See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226204085

Students with Exceptionalities and the Peer Group Context of Bullying and
Victimization in Late Elementary School

Article  in  Journal of Child and Family Studies · April 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s10826-008-9214-1

CITATIONS READS

129 1,397

6 authors, including:

David B. Estell Matthew J Irvin

Indiana University Bloomington University of South Carolina
29 PUBLICATIONS   1,389 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   1,227 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel J. Boudah
East Carolina University
21 PUBLICATIONS   339 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Augmented Reality in Informal Science Learning View project

Invariance Testing Across Math and Science in Rural Place-Based View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew J Irvin on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
DOI 10.1007/s10826-008-9214-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Students with Exceptionalities and the Peer Group Context
of Bullying and Victimization in Late Elementary School
David B. Estell Æ Thomas W. Farmer Æ Matthew J. Irvin Æ Amity Crowther Æ
Patrick Akos Æ Daniel J. Boudah
Published online: 5 June 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract We examined bullying and victimization in 5th
grade classrooms in relation to students’ education status
and peer group membership. The sample consisted of 484
participants (258 girls, 226 boys), including 369 general
education students, 74 academically gifted students, and 41
students with mild disabilities. Students with mild dis-
abilities were more likely to be perceived as being bullies
by both teachers and peers. Teachers also rated students
with mild disabilities significantly higher for being bullied
by peers. Academically gifted students were rated by
teachers as the lowest for both bullying and being bullied.
Associating with aggressive or perceived-popular peers
increased the likelihood of being perceived as a bully.
Social isolates were more likely to be bullied than students
who did not associate with perceived-popular peers who, in
D. B. Estell (&)
Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana
University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
e-mail: destell@indiana.edu
T. W. Farmer
Department of Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and
Special Education, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA, USA
M. J. Irvin
A. Crowther
Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
P. Akos
Human Development and Psychological Studies Area, School of
Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel
Hill, NC, USA
D. J. Boudah
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Special Education,
East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
123
turn, were more likely to be bullied than students who
associated with perceived-popular peers. Students with
mild disabilities who had aggressive and perceived-popular
associates had more peer nominations for bullying than
all others. In contrast, students in general education with
neither aggressive nor perceived-popular associates had the
fewest peer nominations for bullying. We discuss impli-
cations for research and intervention.
Keywords Bullying
Victimization
Mild disabilities

Giftedness
Peer groups
Introduction
In recent years, several distinct lines of inquiry have helped
to inform current perspectives on bullying and aggression
in schools. This includes research on the social and
behavioral characteristics of youth who are at risk for
bullying and victimization (Hodges and Perry 1999;
Pellegrini et al. 1999; Schwartz 2000), developmental
patterns of victimization (Hanish and Guerra 2002;
Pellegrini and Bartini 2000; Smith et al. 2004; Troop-
Gordon and Ladd 2005), broader classroom social
dynamics and aggression in the peer group (Farmer et al.
2002; O’Connell et al. 1999; Salmivalli et al. 1997) and
linkages between bullying, victimization, and other school
adjustment factors (Glew et al. 2005; Schwartz et al.
2005). Collectively, these studies indicate that students
involved in bullying and victimization are more likely to
have academic and social adjustment problems, that social
roles and peer group processes support bullying, and that
the late elementary school years are a time when classroom
social dynamics may be particularly important to bullying
and victimization.
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
Most research on bullying and victimization focuses on
general school populations. Little work explicitly examines
the involvement of students with exceptionalities. In the
current climate of inclusion, students who receive excep-
tional children’s services tend to make up 10–20% or more
of the public school population and are integrated at least
part of the school day with their general education peers.
While it is likely that many studies on bullying include
students who receive exceptional services within their
samples, these children are typically not identified and it is
not possible to determine the degree to which they impact
results. This is potentially an important oversight because
students at the extremes of school functioning (students
with pronounced learning problems, and students achieving
at advanced levels) may have differential social experi-
ences that impact the degree to which they are involved
in bullying relative to their general education peers
(Kaukiainen et al. 2002; Peterson and Ray 2006). Peer
group affiliations are associated with students’ level of
involvement as bullies and victims (Estell et al. 2007;
Salmivalli et al. 1997), and students who are at the
extremes of school functioning tend to have peer affiliation
patterns that are distinct from those of general education
students (Farmer and Hollowell 1994; Pearl et al. 1998). It
is possible that exceptional students’ involvement in bul-
lying and victimization is related to their peer group
affiliations. Information along these lines could help clarify
how individual and peer group level factors come together
to impact bullying and victimization in the classroom.
Peer dynamics are important part of development. In
late elementary school, children form hierarchical social
structures in which some individuals and peer groups are
more popular and central than others (Adler and Adler
1996; Farmer and Rodkin 1996). Taunting, teasing, direct
confrontation, and physical attacks are forms of aggression
that children (particularly boys) use to demonstrate their
prowess and to establish and protect their positions in the
social structure (Adler and Adler 1996; Farmer 2000;
Pellegrini 1998; Rodkin and Hodges 2003). While physical
aggression is almost universally related to being disliked
(i.e., having low social preference; Asher and Coie 1990),
aggressive behavior has a close association with perceived
popularity (Rose et al. 2004), and social dominance—
while eventually adapting a more affiliative nature—often
begins with aggressive behavior (Pellegrini and Bartini
2000). Not only is aggression a common part of the daily
interpersonal dynamics in school, distinct subtypes of
aggressive youth can be differentiated in terms of popu-
larity (Estell et al. 2002; Estell et al. 2003; Rodkin et al.
2000). Popular aggressive youth are more likely to asso-
ciate with other popular and aggressive peers while
unpopular aggressive youth are more likely to associate
with non-aggressive and unpopular peers (Bagwell et al.
137
2000; Farmer et al. 2002). In short, while aggression and
dominance are often related to being disliked, they can lead
to high social status and perceived popularity (Estell et al.
2003).
Social dominance and influence in the social structure
also come into play in bullying. Although some bullies are
themselves aggressive victims, many others have high
social positions and are able to engage peers to support
their behavior (Atlas and Pepler 1998; Salmivalli et al.
1997). In fact, bullying episodes in elementary school tend
to involve several peers as onlookers, helpers, and
encouragers (O’Connell et al. 1999). Although some chil-
dren, usually girls, come to the aid of the victimized child,
many youth appear to respond in ways that are aimed at
protecting their status in the social structure including
currying favor with dominant bullies (Adler and Adler
1995; Hawkins and Pepler 2001).
A recent study of the social dynamics of bullying in two
middle schools comprised almost exclusively of rural
African American youth found that both bullies and vic-
tims tended to have rejected sociometric status. However,
while bullies were well integrated into their peer groups,
victims tended to be withdrawn and marginal in the social
structure (Estell et al. 2007). Bullies were heteroge-
neously dispersed in both popular and unpopular groups
and aggressive and non-aggressive groups and they were
highly likely to be leaders of their peer group. Of particular
interest to us, students who were bullies and/or victims
tended to have behaviors (i.e., higher teacher ratings of
attention problems and hyperactivity) and social skills (i.e.,
lower rates of peer nominations of prosocial behavior) that
are typically associated with students with mild
disabilities.
Exceptional students include such children with mild
disabilities as well as students who are identified as aca-
demically gifted, though it is important to note that in our
study both groups spend the majority of their school days
in general education classrooms. For our purposes, the term
students with mild disabilities refers to children with high
incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, mild
mental retardation, and mild emotional and behavioral
disorders), academically gifted refers to high achieving
children who have been identified for academically gifted
education programs, and general education students refers
to children who are not receiving special services to sup-
port their learning needs. Students with exceptionalities
tend to have patterns of social behavior, peer acceptance,
and peer affiliations that are distinct from their general
education peers. While both academically gifted students
and students with mild disabilities differ from general
education peers in terms of social functioning and social
adjustment, they are also markedly different from each
other.
123
138
Prior to diagnosis, students later identified as having
high incidence disabilities display social skill deficits and
have low social status (Vaughn et al. 1990; Walker et al.
1998). In preschool settings, students with mild develop-
mental delays are likely to have significant social
interaction problems (Guralnick and Groom 1987) and
these problems are likely to be sustained from the pre-
school to the early elementary school years (Guralnick
et al. 2006). In late childhood and early adolescence, stu-
dents with mild disabilities tend to have problem social
behaviors, social skills difficulties, and are often not well
accepted by their peers (Estell et al. 2008; Farmer et al.
1999; Frederickson and Furnham 2004; Gresham and
MacMillan 1997; Sale and Carey 1995). In turn, they are
also more likely to be socially isolated (Kavale and Forness
1996; Pearl et al. 1998) and to report less social acceptance
(Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004).
Although they are more likely to have social difficulties,
most students with mild disabilities are members of peer
groups (Farmer and Farmer 1996; Pearl et al. 1998).
However, the group membership of students with mild
disabilities may support social problems as they are more
likely to affiliate with classmates with problematic inter-
personal characteristics and less likely to associate with
peers with prosocial characteristics (Farmer and Hollowell
1994). Students with mild disabilities are also more likely
to develop social roles that support aggression or that
makes them the target of the aggressive behavior of others
(Evans and Eder 1993; Farmer and Farmer 1996; Farmer
and Rodkin 1996). In addition, students with mild dis-
abilities who associate with antisocial peers tend to hold
these peers in high esteem (Rodkin et al. 2006).
These social functioning challenges may place students
with mild disabilities at greater risk for involvement with
bullying as both targets and aggressors. Problems with
social functioning, including social information processing
difficulties, social skills deficits, and social isolation are all
risk factors for being victimized by peers (Fox and Boulton
2006). Likewise, elementary students who are chronically
victimized are more likely to experience academic prob-
lems and internalizing difficulties that may place them at-
risk of later learning and behavior problems (Hodges et al.
1999; Schwartz et al. 2005). In contrast, affiliations with
aggressive and deviant peers tend to be associated with a
greater likelihood of bullying others (Estell et al. 2007).
Collectively, these findings suggest that children with mild
disabilities may be more likely to be involved in bullying
as aggressors and/or targets than their typically achieving
peers. Consistent with this view, extant data suggest that
youth with mild disabilities are more likely to be victims
than are their typically-achieving counterparts and they
may be at increased risk of being bullies and bully-victims
(Kaukiainen et al. 2002; Nazuboka and Smith 1993).
123
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
Further, data from the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health, which included 1,301 adolescents with
learning disabilities from a sample of 20,780, indicate that
youth with learning disabilities were significantly more
likely than others to report involvement in violent behav-
iors (31% vs. 25% for boys; 20% vs. 11% for girls) and
were more likely to have witnessed or have been a victim
of a violent act (Svetaz et al. 2000).
In contrast to students with mild disabilities, children
who are identified as academically gifted tend to have
higher levels of social functioning than their general edu-
cation peers. Preuss and Dubow (2004) found that
academically gifted students were more likely to employ
active problem-solving approaches to social stressors, and
that being academically gifted moderated the impact of
stressors on adjustment. Academically gifted students are
rated by teachers as having highly positive levels of social
skills (Janke and Lee 1991) and during the elementary
school years they are likely to experience high levels of
social acceptance and low levels of peer rejection (Austin
and Draper 1981; Luftig and Nichols 1990; Schneider et al.
1989). Academically gifted students are also more likely to
have prosocial or popular friends than their non-gifted
peers and less likely to be socially isolated (Farmer and
Rodkin 1996; Pearl et al. 1998; Schneider and Daniels
1992). On the whole, while they may face considerable
stress due to their own high expectations (Moon 2004),
gifted children are largely socially skilled, use effective
social coping mechanisms, are socially integrated with
prosocial peers, and are well adjusted. These factors tend to
be negatively related to victimization, and may also make
involvement with deviant peers and a subsequent increase
in bullying behavior less likely.
In summary, research on peer group dynamics and the
social relations of exceptional students comes together to
suggest that students with mild disabilities may be more
likely to be bullies and victims and they may have social
characteristics and peer affiliation patterns that exacerbate
their risk for involvement in bullying. In contrast, aca-
demically gifted students may have social characteristics
and affiliation patterns that protect against bullying and
victimization. Little work, however, has examined the
relationship between educational status (i.e., academically
gifted, general education, mild disabilities) and involve-
ment in bullying, and less has looked at how this may
interact with associations with aggressive and/or popular
peers. Information along these lines may help clarify peer
group dynamics that contribute to bullying and victimiza-
tion in the classroom. Toward this end, we sought to
examine differences among academically gifted students,
students with mild disabilities, and general education stu-
dents on ratings of victimization and bullying in relation to
their peer associations.
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 139

