Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 224–228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Happy and unhappy adolescent bullies: Evidence for theoretically

meaningful subgroups
Kevin C. Young a,⇑, Todd B. Kashdan a, Patrick E. McKnight a, Dan V. Blalock a, Mantak Yuen b,
Julia B. Richberg a
a
George Mason University, 4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030, United States
b
The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Are all bullies unhappy and socially disconnected? The majority of theorists argue that bullies are a
Received 10 January 2014 homogeneous group, such that their aggression is linked to less happiness and a greater probability of
Accepted 12 November 2014 social exclusion. Recent findings, however, indicate some bullies obtain social benefits from the act of
Available online 11 December 2014
bullying, increasing their happiness. We sought to identify whether subgroups of bullies exist among
481 Chinese adolescents (mean age = 16.9, SD = 1.5) using self-report data on bullying, victimization,
Keywords: and various psychological and behavioral variables. Cluster analytic results identified four subgroups dif-
Bullying
ferentiated primarily by level of bullying, happiness, and perceived social connectedness. Subgroups
Bullies
Happiness
included (1) happy, socially connected non-bullies (33.4%), (2) unhappy, socially disconnected non-
Cluster Analysis bullies (26.9%), (3) unhappy, socially disconnected bullies (17.3%) and (4) happy, socially connected
Social Connectedness bullies (22.4%). These results suggest that, not only are some bullies happy and socially connected, but
only a minority of bullies are unhappy and socially disconnected. Our findings offer unique insights into
potential positive consequences of bullying that may differentiate subgroups of bullies. Such insights
might inform existing and future anti-bullying interventions.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Dukes, & Warren, 2007), interpersonal difficulties (Undheim &

The majority of people, programs, and researchers view bullies
as a homogenous group of unhappy people whose bullying behav-
ior results in negative psychosocial consequences for all involved.
A ‘‘bully’’ can be defined as someone who initiates repetitive
aggression in an imbalanced power relationship with a victim
(Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1995). Bullying is neither a recent
phenomena (e.g., Lowenstein, 1977 nor a trivial one (rates as high
as 60% in some countries; Fleming & Jacobson, 2010). Recent find-
ings, however, indicate some bullies cannot be described as
unhappy, and in fact obtain positive psychosocial consequences.
Understanding the nature of bullies may help us better intervene
in or even prevent bullying.
Classifying types of bullies represents a relatively novel endea-
vor. Although most research to date focuses on the consequences
of bullying for victims (e.g., Hawker & Boulton, 2000, some studies
examine consequences of bullying for bullies themselves. Research
suggests bullies exhibit increased anger and substance use (Stein,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (301) 661 1874; fax: +1 (703) 993 1359.
E-mail address: Kyoung16@masonlive.gmu.edu (K.C. Young).
Sund, 2010), negative academic outcomes (Bosworth, Espelage, &
Simon, 1999), and decreased happiness (Rigby & Slee, 1993). Thus,
the negative consequences of perpetration and victimization form
most of our current understanding of bullying.
Our understanding of bullies as a group, sub-group, or distinct
set of groups remains somewhat impoverished. We assume bullies
are unhappy and experience negative consequences of their behav-
ior that mimic many of the negative consequences experienced by
victims. Absent from the literature is the potential for intact health
– particularly from the bully’s perspective. Researchers, teachers,
and parents rarely use the concept of ‘‘happiness’’ when conceptu-
alizing the personality profile of a bully. After all, happy people are
thought to be open-minded, generous, compassionate, and all-
around better citizens (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Thus,
we may prematurely conclude that bullying is inversely related
to happiness and related dimensions of well-being such as healthy
social functioning. This assumption also suggests that all bullies
are the same with regard to these dimensions.
As an alternative, we suggest that the notion of homogeneity be
reconsidered by the use of research methodologies that go beyond
‘‘mean scores’’ to test for meaningful, heterogeneous subgroups

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.024
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.C. Young et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 224–228
(e.g., Kashdan & McKnight, 2011. For a subset of people, bullying
coincides with positive intrapersonal outcomes such as increased
self-esteem (Olweus, 1993) and popularity (Rodkin, Farmer,
Pearl, & Acker, 2006). These results seem incompatible with
research suggesting that bullying increases the probability of neg-
ative social outcomes, including peer rejection (Undheim & Sund,
2010) but point to the possibility of greater heterogeneity among
bullies.
