.0% girls, Mage = 10.31 years, SD = 0.38)
and grade 7 (n = 554, 49.3% girls, Mage = 13.2 years, SD =
0.46), recruited from 41 classrooms (including 17 grade 3
classrooms, 15 grade 4 classrooms and 16 grade 7 class-
rooms) in 1 elementary school, 1 secondary school and
3 combined schools (comprising both elementary and
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
secondary school grades) in Jinan and Tai’an, PR China.
Nearly all of the participants were Han Chinese ethnicity
(the vast majority ethnic group in China, at 92% of total
population) and native Mandarin speakers (the majority
language in China, at 70% of total population). In the ori-
ginal sample, 89.9% of mothers and 91.3% of fathers had an
educational attainment of senior high school degree or
higher. In China, students take almost all their lessons with
same classmates during an academic year, in both elemen-
tary and secondary schools. The schedule of courses and
other activities is typically identical for all students in the
same class.
Data were collected in the 3rd month of the spring
semester (i.e., May). Prior to data collection, researchers
sent consent letters to students, parents, teachers and school
principals, in which the research aims and procedures were
described briefly. The children involved were offered a gift
(about $1). Through these procedures, 94.5% of the chil-
dren contacted for the study both received parental per-
mission to participate and gave their assent. The participants
completed a battery of self-report measures regarding their
social goals and peer nominations regarding bullying and
social status during a single class period in schools. There
were also other measures not utilized in the present study.
To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, everyone also
received a list of their classmates with their corresponding
three-digit numbers. These numbers were used to respond to
the peer nomination questions, so no names were presented
in the questionnaires. Answering the questionnaires took
~40 min. During the surveys, school teachers were not
present. The research design and procedure were reviewed
and approved by the Human Subjects Research Ethics
Committee in the department of psychology in the first
author’s university.
Measures
Given that all the measures were originally developed in
English, a standard translation and back-translation proce-
dure was used to ensure equivalence of all the measures
between the original English version and the Chinese
translation. This consisted of first translating the scale from
English into Chinese and then from Chinese back into
English and finally evaluating the level of agreement
between the original and back-translated English versions.
Two bilingual (English and Chinese) professors in devel-
opmental psychology and a professional translator carried
out the process.
Demographic variables
Demographic characteristics, including gender, grade and
class, were reported by the children themselves. Gender was
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
dummy-coded as 0 = girl and 1 = boy, and grade was
dummy-coded as 0 = grade 3 and grade 4, and 1 = grade 7.
Bullying
Bullying was assessed with the bullying subscale from the
Participant Role Questionnaire (Salmivalli and Voeten
2004). To begin with, the research assistants gave the
participants a definition of bullying, which highlighted its
intentionality, repetition and the power imbalance. Then,
children were asked to nominate up to three classmates
who fit the description in three items about bullying: “Starts
bullying”, “Makes the others join in the bullying”, and
“Always finds new ways of harassing the victim” (Salmi-
valli and Voeten 2004). Given that Chinese students take
almost all their lessons only with the students from their
own classroom, nominations were limited to classmates
only. For each item, a proportion score was calculated for
each child by dividing the number of raw nominations by
the number of nominators within each classroom
(Garandeau et al. 2014). Scores for each item ranged from
0 (no nominations) to 1 (nominated by all classmates). The
three items’ scores were averaged to calculate bullying
scores, with a higher score indicating more bullying
behavior. The Cronbach’s α for peer-reported bullying was
0.97 at both waves.
Social dominance goals
Social dominance goals were assessed via three items from
the Social Goals Questionnaire (Jarvinen and Nicholls
1996; Kiefer and Ryan 2008). One item from the original
scales was excluded as it lowered the reliability of the scale
in this study (i.e., “When I am with people my own age, I
like it when I make them do what I want”). For each item,
participants were asked to respond to items on a five-point
scale (e.g., “When I’m with people my own age I like it
when they worry that I’ll hurt them”; 1 = not at all true of
me, 5 = really true of me). Scores for subscale items were
averaged to create the social dominance goals measure, with
a higher score indicating higher endorsement of social
dominance goals. The Cronbach’s α for social dominance
goals at Wave 1 was 0.70.
Classroom size
Classroom size was the number of students in a classroom.
Classroom gender distribution
Classroom gender distribution was indicated by class pro-
portion of boys, i.e., dividing the number of boys by the
number of students in a classroom.
Classroom status hierarchy
The level of classroom status hierarchy was measured by
the standard deviation of individual perceived popularity
scores within a classroom (Garandeau et al. 2011; Zwaan
et al. 2013). For perceived popularity, participants received
a roster of all consenting students in their classroom and
were asked to indicate “Who is the most popular one in
your classroom”. Following previous studies (Li et al. 2012;
Tseng et al. 2013), the Chinese term “shou huan ying”
(受欢迎) was used to represent popularity in this study.