Four research questions guided our work. Our first
research question focused on the relationship between peer
nominated social characteristics and involvement in bul-
lying. Are teachers’ and peers’ perceptions of bullying and
victimization related to peer nominations on key social
factors (i.e., aggression, positive behavior, internalizing,
social prominence, social preference)? We hypothesized
that peer nominations of aggression would be positively
related, and social preference negatively related to both
teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying. We fur-
ther hypothesized that victimization would be negatively
related to peer nominated popularity and social preference,
and positively related to internalizing. Our second research
question examined whether peers perceived classmates
differently as a function of their education status. Do
academically gifted students, general education students,
and students with mild disabilities differ in the nominations
they receive from peers? We hypothesized that gifted stu-
dents would be viewed as popular, well-liked, having
positive behavior, and neither aggressive nor high on
internalizing, while students with special needs would be
viewed by peers as aggressive, high on internalizing, and
low on social preference, popularity, and positive behavior.
Our third research question investigated the relationship
between education status and associations with teacher-
rated aggressive and popular peers. Is education status
differentially linked to peer group membership? We
hypothesized that gifted students would be least likely and
students with special needs the most likely to have
aggressive friends. We also hypothesized that gifted stu-
dents would be most likely and students with special needs
least likely to have popular friends. Our fourth research
question explored the combined effect of education status
and group types on involvement in bullying. Is bullying
and victimization for students in different education status
categories moderated by membership in aggressive and
popular peer groups? We hypothesized that students with
special needs who have aggressive but not popular asso-
ciates would have the highest levels of bullying, and gifted
students with popular but not aggressive associates would
have the lowest levels of bullying. We further hypothesized
that students with special needs and neither aggressive nor
popular associates would have the highest victimization
ratings while gifted students with popular and non-
aggressive associates would have the lowest levels of
victimization.
Method
We employed a multi-source survey design that included
teacher- and peer-report measures as well as school record
information. This included peer reports to identify groups
and to examine how bullying and education status relate to
a variety of other behaviors. We relied on teacher reports to
classify the participants’ associates, and used both peer and
teacher reports to examine involvement in bullying.
Finally, we used school record information to determine
the education status of the participants.
Participants
Participants came from eleven elementary schools in two
school districts. Both districts were located in a state in the
Southeastern United States. One district served a small
metropolitan area and the other served a rural county. We
obtained parent consent and student assent for 69% of the
701 students from 35 classrooms across the schools. Class
size ranged from 18 to 27, with an average of 20 students
per classroom. An average of nearly 14 of these 20 students
participated in the present study. The sample consisted of
484 fifth graders (258 girls, 226 boys), including 369
(76.2%; 196 girls and 173 boys) general education stu-
dents, 74 (15.3%; 50 girls and 24 boys) academically gifted
students, and 41 (8.5%; 12 girls and 29 boys) students with
high incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, mild
mental retardation, emotional and behavioral disorders; see
Table 1). While 10–20% of students typically qualify as
having special needs, we examined only those students
with special needs who spent the majority of their day in