If we question the assumption of homogeneity, new insights
about the nature of bullies and bullying behavior emerge. Bullies
vary based on levels of social intelligence and popularity, with a
sizeable minority of bullies (37.5%) being both socially intelligent
and popular (Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010). These beneficial
social outcomes of intelligence and popularity are positively corre-
lated with happiness (e.g., Myers & Diener, 1995). No research to
date, however, explicitly examines the relationship between hap-
piness and bullying. Understanding the prevalence and nature of
bullies may illuminate key mechanisms to prevent and treat this
problem.
1.1. The Present Study
The goals of this study were to (1) determine the prevalence of
bullying and victimization in a sample of Chinese secondary school
students, (2) identify the relevance of happiness and social con-
nectedness to bullying and victimization, and (3) identify poten-
tially meaningful subgroups within bullies. Similar to prior
research (e.g., Stein et al., 2007), we examined prevalence of bully-
ing and victimization by creating variables to reflect four distinct
groups of adolescents: neither a bully nor a victim (Neither), those
who only bully others (Just Bully), those who are only victimized
by others (Just Victim), and those who engage in bullying and
are victimized by others (Bully-Victims). We expected both bully-
ing and victimization to be related to less happiness and decreased
social connectedness. In addition, we used cluster analytic strate-
gies to explore meaningful subgroups within bullies based on these
variables of happiness and social connectedness. We hypothesized
two clusters of bullies: a happy, socially connected subgroup and
an unhappy, socially disconnected subgroup.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants included 484 high school students in Hong Kong
(273 female). The students came from 10th (29%), 11th (31%)
grade, 12th (18%), and 13th (22%) grades with an average age of
16.9 (SD = 1.46). All students were Chinese, with about 88% from
schools taught in Chinese and 12% from schools taught in English.
2.2. Procedure
Prior to data collection, school principals provided their
approval and school staff members sent letters of consent to
parents. Researchers randomly selected classes in each of the four
participating secondary schools. Classroom teachers distributed
survey questionnaires during regular class periods, and students
completed them independently without compensation or extra
credit.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Bullying and victimization
To measure the occurrence of bullying and victimization, the
authors developed a face valid two-item measure; ‘‘How often
225
have you been bullied in school?’’ and ‘‘How often have you taken
part in bullying other students in school?’’ Participants responded
using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (it has not happened) to 5
(several times a week). We defined bullies and victims as any indi-
vidual who responded with a 2 or higher on these two respective
items. We found a moderate positive relationship between bully-
ing and victimization (r = .35, p < .01).
2.3.2. Happiness
Researchers administered a Chinese translation of the
Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) to
assess participants’ subjective ratings of happiness. To complete
the 4-item measure, participants used a 7-point likert scale to indi-
cate which option they believed best completed each item. Two
items prompted respondents to describe themselves using both
absolute ratings and ratings relative to their peers. The response
options for these items ranged from 1 (not a very happy person)
to 7 (a very happy person). The other two items provided a brief
description of happy and unhappy people, and asked respondents
to rate the degree these descriptions matched their own percep-
tions of themselves. The response options for these items ranged
from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal). The measure was internally
consistent (a = .80).
2.3.3. Social connectedness
To assess social connectedness, the authors used a face valid,
single-item measure. Participants completed this measure by
selecting from six available response options, ranging from 1 (Very
bad) to 6 (Very good). Researchers used these response options to
identify the perceived social connectedness with their peers.
2.3.4. Risk-taking behavior
Researchers measured risk-taking behavior using a face valid,
10-item, self-report measure. Researchers used this measure to
collect data regarding the engagement in various risky behaviors,
such as substance use, cheating, and truancy. Students indicated
their frequency of engagement in each behavior using a 5-point
scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (often). The measure was inter-
nally consistent (a = .76).
2.3.5. Hopelessness
Respondents completed the Chinese Hopelessness Scale
(C-HOPE; Shek, 1993) a Chinese translation of a 20-item, inter-
nally consistent (a = .88) self-report measure designed to assess
negative cognitive expectancies of oneself and one’s future life
(Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974). Prior research using
the original measure included adolescent samples (e.g., Kashani,
Strober, Rosenberg, & Reid, 1988).
