bullying and peer pressure essay

• pacer.org/bullying

• Bullying Defined
• Advocacy For Self
• Advocacy For Others
• Take Action

In This Section

• Cyberbullying
• Peer Pressure
• Peer Advocacy
• Jamie's Advice
• Real Teens Speak Out
• What Should You Do?
• Language is Important
• Student Action Plan
• Helpful Sites
• Share Your Opinion

How Does Peer Pressure Impact Bullying Behavior?

Peer pressure occurs when a peer group or individual encourages others to change their attitudes, values, or behaviors to conform to those of the influencing group or individual.

Peer pressure can impact bullying behavior both in positive and negative ways. It is about feelings of fitting in with a group, whether they are friends or a group you would like to be friends with in the future. There is a positive impact when students create “feel good” moments, encouraging positive and healthy behavior, and make peers eager to join in. For example, when the peer group encourages kind and inclusive behavior, such as inviting others to join them at the lunch table or letting someone know that they care what is happening to them. The action of peers encouraging each other to reach out to those who are struggling can have a positive impact on the group and other individuals who want to speak out against bullying.

Peer pressure can also impact bullying in a negative way. If bystanders laugh when someone is being bullied, it shows support for the student bullying, not for the target. If what an individual or group is encouraging makes people feel bad, guilty, or like they are hurting other’s feelings, the behavior is most likely causing someone to feel sad and isolated.

Peer pressure is a natural part of forming friendships and maintaining groups. It has probably always been a part of society. Bullying behavior is about using one’s power over someone else in a hurtful way. Because bystander intervention is so important in helping to prevent bullying, using peer pressure in a positive and healthy way to encourage kindness, inclusion, and acceptance is one way to make a positive impact in our schools and communities.

Supporting a Peer Experiencing Bullying – Student Response | PACERTalks About Bullying: Season 3, Ep. 16

Ways to Support a Peer – 60 Second Response | PACERTalks About Bullying: Season 3, Ep. 15

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Peer Pressure: 100, 200, and 450 Word Samples in English

• Updated on  
• Mar 2, 2024

Have you ever done something just because your friends or peers have done it? Say, watched a movie or TV series, visited places, consumed any substance, or academic achievement. This is a classic example of peer pressure. It means you are influenced by your peers or people around you.

Peer pressure can be both positive and negative, but mostly, it has negative effects. Peer pressure often occurs during adolescence or teenage years when individuals are more susceptible to the opinions and actions of their peers. Sometimes, peer pressure can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, we must deal with peer pressure in a civilized and positive way. 

On this page, we will provide you with some samples of how to write an essay on peer pressure. Here are essay on peer pressure in 100, 200 and 450 words.

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Peer Pressure in 450 Words
• 2 Essay on Peer Pressure in 200 Words
• 3 Essay on Peer Pressure in 100 Words

Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .

Essay on Peer Pressure in 450 Words

‘Be true to who you are and proud of who you’re becoming. I have never met a critic who was doing better than me.’ – Jeff Moore

Why do we seek recognition? Why do we want to fit in? Why are we not accepting ourselves in just the way we are? The answer to these questions is almost the same; peer pressure. Peer pressure is the influence of our peers in such a way, that we wish and try to do things in the same way as others did. 

Negatives and Positive Peer Pressure

Peer pressure can have positive and negative effects. Positive peer pressure can result in better academic performance, personal growth and development, etc. We can be a source of inspiration to our friends or vice versa, which can result in better academic growth, adopting healthier lifestyles, and engaging in community service. For example, you are part of a group collaborating on a community project that demonstrates the constructive influence of peer interaction. This can encourage a sense of purpose and shared responsibility.

Negative Peer Pressure is the opposite of positive peer pressure. In such cases, we are influenced by the negative bad habits of our peers, which often result in disastrous consequences. Consider the scenario where one of your friends starts smoking simply to conform to the smoking habits of his peers, highlighting the potentially harmful consequences of succumbing to negative influences.

How to Deal With Peer Pressure?

Peer pressure can be dealt with in several ways. The first thing to do is to understand our own values and belief systems. Nobody wants to be controlled by others, and when we know what is important to us, it becomes easier to resist pressure that goes against our beliefs.

A person with self-esteem believes in his or her decisions. It creates a strong sense of self-worth and confidence. When you believe in yourself, you are more likely to make decisions based on your principles rather than succumbing to external influences.

Choosing your friends wisely can be another great way to avoid peer pressure. Positive peer influence can be a powerful tool against negative peer pressure.

Building the habit of saying ‘No’ and confidently facing pressure in uncomfortable situations can be a great way to resist peer pressure. So, it is important to assertively express your thoughts and feelings. 

Peer pressure can have different effects on our well-being. It can contribute to personal growth and development, and it can also negatively affect our mental and physical health. We can deal with peer pressure with the necessary skills, open communication, and a supportive environment. We must act and do things in responsible ways.

Also Read: Essay on Green Revolution in 100, 200 and 500 Words

Essay on Peer Pressure in 200 Words

‘A friend recently started smoking just because every guy in his class smokes, and when they hang out, he feels the pressure to conform and be accepted within the group. However, he is not aware of the potential health risks and personal consequences associated with the habit. 

This is one of the many negative examples of peer pressure. However, peer pressure can often take positive turns, resulting in better academic performance, and participation in social activities, and physical activities. 

Dealing with peer pressure requires a delicate balance and determination. Teenagers must have alternative positive options to resist negative influences. Developing a strong sense of self, understanding personal values, and building confidence are crucial components in navigating the challenges posed by peer pressure.

Learning to say ‘No’ assertively can be a great way to tackle peer pressure. You must understand your boundaries and be confident in your decisions. This way, you can resist pressure that contradicts your values. Also, having a plan in advance for potential pressure situations and seeking support from trusted friends or mentors can contribute to making informed and responsible choices.

‘It is our choice how we want to deal with peer pressure. We can make good and bad decisions, but in the end, we have to accept the fact that we were influenced by our peers and we were trying to fit in.’

Essay on Peer Pressure in 100 Words

‘Peer pressure refers to the influence of your peers. Peer pressure either be of positive or negative types. Positive peer pressure can encourage healthy habits like academic challenges, physical activities, or engaging in positive social activities. Negative peer pressure, on the other hand, can lead us to engage in risky behaviours, such as substance abuse, reckless driving, or skipping school, to fit in with our peers.’

‘There are many ways in which we can deal with peer pressure. Everyone has their personal beliefs and values. Therefore, they must believe in themselves and should not let other things distract them. When we are confident in ourselves, it becomes easier to stand up for what we believe in and make our own choices. Peer pressure can be dealt with by staying positive about yourself.’

Ans: ‘Peer pressure refers to the influence of your peers. Peer pressure either be of positive or negative types. Positive peer pressure can encourage healthy habits like academic challenges,, physical activities, or engaging in positive social activities. Negative peer pressure, on the other hand, can lead us to engage in risky behaviours, such as substance abuse, reckless driving, or skipping school, to fit in with our peers.’

Ans: Peer pressure refers to the influence of our peers or people around us. 

Ans: Peer pressure can have both positive and negative effects on school children. It can boost academic performance, encourage participation in social activities, adopt healthier lifestyles, etc. However, peer pressure often results in risky behaviours, such as substance abuse, unsafe activities, or other harmful behaviours.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting speech topics for your school, visit our speech writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

The Broad Impact of School Bullying, and What Must Be Done

Major interventions are required to make schools safe learning environments..

Posted May 2, 2021 | Reviewed by Hara Estroff Marano

• How to Handle Bullying
• Take our Anger Management Test
• Find a therapist to support kids or teens
• At least one in five kids is bullied, and a significant percentage are bullies. Both are negatively affected, as are bystanders.
• Bullying is an epidemic that is not showing signs of improvement.
• Evidence-based bullying prevention programs can be effective, but school adoption is inconsistent.

According to the U.S. federal government website StopBullying.gov :

There is no federal law that specifically applies to bullying . In some cases, when bullying is based on race or ethnicity , color, national origin, sex, disability, or religion, bullying overlaps with harassment and schools are legally obligated to address it.

The National Bullying Prevention Center reports data suggesting that one in five children have been bullied. There are many risk factors for being targeted, including being seen as weak, being different from peers including being LGBT or having learning differences or visible disabilities, being depressed or anxious, and having few friends. It's hard to measure how many engage in bullying, but estimates range from one in twenty, to much higher .

The American Association of University Women reports that in grades 7-12, 48 percent of students (56 percent of girls and 40 percent of boys) are sexually harassed. In college, rates of sexual harassment rise to 66 percent. Eleven percent are raped or sexually assaulted.

Silence facilitates traumatization

Only 20 percent of attacked young women report sexual assault . And 89 percent of undergraduate schools report zero sexual harassment. This means that children, adolescents, young adults and their friends are at high risk for being victimized. It means that many kids know what is happening, and don't do anything.

This may be from fear of retaliation and socialization into a trauma-permissive culture, and it may be from lack of proper education and training. Institutional betrayal , when organizations fail to uphold their promises and responsibilities, adds to the problem.

In some states such as New York, laws like “ the Dignity for All Students Act ” (DASA) apply only to public schools. Private, religious, and denominational schools are not included, leaving 20 percent of students in NYC and 10 percent throughout the state unprotected. Research shows that over the last decade, bullying in U.S. high schools has held steady around 20 percent, and 15 percent for cyberbullying.

The impact of bullying

While there is much research on how bullying affects mental health, social function, and academics, the results are scattered across dozens of papers. A recent paper in the Journal of School Violence (Halliday et al., 2021) presents a needed systematic literature review on bullying’s impact in children aged 10-18.

1. Psychological: Being a victim of bullying was associated with increased depression , anxiety , and psychosis . Victims of bullying reported more suicidal thinking and engaged in greater self-harming behaviors. They were more likely to experience social anxiety , body-image issues, and negative conduct. Simultaneous cyberbullying and conventional bullying were associated with more severe depression.

2. Social: Bullying victims reported greater problems in relationships with family, friends and in day-to-day social interactions. They reported they enjoyed time with family and friends less, felt they were being treated unfairly more easily, and liked less where they lived. Victimized children were less popular and likeable, and experienced more social rejection. They tended to be friends with other victims, potentially heightening problems while also providing social support.

3. Academic achievement: Victimized kids on average had lower grades. Over time, they did worse especially in math. They tended to be more proficient readers, perhaps as a result of turning to books for comfort in isolation (something people with a history of being bullied commonly report in therapy ).

4. School attitudes: Bullied children and adolescents were less engaged in education, had poorer attendance, felt less belonging, and felt more negatively about school.

5. What happens with age? Researchers studied adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying, looking at both victims and bullies, reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Psychiatry (Copeland et al., 2013). After controlling for other childhood hardships, researchers found that young adults experience increased rates of agoraphobia (fear of leaving the house), generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and increased depression risk. Men had higher suicide risk.

The impact of bullying does not stop in early adulthood. Research in the Journals of Gerontology (Hu, 2021) found that people over the age of 60 who were bullied as children had more severe depression and had lower life satisfaction.

6. Bullying and the brain: Work reported in Frontiers in Psychiatry (Muetzel et al., 2019) found that victims of bullying had thickening of the fusiform gyrus, an area of the cerebral cortex involved with facial recognition, and sensing emotions from facial expressions. 1 For those with posttraumatic stress disorder, brain changes may be extensive.

7. Bystanders are affected: Research also shows that bystanders have higher rates of anxiety and depression (Midgett et al., 2019). The problem is magnified for bystanders who are also victims. It is likely that taking appropriate action is protective.

Given that victims of bullying are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ; Idsoe et al., 2012), it’s important to understand that many of the reported psychiatric findings may be better explained by PTSD than as a handful of overlapping but separate diagnoses. Trauma often goes unrecognized.

What can be done?

The psychosocial and academic costs of unmitigated bullying are astronomical, to say nothing of the considerable economic cost. Change is needed, but resistance to change, as with racism, gender bias, and other forms of discrimination , is built into how we see things.

Legislation: There is no federal antibullying legislation, and state laws may be weak and inconsistently applied. Given that bullying rates are no longer falling, it’s important for lawmakers and advocates to seek immediate changes.

Bullying prevention: Schools can adopt antibullying programs, though they are not universally effective and sometimes may backfire. Overall, however, research in JAMA Pediatrics (Fraguas et al., 2021) shows that antibullying programs reduce bullying, improve mental health outcomes, and stay effective over time. 2

Trauma-informed education creates an environment in which all participants are aware of the impact of childhood trauma and the need for specific modifications given how trauma is common among children and how it affects development.