Table 1 Sample characteristics

Girls Boys Total
by education classification and
gender Not in special education 196 (53.1%) 173 (46.9%) 369 (76.2%)
Academic gift 51 (68.0%) 24 (32.0%) 75 (15.5%)
Learning disability 3 (20.0%) 12 (80.0%) 15 (3.1%)
Emotional handicap/emotional behavior disability 1 (20.0%) 4 (80.0%) 5 (1.0%)
Mild mental retardation 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.7%) 6 (1.2%)
Speech impairment 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.7%) 6 (1.2%)
Other health impairment 0 (0.0%) 4 (100.0%) 4 (0.8%)
Unspecified special need 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)
504 plan 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 3 (0.6%)

123
140
general education classrooms. This reduced the number of
children with special needs in the sample to the previously
mentioned 8.5%. These percentages reflect the distribution
of these populations within the school districts where this
research was conducted and were also consistent with state
level rates of having mild special needs and giftedness.
All students who were in the top 15% of their class in
achievement were considered academically gifted by the
schools. Students in the mild disability sample were iden-
tified by local school assessment procedures that reflected
federal definitions and guidelines for learning disabled,
behavioral disordered, health disability, noncategorical
disability, mild mental retardation, and speech disability.
The different definitions are not provided because all stu-
dents with disabilities were collapsed into a single category
(mild disabilities). We did this for three reasons. First,
preliminary analyses indicated a high level of similarity
between the different special education classifications for
teacher-, peer-, and self-assessed characteristics. However,
variability in the sample sizes for different categories,
together with the very small sample size of some catego-
ries, could have led us to misinterpret the results.
Collapsing students into a single mild disabilities category
protected against inaccurate comparisons across disability
areas.
Second, during the current climate of serving and
identifying special education students based on service
needs (e.g., mild and moderate need, high incidence ser-
vice needs) rather than categorical approaches, there is
considerable variability across states in terms of how
categorical classifications are operationalized. By focusing
on students with mild disabilities who were included in
general education classrooms for most of the school day,
we avoid the issue of variability in categorical classifi-
cations. Third, our aim was not to identify characteristics
associated with specific disabilities. Rather, our goal was
to explore the relationship between bullying involvement
and students with disabilities in general. Further, this
approach has been used in other studies of the peer
relations of students with disabilities in general education
classrooms (e.g., Farmer et al. 1999; Sale and Carey
1995; Rodkin et al. 2006).
Because we focused on the social relations of students
with disabilities in inclusive settings, we recruited only
those students who spent more than 50% of the school day
in general education classrooms to participate. Therefore,
all participants, regardless of education status, were
included in general education classrooms for all or most of
the school day, and all classroom assessments refer to
inclusive rooms. Fifty-five percent (267/483) of our par-
ticipants were Caucasian, 41% (198/483) were African
American, 1% (3/483) were Latino(a), and 3% (15/483)
were of another ethnicity.
123
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
Ethnicity and special education status were related
(v2(6,n=483) = 17.74, p \ .01). Among Caucasians, 70.4%
(188/267) were in general education, 8.2% (22/267) had
special needs, and 21.3% (57/267) were academically gif-
ted. Eighty-three percent (165/198) African Americans
were in general education, 8.6% (17/198) had special
needs, and 8.1% (16/198) were academically gifted. All
three Latino/a students were in general education. Finally,
80.0% (12/15) of individuals from other ethnicities were in
general education, 13.3% (2/15) had special needs, and
6.7% (1/15) were academically gifted.
Procedures
We used group administration procedures when collecting
the survey data. Before the administration of the survey, we
assured participants their answers would be kept confi-
dential, asked them to protect the confidentiality of their
responses, and told them that they could stop participating
at any time. We consulted teachers prior to administration
about typical accommodations needed by students for
exams, and made parallel accommodations where needed.
During the survey, one administrator read the instructions
and questions aloud, while additional administrators pro-
vided mobile monitoring and assistance as needed.
Teachers also completed rating forms on each participant
during the group administration. Non-participants were
told by their teachers to work on class assignments during
the data collection.
For all peer nomination measures, the probe focused on
the classroom level (i.e., participants were told that they
could only nominate peers in their classroom). We did this
because the sample was in elementary school and there was
minimal interaction among students in different classes. All
peer nominations were made from free recall (i.e., we did
not provide class rosters).
Measures
Social Cognitive Maps (SCM)
For this measure, participants were asked ‘‘Are there some
kids in your class who hang around together a lot? Who are
they?’’ Following the procedures developed by Cairns and
colleagues (e.g., Cairns et al. 1985), participants were
instructed to list, from free recall, as many groups as they
could think of in their class. In addition, they were asked to
circle the individual or individuals who were the leaders of
each group, if the group had a leader.
To identify distinct groups within the classroom social
network, we analyzed the SCM data following the proce-
dures outlined by Cairns and colleagues (Cairns and Cairns
1994; Cairns et al. 1995a). SCM procedures have been
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
used extensively in research on school social networks in a
variety of populations including a mixed-race urban and
rural sample (Cairns et al. 1988), a mixed-race suburban
sample (Rodkin et al. 2000), inner-city African Americans
(Estell et al. 2002; Xie et al. 1999), Chinese students
(Leung 1996), and students with special needs (Farmer and
Hollowell, 1994). Three week test-retest reliability coeffi-
cients indicate high short-term stability of children’s peer
groups (i.e., 90% of groups maintain a majority of their
members over this period; Cairns et al. 1995a). Further, the
results of SCM analyses match observed affiliations
(Cairns and Cairns 1994; Cairns et al. 1985).
We identified a total of 45 primarily-male groups with a
range of 2–9 members, and 29 male isolates. The mean
group size for boys was 6.26. A total of 61 female groups
were identified with a range of 2–9 members, and there
were 14 female isolates. The mean group size for girls was
5.23. These means and ranges are consistent with those of
other studies of late elementary and middle school peer
groups (Bagwell et al. 2000; Cairns et al. 1988; Farmer
and Hollowell 1994; Xie et al. 1999).
Teacher Ratings of Social Adaptation
Teachers rated participants on a number of items relating to
social adaptation. These items were displayed in Likert-
type seven-point formats. The present study utilized three
of these items: ‘‘bullied by peers,’’ ‘‘bullies peers,’’
‘‘manipulates friendships.’’ The two items relating to bul-
lying (as aggressor or target) were used as dependent
variables, and the ‘‘manipulates friendships’’ was included
in the ICS-T factor analysis (described below) as a measure
of relational aggression.
ICS-T
Teachers rated participants on the Interpersonal Compe-
tence Scale—Teacher (ICS-T; Cairns et al. 1995b), an 18-
item instrument which asks teachers to rate children on a
variety of characteristics relating to aggressiveness, popu-
larity, and academic competence. The items are displayed
in Likert-type, seven-point scales. These scales are
anchored by frequency (i.e., often vs. never fights, argues,
etc.) or degree (very popular vs. not popular; has lots of
friends vs. has very few friends). These 18 items load onto
six sub-scales, though for the present study, only an
aggression factor (‘‘argues,’’ ‘‘gets in trouble,’’ and
‘‘fights’’ from the ICS-T, with ‘‘manipulates friendships’’
from the teacher ratings described above added; a = .84)
and the popularity factor (‘‘popular with boys,’’ ‘‘popular
with girls,’’ ‘‘has lots of friends,’’ a = .81) were examined.
Past research has shown that 3-week test-retest reliability
coefficients are moderately high (i.e., .80–.92), median
141
test-retest r across the factors are .81 for girls and .87 for
boys, and 1-year coefficients are moderately strong (i.e.,
.40–.50; Cairns et al. 1995b). ICS-T has been shown to
have convergent validity with direct observations, grades,
school discipline reports, and peer nominations, and pre-
dictive validity for early school dropout, teen parenthood,
and criminal arrest in early adulthood, (Cairns and Cairns
1994; Cairns et al. 1995b). This measure has also been
used extensively in past work on issues pertaining to
popularity and aggression (Cairns et al. 1988; Estell et al.
2002, 2007; Farmer and Rodkin 1996; Rodkin et al. 2000).
Peer Social Preference
Participants were asked to nominate up to three classmates
from a list of participants they liked the most and up to
three they liked the least, and social preference was cal-
culated following the criteria described in Asher and Coie
(1990). Specifically, each participant’s number of nomi-
nations for being most liked and least liked were
standardized within class, and social preference score was
calculated by subtracting their liked-least z-score from
their liked-most z-score.
Peer Interpersonal Assessments
We used peer interpersonal assessments to determine
classmates’ perceptions of peers’ social and behavioral
characteristics. Students were asked to nominate, from free
recall, up to three classmates who best fit descriptors for
several items. They were told during the testing procedures
that they could nominate the same person for more than
one item, they did not need to fill all three blanks if they
did not know three people who fit an item, they could
bypass an item if they felt that they did not know anyone at
all who fit that particular item, and that they could nomi-
nate themselves. For analyses using these items, however,
all self-nominations were removed from consideration,
making these peer-nominations exclusively.
Past studies using these measures have indicated 3-week
test-retest reliability with individual items ranged from .72
to .93. These items are identical with or similar to peer
assessments used by other investigators (e.g., Coie et al.
1982; Masten et al. 1985), and past work has found strong
evidence of reliability and validity in diverse samples (Coie
et al. 1982; Masten et al.1985). We divided the total num-
ber of nominations participants received for each peer
assessment item by the total number of possible nominators
(i.e., all participants in the class). Because the denominator
was the total number of participants in each class, the
resulting proportions were in many cases quite small. In
order to make mean differences clearer, we linearly trans-
formed these proportions by multiplying them by 1,000.
123
142 J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150