Because this Chinese term may not have the exact same
meaning as the English term (Niu et al. 2016), the research
assistants further explained to participants that the popular
students refer to the “super stars” in their classrooms.
Through this approach, it is expected that participants
nominated the classmates with the highest visibility among
peers. Perceived popularity was indicated by a proportion
score, which was created by dividing the total number of
nominations a student received by the number of nomina-
tors within each classroom. The standard deviation of the
proportion score of popularity was computed within each
classroom to reflect classroom status hierarchy. A large
standard deviation of perceived popularity within the
classroom indicates a higher degree of classroom status
hierarchy (Garandeau et al. 2011).
Data Analyses
To test the hypotheses, several multilevel models were
employed. Bullying at Wave 2 served as the outcome
variable in the different models. Individual-level predictors
included Wave 1 bullying, gender and social dominance
goals. Individual-level continuous variables were centered
at the classroom mean. Gender was weighted-effects-coded
as boy = 0.48 and girl = −0.52, to ensure that the values for
gender added up to 0 (te Grotenhuis et al. 2017) for all
participants. To explore gender differences in the social
dominance goals–bullying association, the gender × social
dominance goals interaction was included as an individual-
level factor. Classroom-level predictors, including grade,
size, proportion of boys and status hierarchy, were centered
at the grand mean.
Data analyses included three stages. First, an uncondi-
tional model was conducted without any individual- or
classroom-level predictors to obtain intraclass correlation
(ICC, the proportion of total variance that is between
classrooms) of bullying behavior. Second, individual-level
predictors were added into the unconditional model to test
the prospective association between social dominance goals
and bullying and its gender differences. Third, to test
whether the association between social dominance goals
and bullying varied between classrooms as function of
 Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

M SD Min. Max. 1 2 3
and correlations of individual
and classroom-level variables Individual-level variables
1 Social dominance goals 1.23 0.55 1.00 5.00 –
2 Wave1 bullying 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.79 0.14*** –
3 Wave2 bullying 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.76 0.15*** 0.79*** –
Classroom-level variables
1 Grade – – 0.00 1.00 –
2 Class size 38.17 10.16 18.00 54.00 0.26 –
3 Classroom proportion of boys 0.53 0.05 0.41 0.64 −0.21 −0.07 –
4 Classroom status hierarchy 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.23 −0.29 −0.46** −0.36*
Grade 3, Grade 4 = 0, Grade 7 = 1
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

grade, class size, classroom proportion of boys and class-
room status hierarchy, classroom-level predictors and cross-
level interactions were added to the models. All Models
were estimated using Mplus 7.0 (Muthén and Muthén
2012).
Results
goals (t[1573] = 0.99, p = 0.322, d = 0.05). Bullying was
highly stable between the two waves (r = 0.79, p < 0.001),
and social dominance goals was positively correlated
with bullying at Wave 1 (r = 0.28, p < 0.001) and Wave 2
(r = 0.27, p < 0.001). Among classroom-level variables,
classroom status hierarchy was negatively associated with
classroom size (r = −0.46, p = 0.002) and classroom pro-
portion of boys (r = −0.36, p = 0.020).

Missing Data Multilevel Models

At the second wave, a total of 125 children (7.8%) dropped
out because of hectic schedules and transferring to a new
school. The percentages of missing data for social dominance
goals, bullying at Wave 1 and bullying at Wave 2 were 0.0%,
1.7% and 7.8%, respectively. Little’s Missing Completely at
Random test (MCAR; Little 2013) revealed that missing data
were missing completely at random, χ2(5) = 2.17, p = 0.825.
For children with and without missing data, there were no
significant differences in terms of gender (χ2[1] = 2.60,
p = 0.107), age (t[139.108] = 1.835, p = 0.068, d = 0.19),
social dominance goals (t[134.01] = 1.31, p = 0.192, d =
0.16), bullying at Wave1 (t[1601] = 0.68, p = 0.496, d =
0.06). Missing data were handled using the full information
maximum likelihood (FIML) method with the MLR estima-
tion in Mplus. In order to promote the precision of FIML,
parental education levels were included in the analyses as
auxiliary variables. The FIML method can yield unbiased
estimations of coefficients with auxiliary variables at present
(Little 2013).