2.4. Data analysis
First, we calculated prevalence rates of bullying and victimiza-
tion using standard procedures. We then conducted a series of
bivariate correlations to determine the magnitude of associations
between our variables and both bullying and victimization. Next,
we completed a cluster analysis to identify potential bully sub-
groups. Cluster analysis is an effective way to identify subgroups
by maximizing both within-group homogeneity and between-
group heterogeneity (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Additionally,
previous researchers successfully used cluster analysis to identify
meaningful subgroups of bullies in different samples (e.g., Estell,
Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker, & Rodkin, 2003). We used a two-step,
cluster analysis for its ability to handle large datasets, to indicate
each variable’s importance when identifying and differentiating
clusters, and to provide estimates without a priori data assump-
tions (Chiu, Fang, Chen, Wang, & Jeris, 2001). In the first step, the
226 K.C. Young et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 224–228

Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) measure-of-fit was used to These weak associations provide the first evidence, in our sample,
calculate an initial estimate for the ideal number of clusters to of the potential heterogeneity among bullies.
retain (Fraley & Raftery, 1998; Norusis, 2010). In the second step,
a modified hierarchical agglomerative clustering procedure was
3.2. Identifying Meaningful Subgroups of Bullies
conducted that automatically generated clusters using the Log-
likelihood distance measure to refine the original estimate
Our two-step cluster analysis suggested the superiority of a
(Banfield & Raftery, 1993). We used a deductive approach during
four-cluster solution, as indicated by a relatively lower BIC value
variable selection, choosing variables that possessed a theoretical
(1594.389) and higher ratio of distance of measures value
link to bullying and victimization (Ketchen, Thomas, & Snow,
(1.604). The clusters primarily differed in their respective levels
1993); in so doing, we sought the most parsimonious and valid
of bullying, social connectedness, and subjective happiness (see
solution (Punj & Stewart, 1983). To provide a more conservative
Table 1). Clusters included a happy, socially connected cluster of
test of our primary hypothesis, we chose not to specify a cluster
non-bullies (33.4%), an unhappy, socially isolated cluster of non-
solution – deferring to the algorithm to empirically derive the final
bullies (26.9%), a happy, socially connected cluster of bullies
solution rather than specify one a priori.
(22.4%), and an unhappy, socially isolated cluster of bullies (17.3%).
Once we identified the clusters, we further confirmed the use-
T-tests further confirmed these grouping variables, as the bully
fulness of the grouping variables with independent-samples t-tests
subgroups differed significantly by subjective happiness
and by computing effect sizes to assess the difference between
(t(168) = 15.54, p < .001) and perceived social connectedness
bully subgroups on each variable. Finally, we conducted a two-step
(t(168) = 8.44, p < .001). Importantly, the bully subgroups also dif-
cluster analysis on the ‘‘Just Bully’’ group to confirm the presence
fered significantly by the other grouping variables of hopelessness
of the bully subgroups identified in our analysis of the full sample.
(t(168) = 3.62, p < .001) and victimization (t(168) = 4.26,
p < .001), but not risk taking (t(168) = 0.22, p = .82). Finally, to
3. Results examine the relative usefulness of each cluster variable, we com-
puted effect sizes for the difference between bully subgroups on
3.1. Bullying and victimization prevalence, descriptives, and each variable. Social connectedness had the largest effect size
correlations (d = 2.35), followed by happiness (d = 1.29), victimization
(d = 0.64), hopelessness (d = 0.56), and then risk taking (d = .03).
We identified the following prevalence rates of bullying and
victimization in our sample: Bully-Victims (36.6%), Just Bully
3.3. Confirming Meaningful Subgroups of Happy and Unhappy Bullies
(11.7%), Just Victim (19.5%), and Neither (31.1%). We then exam-
ined variables associated with bullying and victimization via
We analyzed the ‘‘Just Bully’’ subgroup (N = 57) and conducted
descriptive and correlational analyses. Self-reported bullying per-
an additional two-step cluster analysis using the same variables.
petration (M = 1.82, SD = 1.03) and victimization (M = 1.76,
Because we conducted this analysis to confirm the presence of
SD = 0.83) indicated a low frequency of occurrence, but with vari-
the two bully clusters identified in the previous two-step cluster
ability in both behaviors. Self-reported subjective happiness
analysis, we specified a two-cluster solution. Similar to the results
(M = 18.38, SD = 4.67) indicated moderate levels of happiness sim-
for the entire sample, this two-step cluster analysis generated an
ilar to US college samples (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). Self-
identical two-cluster solution, consisting of a subgroup of happy,
reported social connectedness (M = 4.69, SD = 0.86) indicated
socially connected bullies (57.7%) and a subgroup of unhappy,
slightly good to good social connectedness. Self-reported hopeless-
socially disconnected bullies (42.3%). These subgroups significantly
ness (M = 58.86, SD = 12.92) indicated a moderate, but non-clinical
differed in their subjective happiness (t(50) = 5.95, p < .001) and
amount of hopelessness (Beck et al., 1974). Self-reported risk-tak-
perceived social connectedness (t(50) = 4.03, p < .001).