Table 2 Peer nomination loadings for varimax-rotated component Peer-group types were a function of the proportion and
matrix number of aggressive and popular members in the group.
Component For the example of aggression, we classified a participant
as having aggressive associates if at least 50% of their
Aggression Positive Social Internalizing
behav. prom. SCM-derived peer group members were classified as
aggressive or, in larger groups, if they had at least three
Disruptive .90 -.04 -.02 -.02 aggressive associates. We used identical criteria to classify
Starts fights .86 -.06 .24 .06 groups by the proportion and/or number of popular
Gets in .82 -.11 .14 .02 members.
trouble
Starts rumors .76 .07 .25 -.04
Cooperative -.06 .88 .25 .12 Results
Good student .01 .85 .12 -.01
Friendly -.09 .86 .11 .17 We present out results in four major sections, corre-
Athletic .26 -.00 .74 .06 sponding to our four research questions. The first section
Cool .25 .24 .83 -.10 uses correlation analyses to examine how peer-nominated
Popular .02 .31 .78 -.06 interpersonal characteristics relate to bullying and victim-
Acts shy -.07 .21 .02 .84 ization. The second section uses ANOVAs to examine the
Sad .08 .01 -.07 .86 relationship between educational status and peer-nomi-
Note: all loadings in excess of .4 are bolded nated characteristics. The third section uses v2 analyses to
investigate the relationship between education status and
aggressive and popular groups. The fourth and final section
We ran a principal components analysis with a Varimax employs MANOVAs with follow-up ANOVAs and Tu-
rotation on 12 items (‘‘bully’’ and ‘‘picked on’’ were key’s tests to explore the combined effect of education
excluded from the factor analysis and instead used as status and group types on bullying and victimization.
dependent variables). Four factors had eigenvalues in excess
of 1.0, and a scree plot indicated that a four-factor solution Peer Behavioral Nominations and Bullying and
provided the best fit to the data, as there was a major change Victimization
in slope between the fourth and fifth factors. This four-
component solution accounted for 75.6% of the variance in We calculated correlations within classrooms and then
the items. As seen in the rotated loading matrix in Table 2, combined them for the following analyses. Due to the
all items loaded on their corresponding component in excess number of correlations run, we only considered those sig-
of .74, and no item cross-loaded on another component nificant at less than the .0025 level (.05/20) as significant.
greater than .31. The resulting factors were aggression Teacher ratings of ‘‘bullies’’ were positively related to peer
(Cronbach’s a = .87; consists of ‘‘disruptive,’’ ‘‘starts nominated aggression (r(454) = .50, p \ .001) and promi-
fights,’’ ‘‘gets in trouble,’’ and ‘‘starts rumors’’), positive nence (r(454) = .21, p \ .001) factors, negatively related to
behavior (a = .85; consists of ‘‘cooperative,’’ ‘‘good stu- the peer nominated positive behavior factor (r(454) = -.17,
dent,’’ and ‘‘friendly’’), social promience (a = .76; consists p \ .001) and social preference (r(451) = -.28, p \ .001),
of ‘‘athletic,’’ ‘‘cool,’’ and ‘‘popular’’), and internalizing and unrelated to the peer nominated internalizing factor
(a = .66; consists of ‘‘acts shy’’ and ‘‘sad’’). (r(454) = -.01, p = .86). Peer nominations for ‘‘bully’’
were positively related to the peer aggression factor
Peer-group Types (r(480) = .89, p \ .001) and the prominence factor
(r(480) = .40, p \ .001), negatively related to social pref-
We classified the peer groups identified by the SCM erence (r(477) = -.24, p \ .001), and unrelated to the peer
analysis according to the aggression and popularity level of positive behavior (r(480) = -.08, p = .08) and internaliz-
their constituent members. Consistent with past work ing (r(480) = .08, p = .10) factors.
examining peer-group characteristics (Farmer et al. 2002), Teacher ratings of ‘‘bullied’’ were negatively related to
we calculated within-sex and -class z-scores for the ICS-T social preference (r(452) = -.17, p \ .001), but unrelated
aggression and popularity factors. We classified a partici- to aggression (r(455) = .06, p = .19), internalizing
pant as popular or aggressive if their z-score was greater (r(455) = .28, p = .05), positive behavior (r(455) = -.13,
than or equal to ?.50. This resulted in 32.2% (146/454) of p = .01), or prominence (r(455) = -.11, p = .05). Peer
participants being identified as popular and 31.0% (140/ nominations of ‘‘picked on’’ were positively related to
452) as aggressive. aggression (r(480) = .29, p \ .001) and internalizing