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
The descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in
Table 1. At the individual level, boys scored higher than girls
in bullying at Wave 1 (t[1601] = 11.46, p < 0.001, d = 0.57)
and Wave 2 (t[1476] = 11.34, p < 0.001, d = 0.58). How-
ever, there was no gender difference in social dominance
The unconditional model
The ICC of Wave 2 bullying was 0.008, indicating that only
0.8% of the variance in Wave 2 bullying was due to dif-
ferences between classrooms. Although the between-
classroom variability was small, multi level models were
used due to the hierarchical nature of the data (Julian 2001).
Besides, the aim of the present study was not to explain the
class-level variance of bullying, but the class-level variance
of the social dominance goal–bullying association.
The individual-level model
First, a random intercept model was tested. In this model, the
effects of individual-level predictors were fixed across
classrooms. As shown in Table 2, after controlling for prior
bullying behavior, being a boy (b = 0.027, SE = 0.041,
p = 0.003) and having social dominance goals (b = 0.014,
SE = 0.006, p = 0.013) were positively associated with
increases in bullying. Furthermore, the results showed that
gender moderated the longitudinal association between
social dominance goals and bullying (b = 0.016, SE = 0.006,
p = 0.005). As shown in Fig. 1, the association between
social dominance goals and bullying behavior was stronger
for boys than for girls (for boys: b = 0.021, SE = 0.008,
p = 0.009; for girls: b = 0.005, SE = 0.003, p = 0.068).
Turning to random effects model, the paths from social
Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 2 Effects of individual- and classroom-level predictors at Wave

1 on bullying behavior at Wave 2
Individual- Classroom-
level model level model
b SE b SE

Individual-level predictors
Wave1 bullying 0.759*** 0.041 0.757*** 0.041
Gender 0.027** 0.009 0.025** 0.009
Social dominance goals 0.014* 0.006 0.014* 0.006
Social dominance 0.016** 0.006 0.015* 0.006
goals × gender
Classroom-level predictors
Grade −0.008† 0.004
Class size −0.001*** 0.000
Classroom proportion 0.022 0.038 Fig. 1 The moderating role of gender in the association between social
of boys dominance goals and bullying
Classroom status 0.093† 0.054
hierarchy
Cross-level interactions
SE = 0.0002, p < 0.001). Grade (b = −0.008, SE = 0.004,
p = 0.076) and classroom status hierarchy (b = 0.093, SE =
Social dominance 0.008 0.006
goals × grade 0.054, p = 0.083) were marginally significant predictors of
Social dominance 0.000 0.000 bullying at Wave 2, suggesting that bullying may be more
goals × class size prevalent in middle childhood (i.e., lower grades) and in
Social dominance 0.210** 0.081 classrooms with a stronger status hierarchy. Moreover,
goals × classroom consistent with our hypotheses, significant cross-level
proportion of boys interactions indicated that the longitudinal association
Social dominance 0.275*** 0.069 between social dominance goals and bullying was moder-
goals × classroom status
hierarchy ated by classroom proportion of boys (b = 0.210, SE =
Random effect
0.081, p = 0.010) and classroom status hierarchy (b = 0.275,
SE = 0.069, p < 0.001). To clarify the nature of the sig-
σ2 (residual) 0.002*** 0.000 0.002*** 0.000a
nificant interactions of interest, post-hoc probing was con-
τ00 (intercept) a,
0.000 *** 0.000 a
0.000a,† 0.000a
ducted as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Simple
τ01 (social dominance 0.000a
0.000a
goal slope) slope tests were employed to analyze the effect of social
dominance goals on self-reported bullying by comparing
Weighted-effects-codes of gender: Boys = 0.48 and Girls = −0.52.
simple slopes for low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of
Grade 3, Grade 4 = 0, and Grade 7 = 1. Unstandardized coefficients
are presented. All individual-level continuous predictors were centered proportion of boys and classroom status hierarchy. As
at group means, while all classroom-level predictors were centered at shown in Fig. 2, social dominance goals had positive asso-
grand mean ciation with bullying in the classrooms with a high propor-
tion of boys (b = 0.025, SE = 0.006, p < 0.001), rather than
a
Mplus rounds numbers to three decimal places
†
p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 in those with a low proportion of boys (b = 0.003, SE =
0.008, p = 0.704). As shown in Fig. 3, children who
dominance goals to bullying were allowed to vary randomly endorsed social dominance goals were more likely to display
across classrooms. The results revealed that the effect of increased levels of bullying in high-hierarchy classrooms
social dominance goals on bullying varied significantly (b = 0.026, SE = 0.008, p < 0.001) but not in low-hierarchy
across classrooms (Var = 1.67 × 10−04, p = 0.033). Alto- classrooms (b = 0.001, SE = 0.005, p = 0.790). Altogether,
gether the individual-level predictors explained 65.5% of the classroom-level predictors explained 72.0% of the variance
variability in bullying behavior at Wave 2. in bullying between classrooms, and 64.3% of the variance
in the social dominance goals–bullying slope.