According to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN):

"The primary mission of schools is to support students in educational achievement. To reach this goal, children must feel safe, supported, and ready to learn. Children exposed to violence and trauma may not feel safe or ready to learn. Not only are individual children affected by traumatic experiences, but other students, the adults on campus, and the school community can be impacted by interacting or working with a child who has experienced trauma. Thus, as schools maintain their critical focus on education and achievement, they must also acknowledge that mental health and wellness are innately connected to students’ success in the classroom and to a thriving school environment."

Parenting makes a difference. Certain parenting styles may set kids up for emotional abuse in relationships , while others may be protective. A 2019 study reported in Frontiers in Public Health (Plexousakis et al.) found that children with anxious, overprotective mothers were more likely to be victims.

Those with cold or detached mothers were more likely to become bullies. Overprotective fathering was associated with worse PTSD symptoms, likely by getting in the way of socialization. The children of overprotective fathers were also more likely to be aggressive.

Quality parental bonding, however, appeared to help protect children from PTSD symptoms. A healthy home environment is essential both for helping victims of bullying and preventing bullying in at-risk children.

Parents who recognize the need to learn more positive approaches can help buffer again the all-too-common cycle of passing trauma from generation to generation, building resilience and nurturing secure attachment to enjoy better family experiences and equip children to thrive.

State-by-state legislation

Bullying prevention programs (the KiVA program is also notable)

Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration and Bystander Experiences , Centers for Disease Control

Trauma-informed teaching

US Government Stop Bullying

1. Such differences could both result from being bullied (e.g. needing to scan faces for threat) and could also make being bullied more likely (e.g. misreading social cues leading to increased risk of being targeted).

2. Such programs focus on reducing negative messaging in order to keep stakeholders engaged, monitor and respond quickly to bullying, involve students in bullying prevention and detection in positive ways (e.g. being an “upstander” instead of a bystander), monitor more closely for bullying when the risk is higher (e.g. after anti-bullying trainings), respond fairly with the understanding that bullies often have problems of their own and need help, involved parents and teachers in anti-bullying education, and devote specific resources for anti-bullying.

Sarah Halliday, Tess Gregory, Amanda Taylor, Christianna Digenis & Deborah Turnbull (2021): The Impact of Bullying Victimization in Early Adolescence on Subsequent Psychosocial and Academic Outcomes across the Adolescent Period: A Systematic Review, Journal of School Violence, DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2021.1913598

Copeland WE, Wolke D, Angold A, Costello EJ. Adult Psychiatric Outcomes of Bullying and Being Bullied by Peers in Childhood and Adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(4):419–426. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504

Bo Hu, PhD, Is Bullying Victimization in Childhood Associated With Mental Health in Old Age, The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Volume 76, Issue 1, January 2021, Pages 161–172, https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz115

Muetzel RL, Mulder RH, Lamballais S, Cortes Hidalgo AP, Jansen P, Güroğlu B, Vernooiji MW, Hillegers M, White T, El Marroun H and Tiemeier H (2019) Frequent Bullying Involvement and Brain Morphology in Children. Front. Psychiatry 10:696. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00696

Midgett, A., Doumas, D.M. Witnessing Bullying at School: The Association Between Being a Bystander and Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms. School Mental Health 11, 454–463 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09312-6

Idsoe, T., Dyregrov, A. & Idsoe, E.C. Bullying and PTSD Symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol 40, 901–911 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9620-0

Fraguas D, Díaz-Caneja CM, Ayora M, Durán-Cutilla M, Abregú-Crespo R, Ezquiaga-Bravo I, Martín-Babarro J, Arango C. Assessment of School Anti-Bullying Interventions: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Jan 1;175(1):44-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3541. PMID: 33136156; PMCID: PMC7607493.

Plexousakis SS, Kourkoutas E, Giovazolias T, Chatira K and Nikolopoulos D (2019) School Bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: The Role of Parental Bonding. Front. Public Health 7:75. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00075

Note: An ExperiMentations Blog Post ("Our Blog Post") is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice. We will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by your reliance on information obtained through Our Blog Post. Please seek the advice of professionals, as appropriate, regarding the evaluation of any specific information, opinion, advice, or other content. We are not responsible and will not be held liable for third-party comments on Our Blog Post. Any user comment on Our Blog Post that in our sole discretion restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying Our Blog Post is prohibited and may be reported to Sussex Publishers/Psychology Today. Grant H. Brenner. All rights reserved.

Grant Hilary Brenner, M.D., a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, helps adults with mood and anxiety conditions, and works on many levels to help unleash their full capacities and live and love well.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

It’s a wonderful world — and universe — out there.

Come explore with us!  

Science News Explores

Bullying hurts — but peer support really helps.

Bullying can leave lasting scars, but some schools now use peer pressure to reduce social conflicts

Bullying — or “drama” or “intimidation”— can make kids more susceptible to mental illness as adults. But some schools are reducing conflicts by putting peer pressure to good use.

omgimages/istockphoto

Share this:

• Google Classroom

By Esther Landhuis

February 7, 2017 at 7:10 am

As a child, Belinda (not her real name) got teased for being short and “more sporty” than other girls. She now realizes the kids who taunted her “were kind of jealous of me.” Bullying might have been “a defense mechanism,” she says. Since then, she’s seen other kids getting bullied — and it hasn’t always been easy to do the right thing. Sometimes she’s stuck up for the victim. Other times she’s gone along with the crowd. Now a 10th grader at Ridgefield Park Junior-Senior High School in New Jersey, she thinks she “should have stuck up for more people instead of laughing or watching an incident occur.”

Explainer: What is anxiety?

It’s normal for teens to worry about fitting in. Sometimes, though, the desire for acceptance leads to conflict and hurt. Teens might “get into a fight or use jokes or put-downs that they know their peers recognize and approve of,” says Elizabeth Paluck. She’s a psychologist at Princeton University in New Jersey. (Psychologists are scientists who study the mind.)

Whether fist punches fly or jeers ring out, bullying can leave deep scars. New studies show that kids who were bullied suffer more mental health problems, such as anxiety , as adults.

But peers also can exert a powerful influence for good, other studies find. Some schools, for example, have reduced bullying with a program that turns influential kids into positive change-makers.

Bullying takes big toll on victims — and attackers

Even well-meaning teens sometimes poke fun at another student or ignore an insult. They may get angry with a friend. Such anger might even prompt a fight. But these behaviors don’t necessarily count as bullying.

“Part of growing up is being able to negotiate difficult social situations. All kids need to know how to do that,” says William Copeland. He’s a psychologist who studies children’s mental-health disorders at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C.

Big problems can arise when the jabs and taunts reflect a power struggle. Bullying constitutes picking on a weaker person over and over again, trying to hurt them. Teens may use different labels, such as “intimidation.” Or they might dismiss the behavior as “drama,” says Paluck. But kids who routinely endure such troubles tend to face bigger problems decades later. That’s the conclusion of several studies done in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. As longitudinal studies, they monitored impacts in the same people over many years.

In one, Copeland and his coworkers followed 1,420 young people in North Carolina for about 15 years. The researchers interviewed each participant, along with a parent or caregiver. They did this for each child four to six times while the student was between the ages of 9 and 16. Each time, the researchers asked if the child had experienced bullying at school — or had bullied others. They also asked kids if they had gotten depressed or anxious and how often.

Then, as young adults, these people were surveyed several more times. As part of these later surveys, the researchers also examined the participants for symptoms of common mental health disorders.

The results were clear: Childhood bullying took a toll.

Its victims were more likely to suffer from anxiety and panic disorders as adults than were those who hadn’t been tormented as kids. Bullied kids who also bullied others were even more likely to suffer these problems. Especially disturbing, young men who had been both victims of bullying and bullies themselves were at elevated risk for thinking about committing suicide. Copeland and his group published their results in April 2013.

It’s not clear why being both a victim and a bully might pose a special risk for later mental-health problems, Copeland says. He notes that these adults tend to be more impulsive and aggressive than are people who had suffered no bullying themselves. In addition, victims of bullying often have poorer social skills. Those traits may mean that when they tried to gain control by bullying, they failed. And that may have further isolated them socially, he says.

Andre Sourander is a psychiatrist (a doctor who focuses on mental health problems) at the University of Turku in Finland. In 1989, he and some colleagues started following 5,034 people born 8 years earlier. They collected information on any mental-health symptoms. They also asked the kids whether they bullied others and how often other children had bullied them. Parents and teachers answered similar questions for each child. Later, the researchers looked at how these children fared between ages 16 and 29. They also reviewed medical records to see if any had seen mental-health specialists or been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, such as depression or anxiety.

Compared with participants who were rarely tormented, victims of bullying were more than twice as likely to develop a psychiatric illness later in life. As in Copeland’s research, those who had been victims and bullies were at highest risk of mental health problems in adulthood. (What about the children who bullied others but were not bullied themselves? Only those who showed psychiatric symptoms at age 8 were likely to also do so when they were older.)

Sourander’s team reported its findings in the February 2016 JAMA Psychiatry .

The U.S. and Finnish studies used different methods. Still, they came to the same conclusion. That suggests researchers can be more confident in the findings, says Copeland. Those data show “how damaging bullying can be on children long-term,” he says. He hopes these results “encourage kids to stick up [for others] when they see friends being picked on.”

As damaging as abuse and neglect

Copeland has also compared the effects of bullying to the impacts of childhood abuse and neglect. In that study, he teamed up with psychologist Dieter Wolke at the University of Warwick in England.

The two studied 18-year-olds in the United States and United Kingdom. They asked these 5,446 young adults to describe childhood experiences of bullying, of physical abuse and any neglect. Then they identified any signs of mental health problems. These included anxiety, depression or attempts to cope with problems by injuring themselves. (This behavior is called self-harm .)

The results surprised the researchers. “The effects of bullying were stronger than being physically abused or neglected,” Wolke says. Indeed, he argues, bullying “ throws a long shadow over people’s lives.”

That shadow can be physical as well as mental, adds Louise Arseneault. She’s a psychologist at King’s College in London.

In a recent study, she asked 45-year-olds if they had been bullied as kids. She also assessed the participants current health. Compared to people who were rarely bullied in childhood, those who had been victims of frequent bullying were more likely to be depressed or have suicidal thoughts. But that’s not all. These bullying victims also were more likely as adults to be obese — extremely overweight. And they had higher levels of a blood marker known as C-reactive protein (CRP). Studies have linked elevated CRP levels to an increased risk of heart disease.

Taken together, Copeland concludes, childhood-bullying exerted a lasting health toll into at least middle age.

Story continues below image

Bullying can be prevented

Public opinions about bullying tend to fall into extremes, Arseneault says. Some people blame bullying for a range of problems. Others think the concerns are overblown. Overall, she believes, more people recognize bullying as “a serious problem for young children.” Unfortunately, she adds, this concern “does not always translate into real action. And this may be part of the problem.”

In 2011, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama organized a White House conference on bullying prevention. News accounts reported that the President said a key goal had been to “dispel the myth that bullying is … an inevitable part of growing up.” The event took place several months after several well-reported teen suicides. Many people believed these adolescents took their lives as a result of bullying at school and online.

One student killed himself by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. He had been an 18-year-old at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The tragedy prompted state legislators to pass a law requiring anti-bullying programs at New Jersey public schools. Most U.S. states now have laws and policies that define bullying as unacceptable. (You can find out more about them here .) But there is no federal law telling schools how they should prevent the problem. And it’s hard to even tell if school programs are working.

Many anti-bullying programs, such as school assemblies and discussion groups, are run by teachers and other school staff. That’s not the most effective approach, says Paluck at Princeton. If people hope to change student behaviors, she says, “the message can’t come from adults.”

She and her Princeton coworkers came up with a new approach to cut school conflicts, including bullying. Students would lead these efforts. The key was identifying what Paluck calls social influencers. These are the 10 percent of students who get the most attention from their peers.

These are not necessarily the most popular kids in a school. But smaller peer groups tend to look to them “to figure out what behaviors are desirable and normal,” Paluck says. If social influencers took a public stand against bullying, maybe that would make such incidents uncool.

The researchers call their program Roots. It uses influential kids as “the roots of the movement,” Paluck explains. (When her team asked students about possible program names, Roots “was the one they were least able to make fun of.”)

The researchers invited public middle schools in New Jersey to test the approach. Each used questionnaires to identify social influencers. These included people like Belinda, who emerged from her childhood bullying experiences more aware of how hurtful such behaviors can be.

In surveys, students identified who they interacted with at school and on social media. These influencers, and some other students, received invitations to the Roots group at their school. The groups met every other week. School counselors encouraged students to talk about uncomfortable situations — for example, times when teens tell racial jokes or make fun of people for how they dress.