123
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
(r(480) = .81, p \ .001), negatively related to social pref-
erence (r(477) = -.37, p \ .001), and unrelated to positive
behavior (r(480) = .04, p = .44) or prominence (r(480) =
-.03, p = .55).
These results indicate that both teachers and students
viewed bullying as related to aggression and social prom-
inence, but also associated with being disliked (i.e., low
social preference). Teachers also saw bullying as related to
low levels of prosocial behaviors. Both students and
teachers viewed being the target of bullying as related to
being disliked, and students further saw it as related to
being aggressive and high in internalizing behavior.
Education Status and Peer Behavioral Nominations
Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the
peer-nomination factors and social preference by educa-
tional classification. Education status was not related to
either the social prominence (F(2,477) = 1.04, p = .35;
g2p = .004) or aggression (F(2,477) = 0.79, p = .45;
g2p = .003) factors. It was related to peer-nominated pro-
social behavior (F(2,477) = 7.13, p \ .001; g2p = .029),
internalizing (F(2,477) = 8.43, p \ .001; g2p = .034), and
social preference (F(2,474) = 4.61, p \ .01; g2p = .019).
Post-hoc Tukey’s tests indicated that academically gifted
students had more positive behavior nominations than
general education students or students with mild disabili-
ties. Students with mild disabilities had higher internalizing
nominations than general education or academically gifted
students. Finally, academically gifted students had signifi-
cantly higher social preference scores than students with
mild disabilities.
Education Status, Behavioral Classification, and Peer
Associates
Education status was not significantly related to the tea-
cher-rated aggressive classification (v2(2,n=452) = 4.51,
p = .11). For students in general education, 32.7% (111/
339) were rated by teachers as aggressive. This compared
Table 3 Peer-nominated characteristics by education status
Variable Education status
General education
M SD
Social prominence 82.06 94.43
Aggression 56.73 102.65
Positive behavior 92.75A 107.29
Internalizing 52.64A 73.32
Social preference 0.11AB 1.45
Different superscripts indicate significant differences (p \ .01)
143
to 35.0% (14/40) of students with mild disabilities and
20.5% (15/73) of academically gifted students. Education
status was also not related to teacher-rated popularity status
(v2(2,n=454) = 4.00, p = .14). Among children in general
education, 30.6% (104/340) were classified as popular, as
were 27.5% (11/40) of those with mild disabilities and
41.8% (31/74) of academically gifted participants.
Our analyses for peer associations suggested that there
were differences in peer group affiliations as a function of
education status. The effect for aggressive associates was
not significant (v2(2,n=465) = 5.30, p = .07). The differences
for education status were pronounced for popular associ-
ates (v2(2,n=465) = 39.37, p \ .001). A lower proportion (57/
350, or 16.3%) of participants in general education had
popular associates than expected by chance (Fisher’s Exact
Probability \ .001), and a higher proportion (36/74, or
48.6%) of academically gifted students had popular asso-
ciates (Fisher’s Exact Probability \ .001). The proportion
of students with mild disabilities (6/41, or 14.6%) was not
significantly different from chance (Fisher’s Exact
Probability = .19).
These results show that students in general education,
those who are gifted, and those who have mild disabilities
were all equally likely to be considered aggressive or
popular, and are equally likely to have aggressive associ-
ates. Gifted students were, however, more likely to have
popular associates.
Bullying and Victimization by Education Status and
Group Types
Bullying by Education Status and Group Types
To examine the potential interaction of groups and edu-
cation classifications on bullying, we ran a MANOVA with
education classification, popular associates, and aggressive
associates as independent variables and peer-nominations
and teacher-ratings of being a bully as the dependent
variables. The MANOVA indicated that there were main
effects of education status (Wilks’ K = 0.93,
Mild disabilities Academically gifted
M SD M SD
89.45 143.21 100.00 92.77
76.34 137.69 51.27 85.08
70.39A 96.28 141.07B 136.23
96.87B 121.03 34.89A 62.22
-0.31A 1.61 0.56B 1.69
123
144
F(4,884) = 8.55, p \ .001; g2p = .053), aggressive-associ-
ates (Wilks’ K = 0.93, F(2,442) = 16.93, p \ .001;
g2p = .071), popular-associates (Wilks’ K = 0.96,
F(2,442) = 9.57, p \ .001; g2p = .041), education status by
aggressive associates (Wilks’ K = 0.95, F(4,884) = 5.57,
p \ .001; g2p = .048), education status by popular associ-
ates (Wilks’ K = 0.94, F(4,884) = 6.42, p \ .001;
g2p = .043), and the three-way interaction of education
status by aggressive associates by popular associates
(Wilks’ K = 0.94, F(2,442) = 14.59, p \ .001; g2p = .062).
To probe these multivariate effects, we ran follow-up
ANOVAs for each dependent. For teacher ratings of
‘‘bullies’’ we found main effects for education status
(F(2,443) = 4.79, p \ .01; g2p = .021), and aggressive
associates (F(1,443) = 9.05, p \ .01; g2p = .020), but no
main effect of popular associates (F(1,443) = 1.49, p = .22;
g2p = .003), and no two-way interactive effects of educa-
tion status by either aggressive associates (F(2,443) = 0.12,
p = .88; g2p = .001) or popular associates (F(2,443) = 3.01,
p = .05; g2p = .013), and no three-way interaction of edu-
cation status by aggressive group by popularity group
(F(1,443) = 0.35, p = .55; g2p = .001).
Post-hoc tests indicated that the main effect of education
status was due to students with mild disabilities (M = 4.16,
SE = 0.54) having significantly higher teacher ratings of
being bullies than those in general education (M = 3.15,
SE = 0.17) who in turn had higher ratings of being bullies
than academically gifted students (M = 2.14, SE = 0.26).
The main effect of aggressive associates was due to those
with aggressive associates (M = 4.21, SE = 0.43) having
higher ratings for being bullies than those without
aggressive associates (M = 2.43, SE = 0.17).
In summary, teacher ratings of bullying were highest
among students with mild disabilities and lowest among
gifted students. Further, all students with aggressive asso-
ciates had higher teacher ratings of bullying.
For peer-nominations of ‘‘bully’’ there were main effects
for education status (F(1,443) = 11.59, p \ .001; g2p = .050),
aggressive associates (F(1,443) = 33.53, p \ .001; g2p =.
Fig. 1 Peer nominations of
‘‘bully’’ by education status and
aggressive affiliations
Peer "Bully" Nominations
123
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
070), and popular associates (F(1,443) = 18.74, p \ .001;
g2p = .041). There were also two-way interactions of edu-
cation status by aggressive associates (F(2,443) = 8.96,
p \ .001; g2p = .039) and popular associates (F(2,443) =
9.48, p \ .001; g2p = .041). Finally, the three-way interac-
tion of education status by aggressive group by popularity
group was significant (F(1,443) = 21.42, p \ .001; g2p =
.046).
Post-hoc tests indicated that the main effect of education
status was due to individuals with mild disabilities
(M = 200.97, SE = 29.51) having more peer nominations
for bullying than students in general education
(M = 56.64, SE = 9.25) or academically gifted students
(M = 50.89, SE = 14.17). The main effect of aggressive
associates was due to those with aggressive associates
(M = 190.19, SE = 23.65) having more nominations for
bullying than those without aggressive associates
(M = 38.69, SE = 9.33). Similarly, the main effect of
popular associates was due to those with popular associates
(M = 162.74, SE = 22.89) having more nominations for
bullying than those without popular associates (M = 61.57,
SE = 10.56).
Figures 1 and 2 show the two-way interactions of edu-
cation status by aggressive associates and education status
by popular associates, respectively. Post-hoc tests indicate
that students with mild disabilities and aggressive associ-
ates had more peer nominations of being bullies than all
other cells. Individuals in general education and aggressive
associates had significantly more peer nominations for
being bullies than all those without aggressive associates.
Finally, academically gifted students with aggressive
associates had more peer nominations for bullying than
academically gifted students and general education stu-
dents without aggressive associates.
Post-hoc tests for the education status by popular asso-
ciates interaction indicated that students with mild
disabilities and popular associates had more peer nomina-
tions for being bullies than all others. Students with mild
disabilities without popular associates had significantly
700
600
General Education Students
500 Students With Mild Disabilities
Academically Gifted Students
400 D
300
200
C BC
100 A AB A
0
Agg. Assoc. Not Agg. Assoc.
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150 145