The classroom-level model
Supplementary Analyses
As shown in Table 2, classroom size was negatively asso-
ciated with bullying, indicating that bullying was more As a supplementary analysis, whether the moderating effect
prevalent in classrooms with fewer students (b = −0.001, of classroom status hierarchy varied across genders or

Fig. 2 The moderating role of classroom proportion of boys in the
association between social dominance goals and bullying
Fig. 3 The moderating role of classroom status hierarchy in the
association between social dominance goals and bullying
grades was explored. Four interaction terms were added to
the classroom-level model, including gender × classroom
status hierarchy, grade × classroom status hierarchy, gen-
der × social dominance goals × classroom status hierarchy,
and grade × social dominance goals × classroom status
hierarchy. The results revealed that the moderating role of
classroom status hierarchy was consistent across grades
(b = 0.070, SE = 0.190, p = 0.715) and genders (b = 0.137,
SE = 0.235, p = 0.561).
In addition, to confirm the robustness of the present
findings, sensitivity analyses were employed with ten ran-
domly selected pooled samples, each of which contained 30
classes. The interaction between social dominance goals
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
and gender was replicated in eight out of ten iterations; the
interaction between social dominance goals and classroom
gender distribution was replicated in seven out of ten
iterations; and the interaction between social dominance
goals and classroom status hierarchy was replicated in ten
out of ten iterations.
Discussion
Bullying behavior is widely considered to be driven by the
quest for high status and social dominance in the peer group
(Pellegrini 2002; Salmivalli and Peets 2008). However, it
remains unclear how contextual factors have an impact on
the link between children and adolescents’ endorsement of
social dominance goals and bullying behavior. In particular,
classroom status hierarchy, which reflects the social status
inequality in a classroom, may further motivate bullying
behaviors among those with strong social dominance goals
(Garandeau et al. 2011, 2014).To fill this gap, the present 1-
year longitudinal multilevel study examined whether
classroom status hierarchy moderates the prospective asso-
ciation between social dominance goals and bullying.
Moreover, the moderating effects of other individual and
classroom characteristics (e.g., gender, grade, classroom
size, gender distribution) were also tested.
Previous cross-sectional studies reported a positive con-
current association between social dominance goals and
bullying (Caravita and Cillessen 2012; Olthof et al. 2011;
Sijtsema et al. 2009). In line with previous studies, the
present study revealed that social dominance goals pre-
dicted increases in bullying over time after controlling the
stability of bullying. The current finding indicated that,
similar to their Western counterparts, Chinese children who
were oriented toward social dominance engaged in bullying,
although bullying is highly discouraged in Chinese culture.
Thus, this finding echoed the evolutionary perspective of
bullying, according to which, bullying can be viewed as a
functional behavior that serves to achieve a dominant status
in the group (Hawley 1999; Volk et al. 2012). Notably, the
present study found high stability of bullying over 1 year
(r = 0.79), suggesting that the role of bully is highly stable
across time. This stability coefficient is in accordance with
previous findings (Garandeau et al. 2014; Reijntjes et al.
2013). For example, Reijntjes et al. (2013) found that the
stability coefficient of peer-reported bullying ranges
0.74–0.81 across 1 year. Our analyses revealed significant
longitudinal effects of social dominance goals on bullying
despite the high stability of bullying, which underscores the
determining role of endorsing social dominance goals in the
development of bullying behavior.
Next, this study tested the moderating role of classroom
status hierarchy in the social dominance goals–bullying
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
association. Given the emphasis on status hierarchy in
Chinese classrooms (Schwartz et al. 2010), it is important to
evaluate the function of classroom status hierarchy under
Chinese culture. As expected, these results showed that
children who endorsed social dominance goals were more
likely to engage in bullying a year later in classrooms where
power was less equally distributed. In contrast, there was no
prospective association between social dominance goals and
bullying in more egalitarian classrooms. A possible expla-
nation could be generated from the goal-framing approach
(Lindenberg 2013). Specifically, dominance-seeking chil-
dren are sensitive to, and their goal is aroused by clear
social benefits and low costs related to bullying (Veenstra
et al. 2007). In classrooms with high social status hierarchy
(i.e., hierarchical contexts), aggressive behavior is asso-
ciated with higher popularity (Garandeau et al. 2011;
Laninga-Wijnen et al. 2019) and victims are more easily
dominated (Ahn et al. 2010). When spotting these social
cues in classrooms with a clear status hierarchy, children are
more likely to bully the weak to gain social dominance. In
summary, the current findings extend the literature on how
individual characteristics interact with contextual char-
acteristics in predicting bullying by providing evidence that
classroom status hierarchy influences the behavioral strate-
gies of dominance-aspiring children.