The Roots groups also brainstormed how to make positive changes. At Ridgefield Park Junior-Senior High School, teens came up with a fun idea. They organized a “mix it up” lunch period. Here, students were encouraged to talk to new people. Instead of eating with the same crowd, “you’d mix it up and change who you sit with,” explains Sunni Roberts. She’s a counselor at the school.

The event included activities and games. At one station, students thought of stereotypes — for example, “boys are better at math” or “girls cannot play all sports.” These ideas can provoke taunting or other conflicts. Students wrote the stereotypes on pieces of paper. They folded each paper into an airplane and flew them through a hoop. This was meant to symbolize how kids could get rid of such destructive mindsets, explains Roberts.

Across New Jersey, 56 schools took part in Roots groups as part of the Princeton experiment. School administrators tallied disciplinary events caused by peer conflicts. After one year, the number of incidents had dropped by 30 percent in schools with Roots programs — from 2,695 to 2,012. The benefits were highest in Roots groups with more social influencers. The researchers posted their findings last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . They also have posted the Roots curriculum online for other schools to use.

“Roots has made a difference in many ways,” says Belinda. “It has helped students open up and let others know when they’re being bullied.” Hopefully, equipping kids to stand against bullying also will lead to healthier lives in years to come.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among young adults ages 15 to 29 as of 2016. If you or someone you know is suffering from suicidal thoughts, please seek help. In the United States, you can reach the Suicide Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988. Please do not suffer in silence.

More Stories from Science News Explores on Health & Medicine

Peripheral vision and what we can see in the dark

Robotics might someday give us an extra hand

A little-known gene may explain why some people never get COVID-19

Space tourists could face out-of-this-world health risks

Forget moon walking, lunar visitors. try horizontal running.

This spice could be the basis of a smart, infection-fighting bandage

Period blood could help diagnose diabetes and other illnesses

Cough! What happens when something goes down the wrong way

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Bullying — Understanding Bullying: Causes, Effects, and Solutions

Understanding Bullying: Causes, Effects, and Solutions

• Categories: Bullying

About this sample

Words: 473 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 473 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Defining bullying, causes of bullying, effects of bullying, solutions to bullying.

• Power Imbalance: Bullies often target those they perceive as weaker or different, seeking to establish dominance.
• Family Environment: A dysfunctional family, lack of parental supervision, or exposure to aggressive behavior at home can influence a child's tendency to bully.
• Peer Pressure: Some individuals engage in bullying to gain social acceptance or to conform to peer group norms.
• Low Self-Esteem: Bullies may suffer from low self-esteem and use aggression as a defense mechanism to bolster their self-worth.
• Emotional and Psychological Trauma: Victims may experience anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
• Academic and Social Consequences: Bullying can lead to decreased academic performance, school avoidance, and social isolation.
• Physical Health Issues: Victims may suffer from physical health problems such as headaches, stomachaches, and sleep disturbances.
• Long-term Impact: The effects of bullying can persist into adulthood, affecting victims' mental and emotional well-being.
• Educational Programs: Schools should implement comprehensive anti-bullying programs that educate students about the consequences of bullying and promote empathy and tolerance.
• Parental Involvement: Parents should be actively engaged in their children's lives, teaching them empathy, conflict resolution, and appropriate behavior.
• Support for Victims: Schools and communities should provide support systems for victims, including counseling and access to mental health services.
• Clear Policies and Reporting Mechanisms: Institutions should establish clear anti-bullying policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure that incidents are addressed promptly and effectively.
• Community Awareness: Raising awareness about bullying and its consequences within communities can lead to a collective effort to prevent and address bullying.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 2981 words

1 pages / 616 words

6 pages / 2868 words

3 pages / 1235 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Bullying

Have you ever been captivated by the power dynamics at play in a story, where characters assert their dominance through words and actions? In the novel "Tangerine" by Edward Bloor, the theme of bullying is prominent, with [...]

Bullying is a complex social issue that requires comprehensive and multifaceted strategies for effective prevention. This essay will analyze the efficacy of different prevention programs and interventions, explore the crucial [...]

Social media has become an integral part of modern society, offering new avenues for communication, connection, and interaction. However, alongside its many benefits, social media also presents unique challenges, particularly in [...]

Bullying in schools is a pervasive issue that affects countless students every day, leading to detrimental effects on their mental health and academic performance. From physical violence to cyberbullying, the tactics used by [...]

School violence is a pervasive issue affecting students, teachers, and the larger community. The cause and effect of school violence essay aims to explore the factors that contribute to violent behavior in schools, [...]

Many parents and people in general think bullying is a normal act of adolescence,and it is just matter of time and age. What they might not know is that Bullying is becoming a big deal and a worldwide problem in today's society, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Peer Pressure Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on peer pressure.

Peer pressure can be both negative and positive. Because if a person is a peer pressuring you for a good cause then it is motivation. Motivation is essential for the growth of a person. While peer pressure for a bad cause will always lead you to a disastrous situation.

Therefore it necessary for a person to not get influenced by the people around them. They should analyze the outcome of the deed in a strict manner. So that they no may commit anything harmful for themselves. As this world is full of bad people, so you need to be careful before trusting anybody.

Advantages of Peer Pressure

Peer pressure is advantageous in many ways. Most importantly it creates a sense of motivation in the person. Which further forces the person to cross the barrier and achieve something great. Furthermore, it boosts the confidence of a person. Because our brain considers people’s opinions and makes them a priority.

Many salesmen and Entrepreneurs use this technique to influence people to buy their products. Whenever we are in a social meet we always get various recommendations. Therefore when a person gets these recommendations the brain already starts liking it. Or it creates a better image of that thing. This forces the person to buy the product or at least consider it.

This peer pressure technique also works in creating a better character of a person. For instance, when we recommend someone for a particular job, the interviewer already gets a better image of that person. Because he is recommended by a person the interviewer trusts. Therefore there is a great chance of that person to get hired.

Above all the main advantage of peer pressure can be in youth. If a young person gets influenced by an individual or a group of people. He can achieve greater heights in his career.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Disadvantages of Peer Pressure

There are various disadvantages of peer pressure which can harm a person in many ways. If any person is not willing to perform a task then the peer pressure can be frustrating to him.

Furthermore, peer pressure should not be in an excessive manner. Because it lands a negative impact on the person. A person should be of the mindset of listening to himself first. While considering opinions in favor of him.

Peer pressure in youth from a bad company can lead a person to a nasty situation. Furthermore, it can also hamper a student’s career and studies if not averted. Youth these days are much influenced by the glamorous life of celebrities.

And since they follow them so much, these people become their peers. Thus they do such things that they should not. Drugs and smoking are major examples of this. Moreover most shocking is that the minors are even doing these things. This can have adverse effects on their growth and career.

It is necessary to judge the outcome of a deed before getting influenced by peers. Furthermore, peer pressure should always be secondary. Your own thoughts and wants should always have the first priority.

Q1. What is peer pressure?

A1 . Peer pressure is the influence on people by their peers. As a result, people start following their opinions and lifestyle. Furthermore, it is considering a person or his opinion above all and giving him the priority.

Q2. Which sector of the society is the peer pressure adversely affecting?

A2 . Peer pressure has adverse effects on the youth of society. Some false influencers are playing with the minds of the youngsters. As a result, the youth is going in the wrong direction and ruining their career opportunities.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What to Know About Peer Pressure

It's not as simple as just saying no

• Positive Peer Pressure

Peer Pressure vs. Parental Influence

Peer pressure beyond childhood.

Have you ever been pressured to have "one more drink," or stay out later than you said you'd be home? If so, you've been a victim of peer pressure—chances are, most of us have. Peer pressure is the process by which members of the same social group influence other members to do things that they may be resistant to, or might not otherwise choose to do.

Peers are people who are part of the same social group, so the term "peer pressure" refers to the influence that peers can have on each other. Usually, the term peer pressure is used when people are talking about behaviors that are not considered socially acceptable or desirable, such as experimentation with alcohol or drugs. According to child and adolescent psychiatrist Akeem Marsh, MD , "it’s very easy to be influenced by peer pressure as we humans are wired as social creatures."

sturti / Getty Images

Though peer pressure is not usually used to describe socially desirable behaviors, such as exercising or studying, peer pressure can have positive effects in some cases.

What Is an Example of Peer Pressure?

Peer pressure causes people to do things they would not otherwise do with the hope of fitting in or being noticed.

For adolescents, peer relationships are the most important of all thus leading to an increased susceptibility to peer pressure.

Things people may be peer pressured into doing include:

• Acting aggressively (common among men)
• Bullying others
• Doing drugs
• Dressing a certain way
• Drinking alcohol
• Engaging in vandalism or other criminal activities
• Physically fighting
• Only socializing with a certain group

Peer pressure or the desire to impress their peers can override a teen or tween's fear of taking risks, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse for Kids. Risky behavior with drugs and/or alcohol may result in the following:

• Alcohol or drug poisoning
• Asphyxiation
• Driving under the influence (of alcohol or other drugs)
• Sexually transmitted diseases

Behavioral Addiction

People can also feel an internal pressure to participate in activities and behaviors they think their peers are doing, which can put them at risk for the following behavioral addictions:

• Food addiction
• Gambling addiction
• Internet addiction
• Sex addiction
• Shopping addiction
• Video game addiction

In the case of teens, parents are rarely concerned about the peer pressure their kids may face to engage in sports or exercise, as these are typically seen as healthy social behaviors. This is OK, as long as the exercise or sport does not become an unhealthy way of coping, excessive to the point of negatively affecting their health, or dangerous (as in dangerous sports).

What starts out as positive peer pressure may become negative pressure if it leads a person to over-identify with sports, for example, putting exercise and competition above all else.

If taken to an extreme, they may develop exercise addiction , causing them to neglect schoolwork and social activities, and ultimately, use exercise and competition in sports as their main outlet for coping with the stresses of life. This can also lead to numerous health consequences.

What Are Examples of Positive Peer Pressure?

We tend to hear more about the potentially negative effects of peer pressure. But the reality is, peer pressure can also be positive. For instance, two friends might put positive pressure on each other to go to the gym together and stay accountable for their fitness goals.

Teens who volunteer in their community can keep each other motivated to participate. This involvement can lead to exposure to role models and eventually lead to the teens becoming positive role models themselves.

You can also positively peer pressure others by the way you respond to situations. For instance, if your friend is body-shaming another person, you can say, "Actually, it can be really harmful to criticize people's bodies like that."

In turn, your friend might reconsider criticizing people based on their appearance. By simply adhering to your own values and sharing them with a friend, you can positively peer pressure them to think before making a negative comment.

Although parents worry about the influence of peers, overall, parents also can have a strong influence on whether children succumb to negative peer pressure.

Rather than worrying about the effects of their children's friendships, parents would do well to focus on creating a positive, supportive home environment. That way, even if your child is peer pressured to do something they don't want to do, they'll feel comfortable coming to you to talk about it first.

Role modeling good emotional self-regulation may also help your child stick to their own values when it comes to peer pressure. Self-regulation involves the ability to control thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in order to manage current behavior and achieve long-term goals.

This will teach your child positive ways of solving problems and coping with uncomfortable feelings , rather than trying to escape by doing things to fit into a crowd. Parents can balance the peer pressure to take potentially harmful risks by ensuring they set appropriate boundaries, provide support, and help avoid risks. A few examples:

• Pick up your child from events where alcohol or drugs may have been consumed.
• Provide balanced, truthful information on issues such as alcohol and drug use.
• Stay involved in your child's life. Believe it or not, you are one of their biggest influences and they listen when you talk.
• Urge the importance of thinking before doing. Teach teens to ask themselves questions like: Could this harm me or someone else? Will this put my health or safety at risk? Is it legal? What are the long-term consequences for my health, family, education, and future?

As parents, we must be mindful of the impact of peer pressure on ourselves as our children will be observing and take notice.

Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure because they are at a stage of development when they are separating more from their parents' influence, but have not yet established their own values or understanding of human relationships or the consequences of their behavior.

They are also typically striving for social acceptance and are more willing to engage in behaviors against their better judgment to be accepted.

However, adults are also vulnerable to peer pressure. Many adults are susceptible to drinking too much because their friends are doing it, or putting work before family because they're competing with other people in their office for a promotion.

Being aware of, and carefully choosing the influence of peers that will lead to healthy and happy experiences is a lifelong process.

How to Deal With Peer Pressure

Dealing with peer pressure can be difficult, but below are some ways to help address it.

Take Your Time

Instead of quickly agreeing to do something you'd rather not do, pause and take a few deep breaths . If someone is waiting for you to answer them, tell them you need to take a few days and think about it. It's easier to resist the pressure when you put some time and space between yourself and the situation.