Fig. 2 Peer nominations of 700

‘‘bully’’ by education status and
600 General Education Students

Peer "Bully" Nominations

popular affiliations
Students With Mild Disabilities
500
Academically Gifted Students
400 C

300

200
AB AB B
100 A AB

0
Pop. Assoc. Not Pop. Assoc.

Fig. 3 Peer-nominations of 700

‘‘bully’’ by education status, F
General Education Students
Peer "Bully" Nominations

aggressive and popular 600

affiliations Students With Mild Disabilities
500 Academically Gifted Students

400

300

200

E E
100 DE CD
AB AB AB BCD ABC
A
0
Agg. & Pop. Assoc. Agg. & Not Pop. Assoc. Not Agg. & Pop Assoc. Not Agg. & Not Pop Assoc.

more peer nominations for being bullies than those in
general education with popular associates and academi-
cally gifted students with popular associates.
Figure 3 shows the three-way interaction of education
status by aggressive associates by popular associates. Post-
hoc tests indicated that individuals with mild disabilities
who had aggressive and popular associates had more peer
nominations for bullying than all others. On the other end
of the spectrum, individuals in general education with
neither aggressive nor popular associates had the lowest
number of nominations. These individuals significantly
differed from all participants with aggressive associates as
well as students with mild disabilities with neither
aggressive nor popular associates.
In summary, peer nominations for bullying were highest
among students with mild disabilities, students with
aggressive associates, and students with popular associates.
But these relationships were more complicated. While
having aggressive associates was related to higher nomi-
nations for bullying for all groups, the effect was especially
evident among students with mild disabilities, and much
less marked in gifted students. A more pronounced dif-
ference occured with popular associates. While having
popular associates was related to higher nominations for
bullying in students with mild disabilities, popular
associations related to fewer nominations for bullying in
gifted and general education students. Finally, these vary-
ing types of associations exacerbated each others’ effects:
students with mild disabilities who belonged to groups of
both aggressive and popular peers had extremely high
numbers of peer nominations for bullying.
Victimization by Education Status and Group Types
We ran parallel analyses to those for bullying for victim-
ization, with the inclusion of isolates as a third group type.
We ran a MANOVA with education classification, popular
associates, and aggressive associates as independent vari-
ables and peer-nominations of being picked on and teacher-
ratings of being bullied as the dependent variables. This
MANOVA indicated that there was a main effect of edu-
cation status (Wilks’ K = 0.95, F(4,886) = 5.92, p \ .001;
g2p = .037), aggressive associates (Wilks’ K = 0.97,
F(2,443) = 4.66, p \ .01; g2p = .020) and popular associates
(Wilks’ K = 0.96, F(2,443) = 4.68, p \ .01; g2p = .021).
There were no interactive effects for education status by
either aggressive associates (Wilks’ K = 1.00, F(4,880) =
0.59, p = .67; g2p = .005) or popular associates (Wilks’
K = 0.98, F(4,880) = 0.31, p = .87; g2p = .002), and no
significant three-way interaction of education status by