These findings revealed how social status inequality in a
classroom can harm students’ psychosocial adjustment,
which echoes findings from research on the causal relations
between economic inequality and population health (Pickett
and Wilkinson 2015). National income inequality intensifies
competition and feelings of insecurity and weakens inter-
personal relationships within societies by decreasing trust
among people (Pickett and Wilkinson 2015), thereby
increasing the prevalence of social-emotional problems,
including bullying behavior (Elgar et al. 2013; Melgar and
Rossi 2012). The present findings corroborate those from
this branch of literature by highlighting the psychological
cost of inequality in human groups, regardless of the type
(e.g., economic or social status) or the group size (e.g., a
classroom or a nation).
Finally, this study tested the role of demographic vari-
ables in the association between social dominance goals
and bullying. Consistent with previous research (Kiefer
and Ryan 2008; Kiefer and Wang 2016; Ojanen et al.
2012), the results revealed that boys with higher social
dominance goals tended to bully others more than girls
with similar goals. This gender difference might be due to
bullying being more normative (Smith et al. 2019) and
more rewarded with social status among boys (Caravita
and Cillessen 2012). As expected, such gender-specific
norms could also be observed at the classroom level: the
social dominance goals–bullying association was only
evident in classrooms with a higher proportion of boys.
The moderating effect of gender and gender distribution
may reflect that, although the Participant Role Ques-
tionnaire does not distinguish between forms of bullying,
most participants might recognize bullying as an overt
behavior. As studies have shown higher popularity
rewards for relationally aggressive girls than relationally
aggressive boys (Cillessen and Mayeux 2004), social
dominance goals may be more strongly related to rela-
tional bullying among girls. However, studies have failed
to find gender differences in the association between social
dominance goals and relational aggression (Kiefer and
Wang 2016; Ojanen et al. 2012).
The results also revealed that the association between
social dominance goals and bullying did not vary across
grade level. This finding is consistent with previous stu-
dies (Caravita and Cillessen 2012), indicating that the
quest of social dominance equally predicts bullying in
middle childhood and early adolescence. With regard to
classroom size, in line with previous studies (Garandeau
et al. 2014, 2019), the results showed that classroom size
was negatively related with bullying. However, classroom
size did not moderate the social dominance goals–bullying
association. The results might be related to the relatively
large classroom size in the sample. Larger classrooms are
typically made up of multiple peer groups, which could
allow victims to escape the control of ringleader bullies
and their followers, thereby lowering the status-rewards
attached to bullying (Garandeau et al. 2019).
The present study has several strengths. First, whereas
previous studies have examined the concurrent association
between social dominance goals and bullying behavior,
this study, guided by the goal-framing theory (Lindenberg
2013), focused on how classroom status hierarchy as well
as other classroom context features moderate this asso-
ciation with a longitudinal design. Second, using a 1-year
longitudinal design, the present study controlled for prior
bullying and provides a rigorous test of the effects of
individual-level and classroom-level factors on subsequent
bullying. Finally, this study investigated an understudied,
but very large, non-western culture and population, pro-
viding a new vision of group dynamics in vertical-
collectivistic cultural contexts.
The findings of this study inform anti-bullying pro-
grams in two ways. To begin with, children who desire
social dominance are more likely to engage in bullying.
For these children, it may be useful to teach them alter-
native, prosocial ways to obtain status, power, and dom-
inance. According to the meaningful roles approach (Ellis
et al. 2016), teachers could assign these children to high-
status jobs that require responsibility and altruism (e.g.,
technology assistant) and reinforce their behaviors through
peer-to-peer praise notes. However, more evidence of the
effectiveness of this approach is needed before its use can

be recommended, as there is a risk that dominance-
oriented children may use their newly gained high status
(from the meaningful roles tasks) to engage in bullying.
Moreover, randomized control trials are needed to evaluate
this approach as a promising method to reduce children’s
bullying behavior. Second, the results suggest that mini-
mizing status discrepancies among children could diminish
the likelihood that dominance-oriented children will resort
to bullying others. That is, in order to build a safer
classroom environment, teachers should intervene in
existing hierarchical relationships between children and
create more egalitarian classroom structures by mitigating
status extremes and supporting isolated students (Gar-
andeau et al. 2011, 2014; Gest and Rodkin 2011). More
importantly, considering the characteristics of Chinese
classrooms, teachers should not grant excessive power to
specific students.