ing behaviors (M = 17.84, SD = 5.19) indicated a low frequency of
risk-taking. Thus, our sample appeared to endorse questions simi-
lar to other samples, while maintaining heterogeneity in responses 4. Discussion
even for bullying and victimization occurrence.
Victimization had a weak, inverse relationships with subjective Slightly under half of our sample reported engaging in bullying,
happiness (r = .15, p < .001) and social connectedness (r = .17, and slightly over half of our sample reported being victimized by
p < .001), and a similarly weak but positive relationship with hope- bullies (Goal 1). These findings converge with bullying perpetra-
lessness (r = .18, p < .05) and risk-taking behavior (r = .14, p < .01). tion and victimization prevalence rates reported within previous
Bullying was not related to subjective happiness (r = .05, international research (Fleming & Jacobson, 2010). Our findings
p > .05) or social connectedness (r = .06, p > .05). Bullying was also corroborate previous research that suggests bullies can be dif-
moderately related to risk-taking behavior (r = .38, p < .01), and a ferentiated by whether they themselves are victims of bullying or
weak, positive relationship with hopelessness (r = .10, p < .05). not (e.g., Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2008).

Table 1
Comparison of bullying subtypes on clustering variables.

Cluster descriptives Happy, socially Unhappy, socially Happy, socially Unhappy, socially P-Value for bully
connected non-bullies disconnected non-bullies connected bullies disconnected bullies subgroup differences*
N 143 115 96 74 170
Bullying Mean 1.27 1.22 2.73 2.73 p = .99
Perceived Peer Relat. Qual. Mean 5.03 4.49 5.31 3.66 p < .001
Subjective Happiness Mean 21.53 15.08 20.21 14.92 p < .001
Hopelessness Mean 48.57 67.92 58.62 64.96 p < .001
Risk Mean 15.27 15.41 21.59 21.78 p = .82
Victimization Mean 1.44 1.57 1.88 2.49 p < .001
*
Significance values associated with independent-samples t-tests run between the two subgroups of bullies.
 K.C. Young et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 224–228
On the surface, victimization was negatively related to happi-
ness and social connectedness, whereas bullying was unrelated
to happiness and social connectedness (Goal 2). However, our clus-
ter analysis results indicated these relationships might be oversim-
plified. We found evidence for two clusters of bullies: a happy,
socially connected group of bullies, and an unhappy, socially dis-
connected group of bullies (Goal 3). These two clusters differed
on the positive attributes of happiness and social connectedness,
and the negative attributes of hopelessness and victimization.
Our effect sizes indicated that happiness and social connectedness
possessed greater importance than victimization as a distinguish-
ing feature of bully subgroups.
4.1. Characterizing Bully Subgroups
Our findings contribute to the bullying literature in multiple
ways. First, our findings support the theoretical perspectives view-
ing bullies as a heterogeneous group (e.g., Peeters et al., 2010
rather than the traditional homogenous group (e.g., Nansel, Craig,
Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004). Some bullies, including those
comprising our socially connected, happy subgroup, might obtain
benefits from bullying behaviors. Specifically, bullying may facili-
tate the satisfaction of the psychological need for relatedness
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which we assessed via social connect-
edness. Our findings also suggest that another benefit of bullying
may be the attainment of subjective happiness. Tkach and Lyubo-
mirsky (Tkach & Lyubomirsky, 2006) identified social affiliation as
one of the most frequently used strategies to promote happiness.
Similarly, Holder and Coleman (Holder & Coleman, 2007) reported
that positive social relationships promote happiness among chil-
dren. Negative social interactions, including behaving badly
toward others (e.g., bullying), are traditionally posited to impede
the formation of friendships, leading to decreased happiness in
children (Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003).
However, other researchers suggest that this relationship may be
more complicated, as certain social groups reward aggressive
behavior (e.g., Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). Given our find-
ings, bullying may negatively impact the relationship between
bully and victim, but may facilitate social connectedness among
members of those social groups that condone aggressive behavior.