Consider Your Reasons

When you're faced with a choice, ask yourself what your reasons are for doing something. If it's because all of your friends are doing it and you're afraid they won't talk to you if you don't join them, then you may want to reconsider.

You deserve to surround yourself with supportive people who respect your decisions—not people who pressure you into doing something that doesn't feel right.

Set Boundaries

Saying "no" can be hard, but it's necessary to set healthy boundaries in relationships . If someone persistently pressures you to do something, you can try telling them how it affects you.

For instance, you might say something like, "It upsets me when you offer me a cigarette when you know I don't smoke. I won't be able to keep hanging out with you if you don't respect my answer."

Offer an Alternative

It's possible that a friend who is peer pressuring you simply wants to spend more time with you or connect with you, but they don't know how else to ask.

If they pressure you to do shots with them at the bar when you aren't drinking, for example, you might suggest that you both hit the dance floor instead. Or maybe, you make a plan to go on a hike or to the movies the next time you hang out. That way, you're fulfilling both of your needs in a mutually beneficial way.

Clark DA, Donnellan MB, Durbin CE, et al. Sex, drugs, and early emerging risk: Examining the association between sexual debut and substance use across adolescence . PLoS ONE. 2020;15(2):e0228432. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228432

Stanaland A, Gaither S. “Be a man”: The role of social pressure in eliciting men’s aggressive cognition . Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2021;47(11):1596-1611. doi:10.1177/0146167220984298

Sabramani V, Idris IB, Ismail H, Nadarajaw T, Zakaria E, Kamaluddin MR. Bullying and its associated individual, peer, family and school factors: Evidence from Malaysian National Secondary School students .  Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2021;18(13):7208. doi:10.3390/ijerph18137208

Kim J, Fletcher JM. The influence of classmates on adolescent criminal activities in the United States .  Deviant Behav . 2018;39(3):275-292. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1269563

National Institute on Drug Abuse for Teens. Why Does Peer Pressure Influence Teens To Try Drugs? .

Pamela Rackow, Urte Scholz, Rainer Hornung.  Received social support and exercising: An intervention study to test the enabling hypothesis .  British Journal of Health Psychology , 2015;20(4):763. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12139

Vogel L. Fat shaming is making people sicker and heavier .  CMAJ . 2019;191(23):E649. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-5758

Dhull P, Beniwal RD. Dealing with peer pressure . Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal. 2017;7.

By Elizabeth Hartney, BSc, MSc, MA, PhD Elizabeth Hartney, BSc, MSc, MA, PhD is a psychologist, professor, and Director of the Centre for Health Leadership and Research at Royal Roads University, Canada. 

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Why Some Youth Bully

Children and teenagers who feel secure and supported by their family, school, and peers are less likely to bully. However, some youth do not have these types of support. Every individual is unique and there are many factors that can contribute to bullying behavior. A youth who bullies may experience one, several, or none of these contributing factors.

Peer factors

Some youth bully:

• to attain or maintain social power or to elevate their status in their peer group.
• to show their allegiance to and fit in with their peer group.
• to exclude others from their peer group, to show who is and is not part of the group.
• to control the behavior of their peers.

Family factors

Some youth who bully:

• come from families where there is bullying, aggression, or violence at home.
• may have parents and caregivers that do not provide emotional support or communication.
• may have parents or caregivers who respond in an authoritarian or reactive way.
• may come from families where the adults are overly lenient or where there is low parental involvement in their lives.

Emotional factors

• may have been bullied in the past or currently.
• have feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem, so they bully to make themselves feel more powerful.
• do not understand other’s emotions.
• don’t know how to control their emotions, so they take out their feelings on other people.
• may not have skills for handling social situations in healthy, positive ways.

School factors

• may be in schools where conduct problems and bullying are not properly addressed.
• may experience being excluded, not accepted, or stigmatized at school.

Every youth involved in bullying – as a target, a bystander, or as one who does the bullying – can benefit from adult, school, and community support. Youth who bully may also need support to help them address their behavior. Parents, school counselors, teachers, and mental health professionals can work with youth who bully to help them develop healthy school and peer connections and to learn new social and emotional skills. If you have bullied your peers, reach out to a trusted adult for help. Bullying is a behavior that can be changed.

• Ask LitCharts AI
• Discussion Question Generator
• Essay Prompt Generator
• Quiz Question Generator

• Literature Guides
• Poetry Guides
• Shakespeare Translations
• Literary Terms

Dennis Kelly

Ask LitCharts AI: The answer to your questions

Bullying, peer pressure, and the destabilizing effects of groupthink are at the core of Dennis Kelly’s DNA . Over the course of the play, Kelly examines a group of particularly cruel, emotionally detached teens—save for a few kind, empathetic members—and puts on full display the ways in which they cajole, coerce, and threaten one another. Ultimately, Kelly shows that bullying is an epidemic—and argues that the effects of peer pressure and conformist groupthink lead to terrible instances of emotional and physical abuse amongst young people.

Dennis Kelly’s play is a topical one: DNA wrestles with big issues and takes very seriously the effects that bullying has not just on individuals but on communities more broadly. As Kelly shows how groupthink and peer pressure fuel and perpetuate bullying—and how the more bullying happens, the more socially acceptable it becomes—he paints a portrait of a vicious cycle of abuse. Early on in the play, before the group’s cruelty is even revealed in full, Kelly shows how peer pressure and groupthink in the form of coercion affect this ostensibly tight-knit group of friends. As the nervous Lou and Danny and the overconfident John Tate discuss their schoolmate Adam ’s supposed death in vague terms, Lou begins to get scared and declares that they’re all doomed. John Tate—desperate to stop his friend from spiraling into anxiety, worried she’ll turn against him—reminds her that he is one of the most frightening, influential people at school. He urges her and Danny—by vaguely threatening violence—to hush up and follow his plan. Before the audience even knows the truth of what’s going on, Kelly is already at work demonstrating that the environment these teens live in is one that revolves around fear, coercion, and conformity. The individual members of the group are silenced by other members who use cruel tactics to stay in power. Kelly implies that this climate of constant fear, combined with the repeated suggestion that as long as the group sticks together they’ll be all right, is what perpetuates the teens’ constant bullying of and cruelty toward one another. As the play continues to unfold, he uses a tragedy that occurs at the heart of the group to show the devastating effects of this vicious cycle.

As Kelly reveals the horrific truth of the bullying Adam endured at the hands of his so-called “friends,” he delves even deeper into the ways in which groupthink and conformity proliferate and even escalate bullying. As the nervous gossipmongers Mark and Jan unspool the story of Adam’s supposed death, they describe the escalation of their group’s collective cruelty towards Adam over the course of an undetermined amount of time. The abuse they describe could have unfolded over weeks or months—or it could have ramped up from lighthearted dares to physical abuse over the course of one night. Mark and Jan describe fairly benign (but still humiliating) dares such as encouraging Adam to eat leaves and convincing Adam to steal liquor for the group—but their recollection of events soon intensifies as they describe putting out cigarettes on various parts of Adam’s body and eventually stoning him with small rocks as he balanced precariously on a grille over a mine shaft, a torturous ordeal which ultimately led to him falling into the deep shaft. This harrowing passage represents the ways in which groupthink leads to senseless violence. Jan and Mark try to excuse their behavior by stating that Adam was laughing and joking along even as such terrible things were being done to him—and Kelly bleakly suggests that even Adam’s complicity in furthering his own abuse is the product of bullying and groupthink’s endless, repetitious cycle of violence.

Perhaps the most potent example of groupthink in the play is the way in which the members of the group respond to Phil ’s plan to distance themselves from being associated with Adam’s “murder” and instead frame someone else. The teens at the heart of the play are so desperate to avoid being held accountable for Adam’s death that they unthinkingly go along with Phil’s elaborate—and eerily thorough—plan for framing someone else for Adam’s death. Some of the kids even take Phil’s suggestions further than he intended them to go, such as when Cathy actually goes to a post office and collects DNA from a man resembling the description of Adam’s “murderer,” which Phil came up with on a whim. The teens’ willingness to submit so wholly and unthinkingly to groupthink reveals their fear of facing the kind of bullying and violence that Adam faced—but it also shows how going along with that very bullying and violence has made them more susceptible to other kinds of conformity that are just as harmful. 

Kelly’s play is dramatic, over-the-top, and often quite funny—but the message at its heart is deadly serious. In DNA , Kelly warns of the vicious cycle of cruelty and abuse that can occur when peer pressure and groupthink engender violent bullying and deception.

Bullying, Peer Pressure, and Groupthink ThemeTracker

Bullying, Peer Pressure, and Groupthink Quotes in DNA

Do I disgust you? I do. No, I do. No don’t because, it’s alright, it’s fine, I’m not gonna, you know, or whatever, you know it’s not the collapse of my, because I do have, I could walk out of here, there are friends, I’ve got, I’ve got friends, I mean alright, I haven’t got friends, not exactly, I haven’t, but I could, if I wanted, if I wanted, given the right, given the perfect, you know, circumstances.

You’re not scared. Nothing scares, there, I’ve said it; scared. Scared, Phil. I’m scared, they scare me, this place, everyone, the fear, the fear that everyone here, and I’m not the only one, I’m not the only one, Phil, I’m just the only one saying it, the fear that everyone here lives in, the brutal terror, it scares me, okay, I’ve said it and I am not ashamed.

JOHN TATE: Alright. New rule; that word is banned.

LOU: You can’t ban a word.

JOHN TATE: and if anyone says it I’m going to have to, you know, bite their face. Or something.

DANNY: How can you ban a word?

JOHN TATE: Well just say it then.

Say it and see what happens.

They say nothing.

Look, we have to keep together. We have to trust each other and believe in each other. I’m trying to help. I’m trying to keep things together.

JOHN TATE: Are you on my side? With Richard and Danny? Are you on our side, Cathy?

CATHY: Yes.

JOHN TATE: Good. Lou?

JOHN TATE: You’re on our side, Lou?

LOU: Yes, John.

JOHN TATE: You sure?

LOU: Yeah, I’m –

JOHN TATE: That just leaves you, Brian. You crying little piece of filth.

Beat. BRIAN stops crying. Looks up.

BRIAN: I think we should tell someone.

JOHN TATE begins to walk towards BRIAN.

And you’re thinking ‘Will he do anything? What won’t he do?’

And someone’s pegged a stone at him. Not to hit him, just for the laugh.

And you shoulda seen his face, I mean the fear, the, it was so, you had to laugh, the expression, the fear...

So we’re all peggin them. Laughing. And his face, it’s just making you laugh harder and harder, and they’re getting nearer and nearer. And one hits his head. And the shock on his face is so...funny. And we’re all just...

really chucking these stones into him, really hard and laughing and he slips.

And he drops.

He’s not joking, he’s not going, he’s said he’s not going, I said you’ve gotta go, he said he’s not going, ‘I’m not going’ he said.

No, I’m just wondering. I mean what is happy, what’s happy all about, who says you’re supposed to be happy, like we’re all supposed to be happy, happy is our natural, and any deviation from that state is seen as a failure, which in itself makes you more unhappy so you have to pretend to be even happier which doesn’t work because people can see that you’re pretending which makes them awkward and you can see that they can see that you’re pretending to be happy and their awkwardness is making you even more unhappy so you have to pretend to be even happier, it’s a nightmare.

Everything’s much better, though. I mean really, it is. Everyone’s working together. They’re a lot happier. Remember last month, Dan threatened to kill Cathy? well yesterday I saw him showing her his phone, like they were old friends. Last week Richard invited Mark to his party, bring a friend, anyone you like, can you believe that? Richard and Mark? Yep. Everyone’s happier. It’s pouring into the school, grief, grief is making them happy.

PHIL: You’re going in.

BRIAN: No, Phil –

PHIL: Yes, yes, shhhh, yes. Sorry. You have to go in. Or we’ll take you up the grille. […] We’ll throw you in.

RICHARD: Er, Phil.

DANNY: Is he serious?

LEAH: He’s always serious.

PHIL: We’ll take you up the grille now. Well get you by the arms. By the legs. And we’ll swing you onto the grille. We’ll throw rocks at you until you drop through. You’ll drop through. You’ll fall into the cold. Into the dark. You’ll land on Adam’s corpse and you’ll rot together.

BRIAN: That was great!

PHIL: You just do what Cathy says.

BRIAN: I am brilliant at doing what people say.

LEAH: No! Stop, don’t, don’t, Phil, don’t, what are you doing, what are you...

PHIL: He’s dead, everyone thinks he’s dead. What difference will it make?

She stares at him.