Despite these strengths, it is important to consider the
methodological limitations of this study. First, although
there was significant classroom-level variation in the
association between social dominance goal and bullying,
the classroom-level variation of bullying was relatively
small, which limited the detection of classroom-level
predictors’ main effects on bullying. Second, a maximum
of three bullies were allowed to be nominated, which
might underestimate students’ bulling behavior. However,
there is evidence that utilizing limited and unlimited
nominations of bullying lead to comparable results
(Gommans and Cillessen 2015). Further research that
replicate our findings using unlimited nominations is
warranted. Finally, because bullying was operationalized
as a unified construct, potential differences between overt
and relational forms of bullying could not be explicitly
tested. As relational bullying may be a more effective
strategy in acquiring and maintaining social dominance in
the peer group (Cillessen and Mayeux 2004; Ojanen and
Findley-Van Nostrand 2014), considering the distinctions
between relational and overt bullying would be an
important direction for future research.
Future research may further expand on the current find-
ings in two ways. First, it may focus on social goals other
than social dominance goals and their association with bul-
lying. For example, a lack of communal goals (i.e., striving
for positive relationships with others, Caravita and Cillessen
2012) might be considered as one of the reasons for bullying
(Caravita and Cillessen 2012). A recent study also revealed
that communal goals mitigated the positive association
between agentic goals and direct aggression (Sijtsema et al.
2020). Future studies would benefit from considering mul-
tiple goals simultaneously. Furthermore, research could take
further steps in examining the process through which class-
room status hierarchy moderates the link between social
dominance goals and bullying. For example, as a possible
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
cognitive mechanism, children who are oriented to social
dominance may perceive bullying instead of other positive
behaviors as an instrument to gain dominance in hierarchical
classroom contexts (Li and Hu 2018).
Conclusion
Bullying behavior is motivated by the pursuit of social
dominance in the peer group (Pellegrini 2002; Salmivalli
and Peets 2008). Research has shown that social dominance
goals are positively associated with bullying in middle
childhood and early adolescence (Caravita and Cillessen
2012; Olthof et al. 2011; Sijtsema et al. 2009). Yet, it is
important to note that this association may be influenced by
the classroom context, as bullying may be related to dif-
ferent costs and benefits across classrooms. The current
study examined the role classroom status hierarchy in the
longitudinal association between social dominance goals
and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence.
The findings indicated that youth striving for social dom-
inance goals were more likely to engage in bullying beha-
vior in more hierarchical classrooms. The current findings
have implications for future antibullying practices. Speci-
fically, to prevent dominance-oriented children from bul-
lying others, teachers should make efforts to minimize
status discrepancies and build egalitarian relationships
among classmates.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to sincerely thank all
participating students for their contributions, as well as research
assistants who have helped in designing the study and collecting
the data.
Authors’ Contributions B.P. conceived of the study and participated in
the interpretation of the data, performed the statistical analysis and
drafted the manuscript; L.Z. helped in performing the statistical ana-
lysis and the interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript; L.J.
participated in the research design; C.F.G. and C.S. helped in drafting
the manuscript and participated in the interpretation of the data; W.Z.
conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, and
drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Funding This study was supported by the Major Projects of Philo-
sophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of Education
(17JZD058), Science and Technology Plan for Young Scholars sup-
ported by Education Department of Shandong (2019RWF012), and the
Academy of Finland Flagship Programme (320162).
Data Sharing and Declaration This manuscript’s data will not be
deposited.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Ahn, H. J., Garandeau, C. F., & Rodkin, P. C. (2010). Effects of class-
room embeddedness and density on the social status of aggressive
and victimized children. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(1),
76–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609350922.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Caravita, S. C., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Agentic or communal?
Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bully-
ing in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Develop-
ment, 21(2), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.
00632.x.
Chen, G., Kong, Y., Deater-Deckard, K., & Zhang, W. (2018).
Bullying victimization heightens cortisol response to psycho-
social stress in Chinese children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 46(5), 1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-
017-0366-6.
Chen, L., Zhang, W., Ji, L., & Deater‐Deckard, K. (2019). Develop-
mental trajectories of Chinese adolescents’ relational aggression:
associations with changes in social‐psychological adjustment.
Child Development, 90(6), 2153–2170. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13090.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Marks, P. (2011). Conceptualizing and mea-
suring popularity. In A. Cillessen, D. Schwartz & L. Mayeux
(Eds), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–56). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinfor-
cement: developmental changes in the association between
aggression and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147–163.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x.
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: how the pursuit
of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science, 329
(5987), 47–50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188595.
de Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Wissink, I. B. (2010).
Associations of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with
bullying and victimization in early adolescence. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 30(4), 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0272431609340517.