This, in turn, leads to increased subjective happiness. Our study
represents the first attempt to explicitly assess the relationship
between bullying, happiness, and social connectedness. Such infor-
mation sheds light on potential motivations of bullying.
Although we propose that social connectedness and happiness
primarily distinguish two groups of bullies, hopelessness and vic-
timization also serve some explanatory role and should be further
investigated. Previous work examined hopelessness among victims
(You et al., 2008), and depression among bullies (Kumpulainen,
Räsänen, & Puura, 2001). However, the current study is the first
to assess the relationship between hopelessness and bullying per-
petration. Studies identifying hopelessness as a potential prodro-
mal symptom of depression (Abramson, Matalsky, & Alloy, 1989)
and a risk factor for suicidality among individuals with depression
(see Hawton, Casañas, Comabella, Haw, & Saunders, 2013 for a
review) provide justification for continued research in this area.
Future research should examine a causal mechanism explaining
why bullies may differ in their level of hopelessness.
Previous research categorized bullies in terms of whether they
were just bullies or Bully-Victims (Olweus, 1993). In our study,
sizeable percentages of respondents identified as Just Bullies
(11.7%) and Bully-Victims (36.6%); the subgroups of bullies differed
significantly in amount of victimization. However, social connect-
edness and happiness appear to better categorize subgroups of bul-
lies in our sample. Victimization stands as the least important
variable among the five in classifying subgroups of bullies.
227
Although the bully groups significantly differed by victimization,
victimization had a smaller effect size (d = 0.64) than either happi-
ness (d = 1.29) or social connectedness (d = 2.35). Additionally, our
‘‘Just Bullies’’ cluster analysis resulted in identical clusters primar-
ily differentiated by variables of social connectedness and happi-
ness, indicating victimization cannot account for differences in
happiness and social connectedness in bullies.
4.2. Implications for bullying interventions
These results suggest several possible paths for increasing the
effectiveness of bullying interventions. The majority of interven-
tions conceptualize bullies as a homogenous group of aggressive
individuals who become increasingly unpopular with peers (e.g.,
Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999 and are at a heightened risk for
substance use and later criminal behavior (e.g., Vitaro, Brendgen,
& Tremblay, 2002). Current interventions have also produced
lackluster success rates at reducing bullying behaviors (see
Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008 for a meta-analysis). Taking
into account the varying rewards that the behavior of bullying pro-
vides may be an important step in modifying bullying interven-
tions and increasing success rates.
Our results support recommendations from previous research-
ers (e.g., Peeters et al., 2010; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003) that bullying
interventions be tailored to address the varying functions and sub-
types of bullies within a given sample. For example, socially con-
nected bullies may be more susceptible to peer influence
compared to their less socially connected counterparts. Thus, bul-
lying interventions for socially connected bullies may need to focus
more on deviant members of a bully’s peer group. Integrating
interpersonal effectiveness training into existing interventions
may be beneficial, as socially connected bullies might be using bul-
lying to meet their interpersonal needs. This bully subgroup may
need to learn more adaptive ways to obtain the gains that bullying
provides to them. Bullying interventions targeting the unhappy,
socially disconnected bullies may be most successful when inte-
grating an intrapersonal component, focusing on increasing self-
esteem and remediating unwanted (e.g., depressive) symptoms.
Taken together, it may be advantageous when implementing an
intervention to first obtain additional information about the bullies
beyond bullying perpetration. The intervention may then be tai-
lored to the subgroups of bullies present within the sample.
4.3. Limitations
Several study limitations require consideration. First, our mea-
sure of bullying assesses for lifetime, rather than concurrent,
instances of bullying. Additionally, our bullying measure does not
explicitly define bullying or differentiate various forms of bullying
(e.g., emotional, physical, relational, etc.) as suggested by previous
researchers (e.g., Olweus, 1993). Future studies would benefit from
more comprehensive bullying measures. Additionally, we use a
self-report measure of social connectedness and the ‘‘gold stan-
dard’’ is to include multiple informants (e.g., peers and teachers).
4.4. Summary
We found evidence that heterogeneity exists among bullies
with subgroups differentiated primarily by their levels of subjec-
tive happiness and social connectedness. We identified a happy,
socially connected group of bullies and an unhappy, socially dis-
connected subgroup of bullies. Our findings offer unique insights
into potential positive consequences of bullying that may differen-
tiate subgroups of bullies. Such insights might inform existing and
future anti-bullying interventions.