123
146
aggressive associates by popular associates (Wilks’
K = 1.00, F(2,440) = 0.89, p = .41; g2p = .004).
We probed these effects with follow-up ANOVAs for
each dependent variable. For teacher ratings of ‘‘bullied’’
there was a main effect of education status (F(2,441) = 7.62,
p \ .001; g2p = .033), aggressive associates (F(1,441) =
4.09, p \ .05; g2p = .019), and popular associates
(F(1,441) = 5.55, p \ .01; g2p = .022). There were no
interactive effects for education status by either aggressive
associates (F(2,441) = 1.04, p = .35; g2p = .005) or popular
associates (F(2,441) = 0.45, p = .64; g2p = .002), and no
significant three-way interaction of education status by
aggressive associates by popular associates (F(1,441) =
1.78, p = .18; g2p = .004). Post-hoc tests indicated that the
main effect of education status was due to significant dif-
ferences among all three groups of students: those with
mild disabilities (M = 3.10, SE = 0.29) had the highest
ratings for being bullied, followed by those in general
education (M = 2.44 SE = 0.08), while academically gif-
ted participants were the lowest (M = 1.34, SE = 0.07).
The main effect of aggressive associates was due to isolates
(M = 3.37, SE = 0.32) having higher ratings of being
bullied than participants with (M = 2.47, SE = 0.14) or
without (M = 2.15, SE = 0.08) aggressive associates.
Finally, the main effect of popular associates was due to
isolates (M = 3.37, SE = 0.32) having higher ratings of
being bullied than those without popular associates
(M = 2.35, SE = 0.08) and those with popular associates
(M = 1.77, SE = 0.12). Students without popular associ-
ates had significantly higher ratings of being bullied than
those with popular associates.
In summary, teachers rated students with mild disabili-
ties as highest in being bullied, and gifted students lowest.
Further, while isolates had high ratings for being bullied,
those with popular associates had very low ratings for
being bullied.
For peer nominations of ‘‘picked on’’ there were sig-
nificant main effects of aggressive associates (F(1,441) =
5.33, p \ .01; g2p = .023), and popular associates
(F(1,441) = 5.47, p \ .01; g2p = .022). The main effects of
education status (F(2,441) = 2.17, p = .12; g2p = .010) was
non-significant. The interactions of education status by
aggressive associates (F(2,441 = 0.22, p = .80; g2p = .001),
education status by popular associates (F(2,441 = 0.17,
p = .84; g2p = .001), and education status by aggressive
associates by popular associates (F(1,441 = 0.04, p = .84;
g2p = .000) were also all non-significant. Post-hoc tests
indicated that the main effect of aggressive associates was
due to isolates (M = 181.04, SE = 41.59) having higher
numbers of nominations for being picked on than those
with (M = 75.92, SE = 12.91) or without (M = 59.68,
SE = 6.87) aggressive associates. Similarly, the main
effect of popular associates was due to isolates
123
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
(M = 181.04, SE = 41.59) having higher numbers of
nominations for being picked on than those with
(M = 47.41, SE = 9.67) or without (M = 67.99,
SE = 7.34) popular associates. In short, isolates had high
numbers of peer nominations for being bullied.
Discussion
The social dynamics of bullying and victimization involves
the interplay between the interpersonal characteristics of
individual students and the characteristics of the peer
groups in which they are embedded (Rodkin and Hodges
2003; Salmivalli et al. 1997). Consistent with prior
research with late elementary students (e.g., Adler and
Adler 1995; Hodges and Perry 1999; Pellegrini et al.
1999), our results indicate that bullying was positively
associated with peer nominated aggression and—more
modestly—social prominence, and negatively related to
peer social preference and peer nominations of positive
behavior. Victimization was positively related to peer
nominations for internalizing and modestly related to
aggressive behavior (positively) and social preference
(negatively). Further, while the effect sizes were small,
students who associated with aggressive peers and students
who associated with popular peers were more likely to be
identified as bullies. Students who were isolated were more
likely to be bullied than students were in non-popular
groups, who, in turn, were more likely to be bullied than
peers who were in popular groups.
Our findings help extend current viewpoints by showing
that academically gifted students, general education stu-
dents, and students with mild disabilities are differentially
involved in bullying. Further, such involvement is moder-
ated in part by their peer group membership. In our sample
of 5th graders, students with mild disabilities were more
likely to be viewed by peers as being bullies than
were academically gifted and general education students.
Teachers also perceived students with mild disabilities as
being more likely to be bullies and victims of bullying than
were general education students. General education stu-
dents were, in turn, more likely to be rated by teachers as
bullies and as being bullied than were academically gifted
students. In addition, students with mild disabilities who
associated with aggressive and popular peers were more
likely to be bullies than all other students. In contrast,
general education students who were not in popular or
aggressive groups were least likely to be nominated by
peers as bullies.
The importance of our findings comes into focus when
considered in light of ethnographic research on social
dynamics and survey research on social networks and
bullying participant roles. Ethnographic studies (e.g., Adler
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
and Adler 1995; Evans and Eder 1993) describe early
adolescent social dynamics as being a process where stu-
dents are constantly vying for social positions and for
social identities that protect against being victimized and
excluded by others. In such a context, students who are
social isolates are particularly vulnerable to being targeted
by bullies. Students who are themselves socially vulnerable
(e.g., students with mild disabilities) are likely to seek out
the approval of popular peers and to bully others as a way
to promote their own social positions. Further, by targeting
peers who are vulnerable, bullies appear to use aggressive
strategies as a way to consolidate the support of others in
their peer group (Salmivalli et al. 1997). In contrast, stu-
dents in middle-level peer groups (e.g., groups that are not
prominent or peripheral in the social structure) are more
focused on school activities than their social prominence
and are less likely to be involved in bullying (Adler and
Adler 1996).
When examined from this backdrop, our results have
important implications for understanding bullying and
victimization in late elementary classrooms. As students
jockey for position in their classroom social network, they
may seek to reduce their own social vulnerability by bul-
lying others and by associating with popular and aggressive
peers. Because they are socially vulnerable (Frederickson
and Furnham 2004; Gresham and MacMillan 1997; Sale
and Carey 1995), students with mild disabilities may be
susceptible to being bullied and may compensate by bul-
lying others and by affiliating with peers who support this
behavior. On the other hand, academically gifted students
tend to be fairly well accepted in late elementary school
(Austin and Draper 1981; Schneider et al. 1989) and may
focus more on academics than social prominence. There-
fore, while they tend to be socially prominent and associate
with peers who teachers view as being popular, academi-
cally gifted students do not appear to be vulnerable to being
bullied and seem to be relatively less likely to be involved
in bullying. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that general
education students who are not in popular or aggressive
groups—i.e., those who are not supported in aggression by
aggressive peers and are not fighting to maintain a prom-
inent position in the social hierarchy—may be the least
likely to be involved in bullying.
Our study has important implications for the develop-
ment of bullying prevention programs and for the inclusion
of students with exceptionalities in general education
classrooms. First, there is a need for teachers to be aware
that membership in both aggressive peer groups and pop-
ular peer groups may place students at risk for bullying
others. Teachers may then be able to utilize seating charts
and group activities to encourage such students to form
associations with prosocial peers. Second, there is a need
for anti-bullying efforts that focus specifically on the social
147
risks of students with mild disabilities. Such students are
susceptible to both bullying and being victimized and may
also develop peer affiliations that further support their risk
for involvement in bullying. Current efforts in these areas
may need to be modified to account for individual needs.
Third, there is a need to develop inclusion strategies that
are responsive to the differential social needs and risks of
students with exceptionalities and that focus on creating
classroom social contexts that reduce bullying by enhanc-
ing the social opportunities and social positions of all
students.
While our findings are compelling, our study has several
limitations that must be considered. First, it should be
noted that despite their significance, the effect sizes for all
the relationships discussed above are small—ranging from
.02 to .07. These effect sizes may be due in part to the
complexity of the models being fitted—inclusion of three
main effects in addition to two-two-way and one-three-way
interactions greatly reduces the variability that any one
component of the model can explain. Beyond that, how-
ever, this speaks to the complexity of the processes leading
to bullying and victimization: while exceptionalities and
peer relations are important, many other factors are at
work. This leads directly to the second major limitation.
There are a number of variables that could be confounds
that we could not include in the study. Family structure and
socio-economic status, for example, tend to be related to
the need for special education services and academic
giftedness, and also have demonstrated relationships with
social outcomes. These variables could be driving many of
the relationships we found and may be contributing to the
variance unexplained by the our model.
A third key limitation was that the sample only included
fifth grade students. While this was consistent with our goal
of focusing on classroom social dynamics during late ele-
mentary school and the emerging transition to early
adolescence, it is not appropriate to generalize our findings
to early elementary school or to middle school. Additional
research is needed that addresses our aims in samples of
both younger and older students. Fourth, the sample of
students with disabilities was small and students with dif-
ferent types of mild disabilities were aggregated together.
Although our sample was small in statistical terms, it is
fairly large relative to many studies that focus on the social
relations of students with mild disabilities. Because of
issues of critical mass (i.e., only a few students with mild
disabilities per classroom), it was necessary to have very
large samples to study this population. This made it nec-
essary to collapse students with different high incidence
disabilities into a single category. While this is not an
appropriate practice when the aim is to generate knowledge
about a particular disability category, it does demonstrate
the need to include a focus on students with disabilities in
123
148
bullying and victimization research (which was one of our
key aims). There is clearly a significant need for large scale
studies that have sufficiently large samples of students with
different disabilities.
Finally, our investigation did not examine gender dif-
ferences. It is likely that boys and girls are involved in
bullying and victimization in different ways. Girls are more
likely to be involved with relational forms of bullying and
aggression while boys tend toward physical forms of
harassment (Crick et al. 1996). These forms of aggression
have differential relationships with both social skills
(Farmer 2000) and social functioning with peers (Cillessen
and Mayeux 2004).This is especially important in light of
the higher incidence of mild disabilities among boys and
the higher rate of giftedness among girls. The relationships
between exceptionalities, bullying, and popularity may be
in many ways driven by these gender differences. Unfor-
tunately, it was not possible to examine gender differences
among students with exceptionalities because of our small
sample sizes. As a result, our measures also collapsed
across forms of aggression (i.e., included both physical and
relational aggression). While the resulting measures of
internal consistency were adequate, there may be differ-
ential relationships between exceptionalities, social
functioning, and different forms of aggression. Research
with larger samples is needed to explore gender differences
across different special education categories as well as
within general education populations. Such work with
larger samples may be able to disentangle the effects of
exceptionalities on bullying and social functioning behav-
ior from those associated with gender and forms of
aggression.
In conclusion, our study indicates that students with
mild disabilities, academically gifted students, and general
education students are differentially at-risk for involvement
in bullying and victimization. Further, membership in both
aggressive and popular peer groups supports bullying,
while membership in popular groups appears to protect
against victimization. While our work has several limita-
tions, it does provide clear evidence to suggest a need for
research that focuses more specifically on exceptional
populations in bullying research. In addition, the finding