LEAH: But he’s not dead. He’s alive.

Everyone’s asking after you. You know that? Everyone’s saying ‘where’s Phil?’ ‘what’s Phil up to?’ ‘when’s Phil going to come down from that stupid field?’ ‘wasn’t it good when Phil was running the show?’ What do you think about that? What do you think about everyone asking after you?

John Tate’s found God. Yeah, Yeah I know. He’s joined the Jesus Army, he runs round the shopping centre singing and trying to give people leaflets. Danny’s doing work experience at a dentist’s. He hates it. […] Brian’s on stronger and stronger medication. They caught him staring at a wall and drooling last week. […] Cathy doesn’t care. She’s too busy running things. You wouldn’t believe how things have got, Phil. She’s insane. She cut a first year’s finger off, that’s what they say anyway.

Doesn’t that bother you? Aren’t you even bothered?

• Quizzes, saving guides, requests, plus so much more.

Questions Answered

• Publications
• Students with Disabilities
• Spanish - Recursos Acerca de Bullying
• Cyberbullying
• Sites for Kids and Teens
• Elementary School Education
• Elementary School Activities
• Middle / High School Education
• Middle / High School Activities
• All In – Year-long Teacher Toolkit
• Show Your Support
• Student Activity Kit
• Share Information
• PACERTalks About Bullying Series
• Carmen's Corner Series
• Music Videos
• Student Created Videos
• What Should You Do?
• Los Angeles Gala
• Take The Pledge
• Cartoon Network, Redraw Your World Without Bullying
• Cartoon Network, Kids Take On Bullying
• Build Community Kit
• Students With Solutions
• The Unity Awards
• Stories of Hope and Resilience
• I Care Because …
• Friends of PACER’s Run Walk Roll
• Definition, Impact and Roles
• Laws and Policy
• Helping Your Child
• Working with the School
• Mobile and Online Safety
• All Products
• Unity Day T-shirt
• Unity Day Posters
• Classroom 5-Poster Series
• Beyond Sticks and Stones
• Instagram Poster Series
• Create A World Without Bullying Resource kit

Bullying 101

How is bullying defined? – Bullying is when someone aggressively uses their “power” to target another individual with repeated, unwanted words or actions. Those targeted are hurt either physically or emotionally and have a hard time stopping what is happening to them.

Students often describe bullying as when “someone makes you feel less about who you are as a person.”

Conflict vs. Bullying – Bullying is different from conflict.

• Conflict is a disagreement or argument in which both sides express their views.
• Bullying is negative behavior directed by someone exerting power and control over another person.

Bullying is done with a goal to hurt, harm, or humiliate. With bullying, there is often a power imbalance between those involved, with power defined as elevated social status, being physically larger, or as part of a group against an individual. Students who bully perceive their target as vulnerable in some way and often find satisfaction in harming them.

In normal conflict, children self-monitor their behavior. They read cues to know if lines are crossed, and then modify their behavior in response. Children guided by empathy usually realize they have hurt someone and will want to stop their negative behavior. On the other hand, children intending to cause harm and whose behavior goes beyond normal conflict will continue their behavior even when they know it's hurting someone.

What is the difference between bullying and harassment? – Bullying and harassment are often used interchangeably when talking about hurtful or harmful behavior. They are very similar, but in terms of definition, there is an important difference.

• power and control
• actions that hurt or harm another person physically or emotionally
• an imbalance of power between the target and the individual demonstrating the negative behavior
• the target having difficulty stopping the action directed at them

The distinction between bullying and harassment is that when the bullying behavior directed at the target is also based on a protected class, that behavior is then defined as harassment. Protected classes include race, color, religion, sex, age, disability and national origin.

Why use the term “bullying prevention” instead of “anti-bullying”? – PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center uses the term “bullying prevention” instead of “anti-bullying” to place the emphasis on a proactive approach and philosophy, framing bullying as an issue to which there is a solution. While the use of “anti” does appropriately indicate the concept of being against bullying, the focus on “prevention” recognizes that change is ultimately about shifting behavior and attitudes, which can happen through the positive approach of education, awareness, and action.

How is “direct bullying” different from “indirect bullying”?

Direct bullying: Behavior that hurts, harms, or humiliates and is overt, obvious, and apparent to anyone witnessing it. The actions and words are easy to identify, the identity of the person bullying is usually known, and the acts are directed toward the person being bullied – they know about the bullying as it is happening.

Indirect bullying: Behavior that hurts, harms, or humiliates, which is often covert, subtle, and not always immediately acknowledged as bullying. The words and actions can be harder to identify, can be done anonymously and discreetly, and the target might not find out about the bullying until long after it has happened.

Why is prevention important?

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” “A stitch in time saves nine.” These sayings are familiar to many people, but how many of us have ever thought about how we could prevent a big problem like bullying or how our individual efforts could make a difference? Have you ever wondered what changes would need to occur in our daily lives to prevent bullying or reduce the chance that it will happen? If we only think or act when bullying is already happening, we are then solely focused on intervention and we may never see the end of this behavior. Promoting and modeling positive social behaviors before negative outcomes like bullying occur is a good way to create safer, healthier schools and communities for all children.

Why do we use “target” vs. “victim” and “child who bullies” vs. “bully” – You’ve likely heard statements such as “My child is a victim of bullying” or “That student is a bully.” Though these phrases are commonly used, are they the best terms to describe a child’s behavior and actions?

When referring to those involved in bullying situations, avoid stereotyping them into categories. Focus on behavior, not on labels.

• Instead of “bullying victim,” replace with the phrase “he’s a target of bullying.” This shows that the child is not powerless, and that with support and education they can change what’s happening to them.
• Instead of “she’s a bully” use instead, “she’s someone who bullies.” This shows that bullying is a part of who she is, but with support and education she can make changes in her behavior.

Does bullying happen more often than adults think? – There are many different types of bullying a student may experience, such as physical, verbal, emotional, or cyber. While all forms are equally hurtful, many behaviors harm students emotionally rather than physically, or happen in online environments versus the physical world — making it harder for adults to identify.

Physical bullying is often easier for adults to detect because the behavior is overt or signs are left behind (bruises, broken bones, damaged belongings). However, the words, gossip, rumors, or shared secrets that constitute verbal and social bullying don’t leave a physical trail of the emotional pain.

Bullying in online environments usually happens outside of adults’ view as well. While it often leaves behind an electronic trail of hurtful words or images, adults don’t know it is happening unless the student tells someone or an adult is monitoring their online activity.

What Are Some Common Misconceptions about Bullying? – In spite of the significant impact that bullying can have on a target, it often continues to be viewed as acceptable behavior. There are many misconceptions that adults may have about bullying, all of which can lead to minimizing the behavior. Learn more about responses such as “boys will be boys” or “it’s only teasing.”

Helpful Information for Adults

Why is it important for students to advocate for themselves and how can adults help them learn those skills? – Speaking up for oneself, expressing needs, and taking action are essential self-advocacy tools for youth of all ages. When children know that there are options for regaining control or influencing a difficult situation, they gain the resilience to move through the obstacles that life brings. Children who actively participate in learning self-advocacy skills are better prepared to resolve problems themselves and understand when a problem requires adult help. Whether it’s a disagreement with a friend or a serious situation like bullying, teaching self-advocacy can reinforce a child’s understanding of how they create change in their world.

What are some strategies to reinforce messages of kindness, acceptance, and inclusion at a young age? – Positive adult role modeling, mentoring, and age-appropriate approaches to kindness, acceptance, and inclusion can make a big impact on how children treat each other in the classroom, on the playground, at home, and in the community. Young children are just learning what it means to get along, how to share toys, discovering ways to work together, and understand how their feelings and behavior affect others. Practice role-playing activities, play games, create art, explore feelings, and establish a clear set of behavioral rules. These strategies reinforce positive relationships and behaviors, and is one of the keys to helping kids get along, which ultimately can help prevent bullying.

Bullying Prevention for Children with Disabilities: Using the IEP, 504, or Creating Your Own Plan – Using an IEP, 504 Plan, or constructing a plan for bullying prevention with professionals at school for students with disabilities can help create a safer and healthier learning environment for all students.”

How does bullying impact students’ health? – Do you remember hearing “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?”

Research shows that this age-old saying simply isn’t true. Often, the physical impact of bullying (the “sticks and stones”) is easy to recognize, such as a child getting up after being pushed, damaged personal items, or having torn clothing.

However, bullying often impacts our children in ways that aren’t so obvious. While words don’t physically injure, they do still hurt, and can cause emotional harm. Verbal and emotional bullying, such as teasing and social exclusion, as well as physical bullying, have the potential to negatively impact a student’s overall health, along with their sense of well-being.

What are some strategies for adults to redirect bullying behavior? – When a child is bullying others, it’s important that parents and educators take action. It is equally important for adults to recognize that bullying is about behavior, and they should choose responses that acknowledge behavior can be changed. Reframing the focus from labeling a child as a “bully” to referring to them as a “child with bullying behavior” recognizes that there is capacity for change. While children who are bullying others should be given appropriate consequences for their behavior, adults should be talking with their children to learn why they are bullying others. Children need to understand the impact their behavior has on others and realize the hurt they are causing. With adult guidance, redirecting bullying behavior toward an understanding of differences, as well as the practices of kindness and inclusion, are good strategies for reshaping a child’s behavior.

My child is being bullied at school. How can I communicate effectively with the school to make sure the bullying doesn’t continue? – When your child is the target of bullying, a parent’s first response is often an emotional one, followed by a sense of wanting to know the most effective, action-oriented response. Building positive relationships between the school, parents, and students will ensure that a plan and timeline of action can be quickly set in place to prevent further bullying.

How do I start a conversation about cyberbullying with my child? – The internet is the newest place for children and teens to communicate and share moments with their peers. While it can be a positive place for students to interact, the rise of technology has also led to a new and serious form of bullying, known as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as the use of technology to send or share mean, threatening, or embarrassing messages or images to or about someone. It might be in a text, email, message, on social media, or in a post online. Just as it’s important to talk with your child about bullying, it’s important to discuss cyberbullying as soon as your child starts to interact online. Discuss what information is and isn’t appropriate to share online, as well as establishing cyber rules together, such as what sites your child will be allowed to use and hours of usage. During this conversation, explain that if something hurtful is shared online (via words, images, videos, etc.), it counts as cyberbullying, and it’s important that you know about it. Together, you can strategize a plan to respond to the cyberbullying and keep kids safe online.

What should parents do when a team culture of teasing leads to bullying? – Merriam-Webster dictionary defines teasing as , “Making fun of or disturbing or annoying with persistent irritating or provoking behavior, especially in a petty or mischievous way .” Many children participate in teasing, both as the one exhibiting the behavior and the one being teased. Teasing, in and of itself, is not considered bullying. However, when the behavior meets distinguishing hallmarks, including no longer being fun or funny to the intended target, causing emotional distress, being repeated, or continuing despite the target’s desire for it to stop, it then reaches the level of bullying. When a child is on a team in which the coach or teammates view bullying behavior as “just teasing” or dismiss it as “kids being kids,” parents should first ensure that their child feels supported, and next address the concern directly with the coach or adult leaders by examining how the culture of teasing impacts team members.

How Do You Help Your Child Recognize the Signs of Bullying? – Children may not always realize that they are being bullied. They might think it is bullying only if they are being physically hurt; they might believe the other child is joking; or they may not understand the subtle social norms and cues. Children can benefit from a definition of the differences between friendly behavior and bullying behavior. The basic rule, which is not a legal or comprehensive definition: Let children know bullying is when someone is being hurt either by words or actions on purpose, usually more than once, feels bad because of it, and has a hard time stopping what is happening to them. Parents can prepare themselves to talk with their children by considering how they are going to respond to their child’s questions and emotions. They can also decide what information they would like to give their child about bullying.

Why Does Inclusion Matter for Bullying Prevention? – Inclusion helps foster a sense of “belonging” for all and increases the possibility that students will find meaningful connections among their peers, as well as support when they need it. When all are included and valued in the life of a community, bullying is less likely to occur.

Helpful Information for Youth

Can a friend be bullying me? – Friends will sometimes have bad days. Friends will sometimes disagree. Friends will sometimes hurt each other's feelings, have an argument, or simply need time away from one another. This is normal and can happen in any friendship, no matter how close. If you are experiencing treatment from a friend that hurts you and you have asked that friend to stop, but it still continues, then that is not friendship. That behavior could be bullying. Friendship behaviors do not include hurting someone on purpose or continually being mean even when asked to stop. A friend will change or be remorseful for her behavior if she finds out she's hurting you. If you aren't certain if what is happening is part of a normal friendship or if it is bullying, talk to an adult you trust and get help sorting out the relationship. And yes, it is okay (and the right thing to do) to ask for help.