228 K.C. Young et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 224–228

References Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19.
Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Newman, J. E., Mason, C. A., & Carpenter, E. M. (2003).
Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on
Abramson, L. Y., Matalsky, G. I., & Alloy, A. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A
children’s loneliness, and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358–372.
Psychology, 32, 546–555.
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis: Quantitative
Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. (2004). Cross-
applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and
Banfield, J. D., & Raftery, A. E. (1993). Model-based Gaussian and non-Gaussian
psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158,
clustering. Biometrics, 49, 803–821.
730–736.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth. The Journal of the American Medical
497–529.
Association, 285, 2094–2100.
Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The measurement of
Norusis, M. J. (2010). PASW statistics 18 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River,
pessimism: The hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
NJ: Prentice Hall Press.
42, 861–865.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford:
Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying
Wiley-Blackwell.
behavior in middle school students. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,
Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and intervention. Current
341–362.
Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 196–200.
Chiu, T., Fang, D., Chen, J., Wang, Y., & Jeris, C. (2001). A robust and scalable
Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H., & Scholte, R. H. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying
clustering algorithm for mixed type attributes in large database environment.
subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39,
In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on
1041–1052.
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 263–268).
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and
Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., & Rodkin, P. C. (2003).
aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in
Heterogeneity in the relationship between popularity and aggression:
early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216–224.
Individual, group, and classroom influences. New Directions for Child and
Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review
Adolescent Development, 101, 75–85.
and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134–148.
Fleming, L. C., & Jacobsen, K. H. (2010). Bullying among middle-school students in
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among
low and middle income countries. Health Promotion International, 25(1), 73–84.
Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal
Fraley, C., & Raftery, A. E. (1998). How many clusters? Which clustering method?
of Social Psychology, 133, 33–42.
Answers via model-based cluster analysis. The Computer Journal, 41, 578–588.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Acker, R. V. (2006). They’re cool: Social status
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2008). Bullies, victims and bully-victims:
and peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social Development, 15,
Psychosocial profiles and attribution styles. School Psychology International, 29,
175–204.
574–589.
Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four
Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization
questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review,
and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional
32, 384–400.
studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships,
Hawton, K., Casañas, I., Comabella, C., Haw, C., & Saunders, K. (2013). Risk factors for
and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
suicide in individuals with depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective
psychology (Vol. 3). Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp.
Disorders, 147, 17–28.
619–700). New York: Wiley.
Holder, M. D., & Coleman, B. (2007). The contribution of temperament, popularity,
Shek, D. T. (1993). Measurement of pessimism in Chinese adolescents: The Chinese
and physical appearance to children’s happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9,
Hopelessness Scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 21,
279–302.
107–119.
Kashani, J. H., Strober, M., Rosenberg, T. K., & Reid, J. C. (1988). Correlates of
Stein, J. A., Dukes, R. L., & Warren, J. I. (2007). Adolescent male bullies, victims, and
psychopathology in adolescents. Psychiatry Research, 26, 141–148.
bully-victims: A comparison of psychosocial and behavioral characteristics.
Kashdan, T. B., & McKnight, P. E. (2011). Dynamic, contextual approaches to
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 273–282.
studying personality in the social world. Journal of Personality, 79, 1177–1190.
Tkach, C., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How do people pursue happiness? Relating
Ketchen, D. J., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational configurations and
personality, happiness-increasing strategies, and well-being. Journal of
performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management
Happiness Studies, 7, 183–225.
Journal, 36, 1278–1313.
Undheim, A. M., & Sund, A. M. (2010). Prevalence of bullying and aggressive
Kumpulainen, K., Räsänen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric disorders and the use
behavior and their relationship to mental health problems among 12-to 15-
of mental health services among children involved in bullying Aggressive
year-old Norwegian adolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 11,
Behavior, 27, 102–110.
803–811.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1977). Who is the bully? Home & School, 11, 3–4.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2002). Reactively and proactively
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:
aggressive children: Antecedent and subsequent characteristics. Journal of Child
Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 495–505.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:
You, S., Furlong, M. J., Felix, E. A., Sharkey, J. D., Tanigawa, D., & Green, J. (2008).
Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46,
Relations among school connectedness, hope, life satisfaction, and bully
137–155.
victimization. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 446–460.
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are
school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention
research School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42.