that membership in popular peer groups may support bul-
lying but protect against victimization is highly
provocative and warrants more intensive examination.
Finally, our results suggest there is a need to carefully
consider and explore the social vulnerability and bullying
involvement of students with exceptionalities in the
development of anti-bullying interventions. While there is
currently a strong focus on inclusion and on the use of peer
support strategies (i.e., cooperative learning, peer tutoring)
to address the instructional needs of students with mild
disabilities in general education classrooms, our findings
123
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
suggest that some pairings of students may be advanta-
geous while others may be highly detrimental. There is a
critical need to scientifically generate new information in
this area that can ultimately be used to help guide peer
support practices and anti-bullying efforts.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by grants
H325C020106 and H324C040230 from the Office of Special Edu-
cation Programs of the Department of Education to Thomas W.
Farmer (Principal Investigator). The views expressed in this article
are ours and do not represent the granting agency.
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion
in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145–
162.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1996). Preadolescent clique stratification
and the hierarchy of identity. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 111–142.
Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Patterns of close relation-
ships and socioemotional and academic adjustment among
school-age children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabil-
ities Research and Practice, 19, 12–19.
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the
classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–99.
Austin, A. B., & Draper, D. C. (1981). Peer relationships of
the academically gifted: A review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25,
129–133.
Bagwell, C. L., Coie, J. D., Terry, R. A., & Lochman, J. E. (2000).
Peer clique participation and social status in preadolescence.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 280–305.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of
youth in our time. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. J., & Gariépy,
J.-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer
support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24,
815–823.
Cairns, R. B., Leung, M.-C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995a).
Friendships and social networks in childhood and adolescence:
Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Development, 66,
1330–1345.
Cairns, R. B., Leung, M.-C., Gest, S. D., & Cairns, B. D. (1995b). A
brief method for assessing social development: Structure,
reliability, stability, and developmental validity of the Interper-
sonal Competence Scale. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 33,
725–736.
Cairns, R. B., Perrin, J. E., & Cairns, B. D. (1985). Social structure ad
social cognition in early adolescence: Affiliative patterns.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 339–355.
Cillessen, A. N. H., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From Censure to
reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association
between aggression and social status. Aggression & Violent
Behavior, 75, 147–163.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and
types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 18, 557–570.
Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences
in children’s normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt
thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 1003–
1014.
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
Estell, D. B., Cairns, R. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2002).
Aggression in inner-city early elementary classrooms: Individual
and peer group configurations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48,
52–76.
Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2007). Bullies and
victims in rural African American youth: Individual character-
istics and social network placement. Aggressive Behavior, 33,
145–159.
Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., & Rodkin, P. C.
(2003). Heterogeneity in the relationship between popularity and
aggression: Individual, group, and classroom influences. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.), S. C. Peck, & R. W. Roeser (Vol. Eds.),
New directions for child and adolescent development: Vol. 101.
Person-centered approaches to studying human development in
context (pp. 75–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., Farmer, T. W., &
Rodkin, P. C. (2008). Peer groups, popularity, and social
preference: Trajectories of social functioning among students
with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 41, 5–14.
Evans, C., & Eder, D. (1993). ‘No exit’: Processes of social isolation
in the middle school. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22,
139–170.
Farmer, T. W. (2000). The social dynamics of aggressive and
disruptive behavior in school: Implications for behavioral
consultation. Journal of Education and Behavioral Consultation,
21, 194–208.
Farmer, T. W., & Farmer, E. M. Z. (1996). Social relationships of
students with exceptionalities in mainstream classrooms: Social
networks and homophily. Exceptional Children, 62, 431–450.
Farmer, T. W., & Hollowell, J. H. (1994). Social networks in
mainstream classrooms: Social affiliations and behavioral char-
acteristics of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 2, 143–155.
Farmer, T. W., Leung, M.-C., Pearl, R., Rodkin, P. C., Cadwallader,
T. W., & Van Acker, R. (2002). Deviant or diverse groups? The
peer affiliations of aggressive elementary students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94, 611–620.
Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial
correlates of classroom social positions: The social network
centrality perspective. Social Development, 5, 174–188.
Farmer, T. W., Rodkin, P. C., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. M. (1999).
Teacher-assessed behavioral configurations, peer assessments,
and self-concepts of elementary students with mild disabilities.
Journal of Special Education, 33, 66–80.
Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2006). Friendship as a moderator of the
relationship between social skills problems and peer victimiza-
tion. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 110–121.
Frederickson, N. L., & Furnham, A. F. (2004). Peer-assessed
behavioural characteristics and sociometric rejection: Differ-
ences between pupils who have moderate learning difficulties
and their mainstream peers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 391–410.
Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A.
(2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic per-
formance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031.
Gresham, F. M., & MacMillan, D. L. (1997). Social competence and
affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities.
Review of Educational Research, 67, 377–415.
Guralnick, M. J., & Groom, J. M. (1987). The peer relations of mildly
delayed and nonhandicapped preschool children in mainstrea-
med playgroups. Child Development, 58, 1556–1572.
Guralnick, M. J., Hammond, M. A., Connor, R. T., & Neville, B.
(2006). Stability, change, and correlates of the peer relationships
149
of young children with mild developmental delays. Child
Development, 77, 312–324.
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of
patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 14, 69–89.
Hawkins, D. L., & Pepler, D. J. (2001). Naturalistic observations
of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10,
512–527.
Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999).
The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle
of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94–101.
Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal
antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685.
Janke, R. W., & Lee, K. (1991). Social skills ratings of exceptional
students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 54–66.
Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M.,
Vauras, M., Maki, H., et al. (2002). Learning difficulties, social
intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim
problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269–278.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29, 226–237.
Leung, M.-C. (1996). Social networks and self enhancement in
Chinese children: A comparison of self reports and peer reports
of group membership. Social Development, 2, 146–157.
Luftig, R. L., & Nichols, M. L. (1990). Assessing the social status of
gifted students by their age peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34,
111–115.
Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A revised class
play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology, 21,
523–533.
Moon, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Social/emotional issues, underachieve-
ment, and counseling of gifted and talented students. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Nazuboka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Sociometric status and social
behavior of children with and without learning difficulties.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disci-
plines, 34, 1435–1448.
O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in
bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of
Adolescence, 22, 437–452.
Pearl, R., Farmer, T. W., Van Acker, R., Rodkin, P., Bost, K. K., Coe,
M., et al. (1998). The social integration of students with mild
disabilities in general education classrooms: Peer group mem-
bership and peer-assessed social behavior. The Elementary
School Journal, 99, 167–185.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review of
and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 19, 165–176.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of
bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition
from primary school to middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 37, 699–725.
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies,
victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group
affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 216–224.
Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims,
perpetrators, prevalences and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50,
148–168.
Preuss, L. J., & Dubow, E. F. (2004). A comparison between
intellectually gifted and typical children in their coping
responses to a school and a peer stressor. Roeper Review, 26,
105–111.
123
150
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Van Acker, R., Pearl, R., Thompson, J.
H., & Fedora, P. (2006). Who do students with mild disabilities
nominate as cool in inclusive general education classrooms?
Journal of School Psychology, 44, 67–84.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. M. (2000).
Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial config-
urations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14–24.
Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2003). Bullies and victims in the
peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school
professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384–400.
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and
relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental
differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Develop-
mental Psychology, 40, 378–387.
Sale, P., & Carey, D. M. (1995). The sociometric status of students
with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children,
62, 6–19.
Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1997). Peer
networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 38, 305–312.
Schneider, B., & Daniels, T. (1992). Peer acceptance and social play
of gifted kindergarten children. Exceptionality, 3, 17–29.
Schneider, B. H., Clegg, M. R., Byrne, B. M., Ledingham, J. E., &
Crombie, G. (1989). Social relations of gifted children as a
function of age and school program. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 48–56.
Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s
peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181–192.
123
View publication stats
J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:136–150
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005).
Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic
functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425–435.
Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P.
(2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing
victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 565–581.
Svetaz, M. V., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Adolescents with
learning disabilities: Risk and protective factors associated with
emotional well-being: Findings from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27,
340–348.
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer
victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates:
Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child
Development, 76, 1072–1091.
Vaughn, S., Hogan, A., Kouzekanani, K., & Shapiro, S. (1990). Peer
acceptance, self-perceptions, and social skills of learning
disabled students prior to identification. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 101–106.
Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H.,
& Feil, E. G. (1998). First step to success: An early intervention
approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, 66–80.
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1999). Social networks and
configurations in inner-city schools: Aggression, popularity, and
implications for students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 7, 147–155.