How does peer pressure impact bullying behavior? – Peer pressure occurs when a peer group or individual encourages others to change their attitudes, values, or behaviors to conform to those of the influencing group or individual.

Peer pressure can impact bullying behavior both in positive and negative ways. For example, the influence can have negative effects if a peer group’s bullying behavior encourages others to laugh at someone. It can also be negative when the group views other individuals as not worthy to be part of their group. The impact of negative peer pressure can create environments in which individuals are intimidated to speak out on behalf of someone being hurt or harmed.

Peer pressure can also be positive and healthy. For example, when the peer group encourages kind and inclusive behavior, such as inviting others to join them at the lunch table or letting someone know that they care what is happening to them. The action of peers encouraging each other to reach out to those who are struggling can have a positive impact on the group and other individuals who want to speak out against bullying.

For students: What if you told an adult and it wasn’t helpful? – Have you told someone about being bullied and nothing has changed? Don’t give up! Did you know that you have the legal right to be safe at school? If the bullying continues even after you told an adult, know that there are laws designed to protect you (find your state law or policy at StopBullying.gov). It is very important for students to reach out to another trusted adult and ask for help again. This adult can be a parent, a teacher, a coach, or anyone from the community. Let them know that you need their help and that you wouldn’t be coming to them if you could fix the situation on your own.

National Office:

8161 Normandale Blvd. | Minneapolis, MN 55437

Los Angeles Area Office:

80 E. Hillcrest Drive, #203 | Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Founded in 2006, PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center actively leads social change to prevent childhood bullying, so that all youth are safe and supported in their schools, communities, and online.

[email protected]

• In The News
• History and Impact
• Press Releases

Visit our other sites

• KidsAgainstBullying.org
• TeensAgainstBullying.org

©2023 PACER Center, Inc.

Understanding teenage peer pressure

It’s normal for young people to worry about fitting in. Peer groups play an important role in young people’s lives, particularly during adolescence. ‘Peer pressure’ refers to the influence that these groups can have on how an individual thinks and acts. You can often find out who your child’s peers are by paying attention to who they socialise with and speak about.

Supporting your child to recognise teenage peer pressure, when it helps and hinders them, and how they can develop their own individuality, is an important role for parents.

This can help if:

your child is acting out of character

your child is constantly worried about ‘missing out’ or not fitting in

you’re concerned about the peer influence of your child’s friends

your child tends to always copy others and be a bit of a follower or easily influenced

you want to know some peer pressure examples to keep an eye out for.

What is peer pressure?

A young person can experience peer pressure in varying degrees. Sometimes their peers may proactively influence them to behave in certain ways and at other times they may be just following along. Both of these situations are based on seeking approval, but it is also possible for peer pressure to be a result of bullying . This is when your child fears being teased or physically hurt for not conforming.

Who are my child’s peers?

Your child’s peers are those they admire and consider to play an important role in their life. Depending on your child’s lifestyle, they may have several different peer groups. They generally come from places where your child spends their time – at school, in sport or hobby groups and in the local neighbourhood. If your child uses the internet, their peers can also include people they meet online through forums and social media platforms.

How does peer pressure affect teenagers?

You may associate peer pressure with negative outcomes such as your child trying alcohol, smoking or drugs. However, peer pressure can also allow certain groups to have positive influences on your child. There are two key types of peer pressure that can affect your child – negative and positive peer pressure.

There’s no way of knowing exactly how your child will be affected. Peer pressure can influence any area of your child’s life, from their taste in music to their choice of school subjects.

Examples of positive peer pressure include:

a sense of belonging and support

increased self-confidence

introduction to positive hobbies and interests

reinforcement of positive habits and attitudes.

Examples of negative peer pressure include:

pressure to drink alcohol or use cigarettes and drugs

peer pressure to engage in risk taking behaviours

distraction from schoolwork

distance between family and existing friends

drastic changes in behaviour and attitudes .

Teenage peer pressure and mental health

It’s important to remember that peer influence and pressure is a normal part of adolescence. As your child starts moving away from the parent-child relationship and seeking their own independence and identity, their peers will become more important to them. However, if you’re concerned about the effects of peer pressure on your child and think that it’s negatively impacting on their life, there are things that you can try to support them .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection
• PMC10092515

Bullying perpetration and social status in the peer group: A meta‐analysis

Maria wiertsema.

1 Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen Netherlands

Charlotte Vrijen

Rozemarijn van der ploeg, miranda sentse.

2 Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University, Leiden Netherlands

Tina Kretschmer

Associated data.

All data files and syntaxes are openly available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/z9hf4/ .

Introduction

Associations between bullying perpetration and social status vary, not only between different facets of social status but also between bullying in primary versus secondary school. The main aim of the present study was to meta‐analyse existing evidence regarding the prospective associations between bullying perpetration and various facets of social status, that is, popularity, peer acceptance, peer rejection, and social preference.

Electronic databases were searched to identify studies on bullying perpetration and later social status published up to January 17, 2022. Multilevel random effects models were performed using Metafor and differences in effect sizes as a function of substantive and methodological moderators were tested.

In total, 116 effects were included from 18 publications, reporting on 17 different samples and more than 15,000 participants (mean age bullying assessment = 11.57 years, on average 51% female participants). Most samples were from the United States (7) or Europe (7). Overall, bullies were more popular, but also more rejected and scored lower on social preference compared with non‐bullies. These associations remained when effects were adjusted for previous social status and other confounders. No link between bullying perpetration and acceptance was found. There was little evidence that effect sizes differed as a function of moderators.

Conclusions

Bullies become more popular over time, but also have a higher risk of being rejected and being less socially preferred. Bullying perpetrators are more popular but also more rejected by their peers. There is no evidence that these links differ depending on sex or age at which perpetrators bully, reporter or type of bullying.

1. INTRODUCTION

Bullying perpetration is intentionally and repeated negative behavior against a victim who finds it difficult to defend him‐ or herself (Olweus,  1993 ) and can be physical, relational, verbal, or happen via electronic means. Bullying is often considered to be maladaptive, not only for the victims but can also have negative outcomes for the perpetrators such as later substance use (e.g., Guy et al.,  2017 ; Vrijen et al.,  2021 ). However, bullying one's peers can also have positive correlates. From an evolutionary perspective, bullying has been proposed as a potentially effective way to obtain high social status (e.g., Volk et al.,  2015 ). High social status in the peer group, in turn, is beneficial for access to material and social resources (Volk et al.,  2012 ).

Social status has various facets (Lease et al.,  2002 ) including perceived popularity, peer acceptance and rejection, and social preference. Perceived popularity, “popularity” in the following, refers to being seen as popular and influential and is usually assessed by asking peers whom they see as most and least popular. As such, it is a measure of impact, visibility, and reputation within the peer group (van den Berg et al.,  2020 ). Bullying perpetration can contribute to visibility and admiration (e.g., Salmivalli & Peets,  2008 ) and bullies are often perceived as cool (e.g., Salmivalli,  2010 ). Yet, empirical evidence for a positive effect of bullying on popularity is mixed: In some studies, bullying peers was found to be an effective strategy to achieve popularity (e.g., van der Ploeg et al.,  2020 ), while others found no association (Wegge et al.,  2016 ), or came to the opposite conclusion – the latter only for boys (Badaly et al.,  2013 ).

Even if bullying peers is beneficial for obtaining popularity, bullies are often not well‐liked or accepted by peers (e.g., Pouwels et al.,  2016 ) and some bullies are even disliked and rejected (e.g., Orue & Calvete,  2011 ). Peer acceptance and peer rejection – respectively being liked and being disliked – represent affection and belongingness (Sentse et al.,  2015 ), and as such indicate preferences in the peer group (van den Berg et al.,  2020 ). Social preference reflects the relative extent to which children are being liked and disliked by their peers, that is, includes both concepts. Social preference is usually assessed by measuring the difference between nominations for being liked and being disliked (van den Berg et al.,  2020 ). Evidence for the association between bullying perpetration and acceptance is mixed: Whereas some studies found that bullies were less‐liked compared to their non‐bullying peers (e.g., Sentse et al.,  2015 ), others found no association (e.g., Orue & Calvete,  2011 ), or reported that bullies were actually both disliked and accepted by their peers (e.g., de Vries et al.,  2021 ). The association between bullying perpetration and rejection is also not universal: Some found that bullies were only rejected by those peers by whom they were seen as a threat, such that boys who bullied girls were only rejected by other girls (Veenstra et al.,  2010 ), while others found no association (e.g., Sentse et al.,  2015 ).

To date, no meta‐analysis exists on bullying perpetration and social status. A recent meta‐analysis on concurrent associations between relational aggression and several facets of social status reported that relational aggression was positively correlated with popularity and rejection, but not with acceptance (Casper et al.,  2020 ). The findings of this meta‐analysis cannot be directly applied to bullying behavior, because some conceptualizations of peer aggression do not meet the definitional criteria of bullying as proposed by Olweus ( 1993 ) and, as such, bullying is often seen as an unique peer phenomenon (Volk et al.,  2017 ). However, the findings by Casper and colleagues ( 2020 ) suggest that aggressive behavior in the peer context is differentially associated with different facets of social status. Here, we meta‐analyse specifically the literature on bullying perpetration and social status to arrive at a more systematic understanding of the heterogeneity of effects and possible origins thereof.

Such a review is particularly timely as several longitudinal studies are now available on links between bullying perpetration and social status. If we know the long‐term effects of bullying perpetration on social status, we understand better whether this behavior “only” affects group dynamics temporarily or whether bullying perpetration is linked to the bully's reputation more broadly and enduringly. By examining longitudinal associations, while controlling for baseline social status, we shed light whether engaging in bullying perpetration changes social status, for instance increases popularity. This is especially important given the assumption that bullying perpetration is an effective long‐term strategy to reach one's status goals by applying aggression without punishments in return (e.g., Volk et al.,  2012 ).

1.1. Which moderators affect associations between bullying perpetration and social status?

There are theoretical reasons to consider a range of moderators that affect the strength and direction of the associations between bullying perpetration and social status outcomes. To start, status outcomes could vary based on the educational context in which the bullying takes place. In primary education, children tend to be more conscious about their likeability within the peer group compared to their popularity (e.g., van den Berg et al.,  2014 ), whereas in secondary education the importance of visibility and admiration increases (e.g., Salmivalli,  2010 ) and being popular might be prioritized over being liked (e.g., van den Berg et al.,  2014 ). Bullying peers to obtain a high social status requires a combination of social‐emotional skills such as emotional control and social manipulation (e.g., Ferguson & Ryan,  2019 ). These skills develop over time which suggests that perpetrators in secondary education might be more capable of effectively bullying their peers to gain popularity compared to perpetrators in primary education.

It is also possible that associations between bullying perpetration and social status differ between ‘pure’ bullies and bully‐victims, the latter referring to those who bully others and are being victimized at the same time. Bully‐victims represent a high‐risk group, as they are the most disliked among their peers (Schwartz,  2000 ), regarded as more impulsive, and show more reactive aggression compared to ‘pure’ bullies. Bully‐victims are less socially skilled and might therefore not be successful in acquiring popularity through bullying (Guy et al.,  2017 ). Whereas the popularity of ‘pure’ bullies might help them avoid the negative consequences of their behavior (e.g., Wolke et al.,  2013 ), bully‐victims likely do not have this high social standing that might benefit them. Indeed, some studies show that compared to ‘pure’ bullies, bully‐victims are likely more rejected and less accepted (e.g., Veenstra et al.,  2005 ) and less popular (Guy et al.,  2019 ). Bully‐victims are less well‐adjusted than ‘pure’ bullies over time (e.g., Veenstra et al.,  2005 ), as they might face both the negative consequences of being victimized and being a perpetrator. In short, different forms of bullying ‐ isolated versus in conjunction with victimization ‐ likely relate differently to social status.

The link between bullying perpetration and social status might also differ for boys and girls. Boys might be more motivated to bully for popularity than girls (Caravita & Cillessen,  2012 ), whereas girls might strive for being liked and accepted by the group more than boys do and therefore refrain from bullying others (Sandstrom & Cillessen,  2006 ).

Specific types of bullying perpetration might also affect social status. Indirect forms of bullying, such as repeatedly spreading rumors, seem to be more strongly associated with popularity than direct forms of bullying, such as hitting (Prinstein & Cillessen,  2003 ). Direct forms of bullying are also associated with lower social preference, while no association was found between indirect forms of bullying and social preference (Prinstein & Cillessen,  2003 ).