Elgar, F. J., Pickett, K. E., Pickett, W., Craig, W., Molcho, M., Hur-
relmann, K., & Lenzi, M. (2013). School bullying, homicide and
income inequality: a cross-national pooled time series analysis.
International Journal of Public Health, 58(2), 237–245. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0380-y.
Ellis, B. J., Volk, A. A., Gonzalez, J. M., & Embry, D. D. (2016). The
meaningful roles intervention: an evolutionary approach to
reducing bullying and increasing prosocial behavior. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 26(4), 622–637. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jora.12243.
Garandeau, C. F., Ahn, H. J., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). The social status
of aggressive students across contexts: the role of classroom status
hierarchy, academic achievement, and grade. Developmental Psy-
chology, 47(6), 1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025271.
Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Inequality
matters: classroom status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(7), 1123–1133. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-013-0040-4.
Garandeau, C. F., Yanagida, T., Vermande, M. M., Strohmeier, D., &
Salmivalli, C. (2019). Classroom size and the prevalence of
bullying and victimization: testing three explanations for the
negative association. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2125 https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02125.
Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Teaching practices and ele-
mentary classroom peer ecologies. Journal of Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 32(5), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appdev.2011.02.004.
Gommans, R., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2015). Nominating under con-
straints: a systematic comparison of unlimited and limited peer
nomination methodologies in elementary school. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 77–86. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0165025414551761.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). A functional
model of hierarchy. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1),
32–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610380991.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a
strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review,
19(1), 97–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0470.
Huitsing, G., Snijders, T. A., Van Duijn, M. A., & Veenstra, R.
(2014). Victims, bullies, and their defenders: a longitudinal
study of the coevolution of positive and negative networks.
Development and Psychopathology, 26(3), 645–659. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0954579414000297.
Jarvinen, D. W., & Nicholls, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals,
beliefs about the causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer
relations. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 435–441. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.435.
Ji, L., Zhang, W., & Jones, K. (2016). Chinese children’s experience
of and attitudes towards bullying and victimization: A cross-
cultural comparison between China and England. In P. Smith, K.
Kwak & Y. Toda. (Eds), School bullying in different cultures:
Eastern and western perspectives (pp. 170–188). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Julian, M. W. (2001). The consequences of ignoring multilevel data
structures in nonhierarchical covariance modeling. Structural
Equation Modeling, 8(3), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM0803_1.
Kiefer, S. M., & Wang, J. H. (2016). Associations of coolness and
social goals with aggression and engagement during adolescence.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 44, 52–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.007.
Kiefer, S., & Ryan, A. (2008). Striving for social dominance over
peers: the implications for academic adjustment during early
adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2),
417–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.417.
Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., Michiels, D., & Subramanian,
S. V. (2008). Individual and classroom variables associated with
relational aggression in elementary-school aged children: a mul-
tilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 46(6), 639–660.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.005.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. (2010). Developmental changes
in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence.
Social Development, 19(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-9507.2008.00522.x.
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Dijkstra, J. K., Veenstra, R., &
Vollebergh, W. (2020). Who sets the aggressive popularity norm
in classrooms? It’s the number and strength of aggressive, pro-
social, and bi-Strategic adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 48(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-
00571-0.
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Garandeau, C. F., Dijkstra, J. K.,
Veenstra, R., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2019). Classroom popularity
hierarchy predicts prosocial and aggressive popularity norms
across the school year. Child Development, 90(5), 637–653.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13228.
Li, Y., & Hu, Y. (2018). How to attain a popularity goal? Examining
the mediation effects of popularity determinants and behaviors.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(9), 1842–1852. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-018-0882-x.
Li, Y., Xie, H., & Shi, J. (2012). Chinese and American children’s
perceptions of popularity determinants: cultural differences
and behavioral correlates. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 36(6), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0165025412446393.
Lindenberg, S. (2013). Social rationality, self-regulation, and well-
being: The regulatory significance of needs, goals, and the self. In
R. Wittek, T. A. B. Snijders & V. Nee (Eds), Handbook of
rational choice social research (pp. 72–112). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling.
New York: Guilford Press.
Melgar, N., & Rossi, M. (2012). A cross‐country analysis of the risk
factors for depression at the micro and macro levels. American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, 71(2), 354–376. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2012.00831.x.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling
software. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Niu, L., Jin, S., Li, L., & French, D. C. (2016). Popularity and social
preference in Chinese adolescents: associations with social and
behavioral adjustment. Social Development, 25(4), 828–845.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12172.
Ojanen, T., Findley, D., & Fuller, S. (2012). Physical and relational
aggression in early adolescence: associations with narcissism,
temperament, and social goals. Aggressive Behavior, 38(2),
99–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21413.