Further moderators could also affect the strength and direction of the associations between bullying perpetration and social status, but are in the present study tested more in exploratory fashion. First, year of publication might moderate the association between bullying perpetration and social status. Bullying has gained a lot of attention over the last decade both within the educational context and within the research context (Volk et al.,  2017 ). It is possible that peers and teachers now better understand and adequately assess bullying perpetration due to its increased attention. Outcomes of bullying perpetration and social status might also differ depending on whether bullying is self‐ or other‐reported because different reporters tend to identify different types of bullies (Casper et al.,  2015 ). The link between bullying perpetration and social status might also differ for short‐ and long‐term effects. Short‐term effects are expected to be stronger than long‐term effects, i.e., stronger effects for studies with a short time period between the bullying perpetration and social status assessments compared to studies with a long time period between the assessments. Effects are potentially also different for studies with a low likelihood of bias compared to studies with high likelihood of bias. Various factors might thus influence the strength and directions of associations and need therefore to be considered as potential moderators.

1.2. Current study

The number of longitudinal studies on the association between bullying perpetration and social status has substantially increased in recent years, which makes a meta‐analysis on this literature a timely and relevant endeavor. A recent meta‐analysis on relational aggression suggests that aggressive behavior in the peer context is correlated with social status in different ways (Casper et al.,  2020 ). Yet, to date no systematic review or meta‐analysis has been performed on longitudinal links between bullying perpetration and various facets of social status. We sought to contribute to the bullying research field by specifically focusing on longitudinal associations between bullying perpetration and social status and by including various forms of peer bullying perpetration. We focussed on studies in which social status outcomes were assessed from peers and/or teachers, but excluded studies that were purely based on self‐perceptions of status. The reason for this is that social status is a reputation measure in the peer context – thus can most validly be reported by peers (e.g., Huitsing et al.,  2012 ). Teachers’ perspectives are broad and might capture group dynamics holistically, which is why their reports might explain unique variance (Ladd & Kochenderfer‐Ladd,  2002 ). We tested whether associations varied by substantive (e.g., primary vs. secondary school, sex, reporter and type of bullying) and methodological (e.g., time lag between assessments of bullying and status) moderators.

2.1. Background and larger project

The current study is part of a larger project investigating the consequences of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on mental health, somatic health, academic functioning, and social functioning. This project started in 2019 with a large search and screening that serves as the basis for multiple meta‐analyses. The larger project has been preregistered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tu5vd/ ) and PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; identifier CRD42019127712). Details on the initial search and screening process have been reported elsewhere (Vrijen et al.,  2021 ). Briefly, the initial search resulted in 1,934 articles on outcomes of bullying perpetration. Of those, 120 studies were initially included in the current meta‐analysis given their relevance in terms of outcomes after title, abstract, and full‐text screening. For the current study on bullying perpetration and social status, these 120 studies on social functioning were screened again with the inclusion and exclusion criteria as specified below in mind. The initial search was expanded with an updated search. Search terms are detailed in Supplemental Material A. The first author searched the electronic databases PsycINFO, Web of Science, Medline, ERIC, and SocINDEX to identify studies published up to January 17, 2022. The current study was preregistered with PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; identifier CRD42021231218) and on OSF ( https://osf.io/z9hf4/ ; also for deviations from the preregistration).

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included studies if they specifically focused on ‘pure’ bullies or bully‐victims and social status outcomes. Studies that assessed other types of bullying perpetration, such as workplace bullying or sibling bullying, or bullying directed at a specific target group, e.g., homophobic bullying, were excluded. Eligible studies had to use the term “bullying” or “bullying‐victimization” to describe their concept of interest. This meant that we also included studies that used the Crick and Grotpeter ( 1996 ) scales which originally, and in other studies, refer to relational and overt peer aggression, a somewhat different concept than bullying perpetration. Only studies in which bullying perpetration was assessed during childhood or adolescence (before age 18) in the general ‐ non‐clinical ‐ population were included. We did not exclude studies a priori based on the reporter of the bullying behavior, meaning that we included studies in which bullying assessments were based on peer nominations or teacher‐reports, but also on self‐reports or observations. Studies with samples that exclusively consisted of bullies were excluded, as were intervention studies that did not report results separately for the control group.

Only longitudinal studies in which social status was assessed at a later point than bullying perpetration were included in the present study, regardless of the time lag between assessments. Social status outcomes, i.e., popularity, acceptance, rejection, and social preference, had to be measured by means of peer‐ or teacher‐assessments. Additionally, studies had to be original empirical work, written in English, peer‐reviewed articles or PhD dissertations, available in a full‐text version, and contain sufficient methodological information to compute effect sizes on the level of the individuals. In case of unavailability of full texts or insufficient information, authors were asked to provide the full text or additional information, with a reminder sent 2 weeks later.

2.3. Eligibility assessment

All records were assessed for eligibility independently by two authors. The first author assessed all studies and three co‐authors were each randomly assigned 33.3% of the studies. Interrater reliabilities for title and abstract screening were 80%–89% and for the full‐text screening 78%‐88%. During the screening, the authors independently selected the primary reason for exclusion. Disagreements between authors were resolved by discussion.

The search and selection process is presented in Figure  1 . From the larger project, 120 studies were included in the full‐text screening (Figure  1 ; Part A); from the expanded search, 45 additional publications were included in the full‐text screening (Figure  1 ; Part B). In total, we screened 165 full texts publications. After the full text screening, 19 publications were eligible for inclusion. One study (Scholte et al.,  2007 ) was ultimately excluded from the meta‐analysis because categorical outcome measures were used in this study, which were incomparable with the continuous outcome measures of the other eligible studies, resulting in a total of 18 included publications. A reference check of the 18 included studies revealed no new studies that were in line with our predefined inclusion criteria and original search.

Flow diagram of included and excluded studies. a Other reasons for exclusion included the following: social status not assessed by means of peer‐ or teacher‐reports ( n  = 3); social status as predictor ( n  = 3); duplicates discovered during full‐text screening ( n  = 2); unavailability of full‐text or unavailability of necessary additional information ( n  = 2); no control group or comparison with uninvolved children ( n  = 2); bullying perpetration as covariate and no information about outcomes of bullying itself ( n  = 1). b In this study, categorical outcome measures were used, which were incomparable with the continuous outcome measures of the other eligible studies. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com ]

2.4. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

The first author performed the data extraction and quality assessments, based on a detailed manual. For each included effect, a quality assessment was performed using an adapted version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells et al.,  2011 ). See the manual for more detail ( https://osf.io/z9hf4/ ). The maximum score for the adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale was 10, with higher scores representing less bias. One of the co‐authors checked the data extraction and quality assessment for each included study and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

2.5. Analyses

2.5.1. effect sizes.

Studies reported correlations or standardized estimates, which we converted to Fisher's Z correlations using R package Metafor version 3.1‐36 (Viechtbauer,  2010 ). Standardized estimates ( β ) from multivariate analyses were first transformed to correlations using the following formula: r = β + . 05 λ , where λ = 0 for a negative β and λ = 1 for a nonnegative β as recommended by Peterson and Brown ( 2005 ) and in line with other recent meta‐analyses (e.g., Compas et al.,  2017 ). The resulting correlations were subsequently transformed to Fisher's Z . Raw and transformed estimates can be found in the data extraction file ( https://osf.io/zbqa5/ ) and R scripts are available on OSF ( https://osf.io/xfuap/ ).

2.5.2. Main analyses

We computed multilevel random effects models, because studies commonly reported multiple effects, for instance results based on different operationalizations of bullying perpetration (e.g., Gower et al.,  2014 ). Traditional univariate meta‐analytic methods assume independence of effect sizes and therefore often select only one effect per study or sample, which leads to loss of information (e.g., van den Noortgate et al.,  2013 ). We used three‐level multilevel random effects models, accounting for sampling variance at level 1, within‐sample variance at level 2, and between‐sample variance at level 3. This allowed us to include multiple effects from the same sample by modeling the dependence between effects from the same sample (Assink & Wibbelink,  2016 ).

Meta‐analyses were performed with R package Metafor version 3.1‐36 (Viechtbauer,  2010 ), R version 4.0.2 (R Core Team,  2013 ), RStudio version 1.3.1093 (RStudio Team,  2015 ). We estimated separate models for the different social status outcomes, i.e., popularity, acceptance, rejection, and social preference, as well as for effects unadjusted for possible confounders and effects adjusted for possible confounders such as age and gender. For each model, forest plots and heterogeneity indices Q and I 2 are reported.

2.5.3. Moderator analyses

Multiple moderator analyses, based on substantive reasoning, were performed subsequently to calculating the overall effect size. We tested educational context of bullying perpetration (primary vs. secondary school), excluding effects for which bullying perpetration was assessed in kindergarten ( n = 2 in analyses with acceptance and rejection as outcome). Additionally, we tested sex ratio in the sample, and the type of bullying (direct vs. indirect). Direct bullying perpetration included bullying forms such as hitting and kicking, whereas indirect bullying perpetration included bullying forms such as spreading rumors or excluding peers from the group. We excluded effects that did not specify whether bullying was indirect or direct from this moderator analysis ( n = 11 effects in analyses with popularity as outcome, n = 9 effects in analyses with acceptance as outcome, n = 8 effects in analyses with rejection as outcome). We performed an extra moderator analysis based on the developmental period of bullying perpetration, for which we tested the difference between childhood (age ≤ 9) and early adolescence (age 10‐13), and the difference between early adolescence (age 10–13) and mid‐late adolescence (age ≥ 14) in two separate analyses. Originally, we planned to perform a moderator analysis for type of bully (‘pure’ bully vs. bully‐victim) but this was not feasible because none of the included studies reported estimates for bully‐victims.

The following moderators were also performed subsequently to calculating the overall effect size, but these were tested more in exploratory fashion: year of publication, self‐reported bullying perpetration versus others’ reports, short‐term versus long‐term effects (<1 year vs. ≥1 year) between bullying assessment and social status assessment, and study bias (sum score of the adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale).

As recommended (Assink & Wibbelink,  2016 ), we only performed moderator analyses for adjusted effects models, including outliers, on the basis of at least 10 effects and with sufficient within‐sample and between‐sample heterogeneity, that is, if <75% of the total amount of the variance could be attributed to sampling variance (Hunter & Schmidt,  2004 ). Performing moderator analyses is meaningful only if there is substantial variation between effect sizes. Additionally, we only performed moderator analyses with categorical moderators if there was a sufficient number of effects per category. That is, we did not perform moderation analyses if only one or two effects exist for a specific category. Not only would the variance and therefore the power be very low in these cases, but the moderation effect would also be biased by a very small number of effects. We only reported results of moderation analyses that were based on at least three effects per category because these results are likely more meaningful than those based on fewer effects per category.

2.5.4. Sensitivity analyses and publication and reporting bias

To check for extreme outliers, we computed standardized Z values with Z values more extreme than −3.29 or 3.29 being considered an outlier (Tabachnick et al.,  2019 ). Influential outliers were identified by computing Cook's distances. For models including outliers, we performed sensitivity analyses without these outliers. Additionally, for adjusted effects models including outliers, we repeated meta‐analyses with the inclusion of null‐effects to see how this would influence the results. These null‐effects were nonsignificant effects for which estimates were not reported in the publication and were also not provided on request. We took a conservative approach by adding a correlation of zero for each of these nonsignificant effects.

To assess the likelihood of publication and reporting bias, we performed Egger tests for funnel plot asymmetry if for each model at least 10 effects were available, following Cochrane recommendations (Higgins & Thomas,  2020 ).

3.1. Description of the included studies

In total, 116 effects from 18 publications were included, published between 1999 and 2021, reporting on 17 samples ( k ) and a total of 15,274 participants (Table  1 ). Most of the samples ( k = 14) were from European or North American countries: seven from the United States, two from Finland, one from Belgium, one from Italy, one from the Netherlands, one from Spain, and one from the United Kingdom. Other samples ( k = 3) were based in Chile, China, and Taiwan. The majority of the samples were population‐based ( k = 16); and one was a high‐risk sample (Pouwels & Cillesen,  2013 ). All samples included both male and female participants with, on average, 51% female participants.

Description of included effects

Abbreviations: BP, bullying perpetration; Obs., observations; PR, peer report; SR, self‐report; TR, teacher report.