Ojanen, T., & Findley-Van Nostrand, D. (2014). Social goals,
aggression, peer preference, and popularity: longitudinal links
during middle school. Developmental Psychology, 50,
2134–2143. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037137.
Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vermande, M. M., Aleva, E. A., & van der
Meulen, M. (2011). Bullying as strategic behavior: relations with
desired and acquired dominance in the peer group. Journal of
School Psychology, 49(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.
2011.03.003.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: development and some important
challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment
during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist,
37(3), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bul-
lying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from
primary school through secondary school. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.
1348/026151002166442.
Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). Income inequality and
health: a causal review. Social Science & Medicine, 128,
316–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.031.
Pouwels, J. L., van Noorden, T. H., & Caravita, S. C. (2019). Defending
victims of bullying in the classroom: the role of moral responsi-
bility and social costs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
84, 103831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103831.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Van De
Schoot, R., Aleva, L., & Van Der Meulen, M. (2013). Costs and
benefits of bullying in the context of the peer group: a three
wave longitudinal analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-
chology, 41(8), 1217–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-
013-9759-3.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in
peer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emo-
tional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.132.1.98.
Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2008). Bullies, victims, and bully–victim
relationships. In K. Rubin, W. Bukowski & B. Laursen (Eds),
Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp.
322–340). New York: Guilford Press.
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes,
group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(3), 246–258. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01650250344000488.
Schwartz, D., Tom, S. R., Chang, L., Xu, Y., Duong, M. T., & Kelly,
B. M. (2010). Popularity and acceptance as distinct dimensions of
social standing for Chinese children in Hong Kong. Social
Development, 19(4), 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2009.00558.x.
Sijtsema, J. J., Lindenberg, S. M., Ojanen, T. J., & Salmivalli, C.
(2020). Direct aggression and the balance between status and
affection goals in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01166-0.
Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009).
Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: assessing direct goals,
aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 57–67.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20282.
Smith, P. K., López-Castro, L., Robinson, S., & Görzig, A. (2019).
Consistency of gender differences in bullying in cross-cultural
surveys. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 33–40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.04.006.
te Grotenhuis, M., Pelzer, B., Eisinga, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Schmidt-
Catran, A., & Konig, R. (2017). When size matters: advantages of
weighted effect coding in observational studies. International
Journal of Public Health, 62, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00038-016-0901-1.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Tseng, W. L., Banny, A. M., Kawabata, Y., Crick, N. R., & Gau, S. S.
F. (2013). A cross‐lagged structural equation model of relational
aggression, physical aggression, and peer status in a Chinese
culture. Aggressive Behavior, 39(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ab.21480.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B. J., De Winter, A. F., Ver-
hulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2007). The dyadic nature of bullying
and victimization: testing a dual‐perspective theory. Child
Development, 78(6), 1843–1854. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.01102.x.
Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is
adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive
Behavior, 38(3), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-018-
0005-y.
Wright, M. F., Li, Y., & Shi, J. (2014). Chinese adolescents’ social
status goals: associations with behaviors and attributions for
relational aggression. Youth & Society, 46(4), 566–588. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12448800.
Zhang, W., Chen, L., & Chen, G. (2016). Research on bullying in
mainland China. In P. Smith, K. Kwak & Y. Toda. (Eds),
School bullying in different cultures: Eastern and western
Journal of Youth and Adolescence

perspectives (pp. 113–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University developmental psychopathology, and adolescent social-emotional
Press. development.
Zwaan, M., Dijkstra, J. K., & Veenstra, R. (2013). Status hierarchy,
attractiveness hierarchy and sex ratio: three contextual factors
explaining the status–aggression link among adolescents. Inter-
national Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(3), 211–221.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025412471018. Claire F. Garandeau is an Assistant Professor at the University of
Turku. Her major research interests include the causes and
consequences of school bullying, and the development of anti-
bullying interventions.
Bin Pan is a Ph.D. candidate at Shandong Normal University. His
major research interests include school bullying and its intervention.

Christina Salmivalli is a Professor at the University of Turku and

Shandong Normal University. Her major research interests include
Liang Zhang is a Lecturer at Shandong Normal University. His major bullying and victimization and their evidence-based prevention.
research interests include developmental psychopathology, peer
relationships, and longitudinal data analysis.

Wenxin Zhang is a Professor at Shandong Normal University. His

major research interests include school bullying, development of child/
Linqin Ji is a Professor at Shandong Normal University. Her major adolescent problem behaviors, parent-adolescent relationships, peer
research interests include aggression and problem behaviors, relationships, and developmental behavior genetics.