All effect sizes included in the present meta‐analysis reflected on the association between bullying perpetration and later social status. We found no studies that included later social status outcomes of the combined bullying‐victimization profile. The reported effects were mainly based on peer reported bullying ( n = 82 [70.69%]), followed by self‐reported bullying ( n = 26 [22.41%]), and observations ( n = 4 [3.45%]). Four effects (3.45%) were based on combined teacher reported bullying and observations. With regard to social status, most effects concerned acceptance ( n = 38 [32.76%]), followed by popularity ( n = 34 [29.31%]), rejection ( n = 28 [24.14%]), and social preference ( n = 16 [13.79%]). Those effects were mostly based on peer reports ( n = 108 [93.10%]); 8 effects (6.90%) concerned teacher reported social status. Most included effects for bullying perpetration were assessed in primary school ( n = 56 [48.28%], mean age = 10.35, whereas most included effects for social status were assessed in secondary school ( n = 71 [61.21%], mean age = 14.89). The time between the bullying and social status assessment was, on average, 8.65 months, ranging from 3 to 36 months. Most of the included effects ( n = 65 [56.03%]) were adjusted for likely cofounders and 51 effects (43.97%) were unadjusted. Adjusted effects were always adjusted for previous/baseline social status, and frequently for age and sex. The risk of bias of the included effects was generally low. The mean sum score, based on the adapted bias assessment tool, was 7.37 (ranging between 4 and 9), with lower scores indicating higher risk for bias.

3.2. Longitudinal associations between bullying perpetration and social status

Bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence was positively associated with later popularity, that is, bullies were more popular later on (Table  2 , Figure  2 ). This positive association decreased by approximately 75% but remained statistically significant in the adjusted effects model (Figure  3 ). No significant associations were found between bullying perpetration and later peer acceptance, neither in unadjusted analyses (Figure  4 ), nor in adjusted analyses (Figure  5 ). Bullying perpetration was associated with peer rejection, that is, bullies were more rejected by peers later on (Figure  6 ). This association remained significant in the adjusted effects model, but the effect size decreased by approximately 75% (Figure  7 ). Lastly, bullying perpetration was negatively associated with later social preference, that is, higher levels of bullying predicted lower levels of social preference (Figure  8 ). This association decreased by approximately 75%, but remained statistically significant in the adjusted effects model (Figure  9 ).

Effects of child and adolescence bullying perpetration on later social status

Note : Values in bold are statistically significant.

Forest plot unadjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later popularity. CI, confidence interval.

Forest plot adjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later popularity. CI, confidence interval.

Forest plot unadjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later acceptance. CI, confidence interval.

Forest plot adjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later acceptance. CI, confidence interval.

Forest plot unadjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later rejection. CI, confidence interval.

Forest plot adjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later rejection. CI, confidence interval.

Forest plot unadjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later social preference. CI, confidence interval.

Forest plot adjusted effect of bullying perpetration in childhood and adolescence on later social preference. CI, confidence interval.

3.3. Heterogeneity

Heterogeneity indices for each model are reported in Table  3 . For most adjusted models, I 2 indices for the sampling variance were an indication of sufficient within‐ and between‐sample heterogeneity to perform moderator analyses because less than 75% of the total amount of variance could be attributed to the sampling variance, that is, at level 1. For the adjusted effect model of social preference, the I 2 index for the sampling variance indicated insufficient within‐ and between‐sample heterogeneity. Hence, we performed no moderator analyses for this model.

Heterogeneity indices

3.4. Moderator analyses

The results of the moderator analyses were based on the adjusted effects models and are reported in Table  4 . Only two out of 23 performed moderator analyses showed significant effects but these were not consistent across social status outcomes and analyses are based on a small number of effects, which precludes confident interpretation of the results.

Moderator analyses results for the adjusted effects models

Note : values in bold are statistically significant.

Abbreviations: df , degree(s) of freedom; EXP, exploratory analysis; QM, statistic of moderator analysis.

Developmental period only moderated the association between bullying and social status in one model: Bullying perpetration in childhood (age ≤ 9) more strongly predicted rejection than bullying perpetration in early adolescence (age 10–13). There was no significant difference for rejection between early adolescent and mid‐late adolescent bullies. There was not enough variance to test whether developmental period moderated the association between bullying perpetration and popularity for child bullies versus early adolescent bullies. Year of publication moderated the association between bullying perpetration and popularity: Bullying more strongly predicted popularity in recent publications compared to older publications.

3.5. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias check

For two models, influential outliers were identified (Table  2 , right panel). For both the adjusted effects of bullying perpetration on popularity and bullying perpetration on acceptance, removal of influential outliers did not change the direction and statistical significance of effects. As part of the sensitivity analyses, two adjusted models were computed again with null‐effects included (Table  2 ). For popularity, three additional null‐effects were included in the reanalysis (Prinstein & Cillessen,  2003 ). Compared to results before inclusion of null‐effects, the effect size only slightly decreased, from Z = 0.05 to Z = 0.04, and remained statistically significant. For social preference, one null‐effect was included in the reanalysis (Pozzoli & Gini,  2021 ). The effect size decreased only slightly after including the null‐effect, from Z = −0.06 to Z = −0.05, and remained statistically significant.

Most unadjusted and adjusted effects models were based on 10 or more effects and had sufficient variation in study sizes, which allowed us to perform Egger's tests (Higgins & Thomas,  2020 ; Rothstein et al.,  2005 ). The results showed no indication that publication bias significantly impacted the meta‐analyses (Table  5 ). Egger's tests could not be performed for the unadjusted and adjusted effect models of social preference, because these were based on fewer than 10 effects.

Egger tests to assess publication and reporting bias

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; QM, statistic of Egger test.

4. DISCUSSION

The aim of this meta‐analysis was to synthesize the available literature on prospective associations between bullying perpetration and different facets of social status. We extended previous work by not only including different forms of bullying, but also by focussing on longitudinal studies in which adjusted effects were controlled for previous social status. We found evidence that bullies become more popular over time, even when earlier popularity and other confounders were taken into account, suggesting a modest but robust prospective association between bullying perpetration and popularity. Bullies were, however, also more likely to be rejected and scored lower on social preference, even when earlier rejection and social preference were taken into account. Even though some individual studies included in this meta‐analysis reported a significant association between bullying perpetration and lower acceptance, we did not find meta‐analytic evidence for this relationship. That is, bullying did not seem to affect whether someone was increasingly or decreasingly liked by others.

Our findings are largely in line with earlier systematic reviews on bullying perpetration (Álvarez‐García et al.,  2015 ; Salmivalli,  2010 ; Thomas et al.,  2018 ) and with meta‐analytic evidence on relational aggression (Casper et al.,  2020 ), and indicate that being a bully can be beneficial for obtaining popularity in the peer group. Yet, findings from the present meta‐analysis and from previous research on bullying perpetration also show that bullies are being more rejected (Álvarez‐García et al.,  2015 ; Salmivalli,  2010 ). Bullying perpetration was not linked to acceptance in the present meta‐analysis, which is in line with a recent meta‐analysis on relational aggression (Casper et al.,  2020 ), but different to another review on bullying (Álvarez‐García et al.,  2015 ). This mixed evidence might be reflective of the ambiguous nature of the relationship between bullying perpetration and acceptance. It has been suggested that bullies might be well‐liked by their friends while not being accepted and liked by their victims and other peers (e.g., Pozzoli & Gini,  2021 ).

Our findings contribute to a better understanding of why bullies keep bullying: Bullies are apparently rewarded for victimizing others. This might be problematic for at least two reasons: First, not only do bullies increase their popularity with their negative behavior, this popular status can also lead to many other benefits (Volk et al.,  2014 ) which would make continuation of bullying perpetration likely. Because bullies gain advantages, they might be less inclined to modify their behavior and, more so, they might internalize that bullying helps them achieve their needs. This means that future partners, colleagues, or offspring might bear the brunt of their behavior. Second, popular children might have more influence on behavioural norms in the peer group. Popular bullies might, for example, set the norm that bullying perpetration is acceptable (e.g., Dijkstra & Gest,  2015 ), which might evoke even more bullying behavior. Two studies in the present meta‐analysis included classroom norms (Berger & Caravita,  2016 ; Sentse et al.,  2015 ) but focused on the influence of these norms on persistence of bullying behavior. Based on previous cross‐sectional research, bullies might score, for instance, higher on social preference in classrooms with higher levels of bullying (Sentse et al.,  2007 ), thus popularity might not be the only status facet that is affected. Thus far, we do not know, however, whether bullying perpetration is an incentive for or a consequence of popularity in classes where bullying is accepted and whether classroom norms are still beneficial for bullies over a longer period of time.

Bullies are not only more popular, but also more rejected. This finding is in line with the idea that bullies often have a controversial status – popular but rejected – in the peer group as they engage in both antisocial and prosocial behavior (Salmivalli,  2010 ). This controversial status makes bullies at risk for negative social and emotional outcomes, as peer rejection is, for instance, associated with conduct problems (Chen et al.,  2015 ) and later depression (Platt et al.,  2013 ). More so, rejected children do not always receive social support or engage in positive peer relations, which are key for social well‐being and development (Rubin et al.,  2005 ).

4.1. Limitations of the field

During extraction of relevant information from the studies, we noticed some areas for improvement with respect to measurement issues and reporting issues. To start, studies used different measures of bullying perpetration and social status. In one study, for example, students had to assess acceptance by nominating peers they “like to hang out the most with” (Tseng et al.,  2013 ), whereas in another study students assessed acceptance by indicating who their friends were (Wegge et al.,  2016 ). “Hanging out with” might be viewed as a measure of popularity or friendship by other researchers. We stuck to the definitions applied by the original authors but this issue illustrates the tension between original studies and a meta‐analysis.

Likewise, some studies defined bullying perpetration before asking questions about it but not all studies. In some cases, measures referred to either general bullying perpetration (e.g., “who are the classmates who engage in hurtful and intentional behavior against a peer who cannot easily defend themselves”) or specific forms of bullying (e.g., “who are the classmates who more often spread rumors about others”). The effects included in the present meta‐analysis are thus based on a wide range of instruments to assess bullying perpetration and social status outcomes. Our results do therefore not reflect simple similar effects. It also means, however, that if an effect is found based on different conceptualizations and instruments, the finding is robust to heterogeneity in assessments.

Next, some studies relied on a single, global measure of bullying perpetration which does not inform about the severity of the behavior or the existence of an imbalance in power between the bully and victim. These are, together with stability and goal‐directedness, key characteristics to differentiate bullying perpetration from other forms of aggression (e.g., Volk et al.,  2014 ). It has been suggested to expand bullying perpetration measure instruments by explicitly addressing these four characteristics of bullying (Kaufman et al.,  2020 ). This can help to adequately distinguish bullying perpetration from other forms of peer aggression, can reduce the limitation of bullying information, and might add to the consistency of instruments and conceptualizations of bullying perpetration measurements.

Further, only one study (Gower et al.,  2014 ) relied on multiple reporters to assess bullying perpetration. However, social behavior varies across situational contexts (Achenbach,  2011 ; de Los Reyes,  2011 ), which might not be adequately captured by using only one reporter. Peers, teachers, parents, and young people themselves all have different perspectives of the bullying behavior and can therefore complement each other. The use of multiple reporters to assess bullying might avoid single reporter bias, give a more complete picture of the bullying behavior, and add to the consistency of the use of bullying assessment reporters. What is more, the use of multiple‐informant data could reduce shared method variance, i.e., the same person reporting on bullying behavior as well as social status, which now might have confounded the link between bullying perpetration and social status in the included studies.

Additionally, some studies lacked information about attrition rates or could not adequately show that attrition rates did not vary by bullying perpetration or social status. This increases the risks of biased results. One could thus wonder about the generalizability of these results. Additionally, reporting needs to be standardized with respect to the descriptive statistics of the study variables, correlations between all study variables, and nonsignificant results. Descriptive statistics and correlations are essential to interpret the reported data and effects sizes of nonsignificant results should be reported to avoid biased effect size estimations in meta‐analyses.

Finally, only few studies examined bullying and social status outcomes in childhood (Boulton,  1999 ; Godleski et al.,  2015 ; Gower et al.,  2014 ; Orue & Calvete,  2011 ; Pouwels & Cillessen,  2013 ; van der Ploeg et al.,  2020 ). Even though strategic bullying – bullying as a way to gain popularity – mostly occurs during adolescence (Salmivalli,  2010 ), many primary schools and middle schools already apply this notion in their interventions. Future research could focus on the function of bullying perpetration in primary and secondary school and whether bullying behavior is already motivated by status goals in primary school, especially considering that our findings tentatively suggests that associations between bullying perpetration and social status outcomes are not different depending on educational context. Such research would not only increase our knowledge about bullying but might also lead to better implementation of interventions.

4.2. Limitations of the present meta‐analysis

Although findings of this meta‐analysis strengthen our knowledge about the associations between bullying perpetration and the various facets of social status, several limitations should be noted. To start, we have focussed on summarizing the literature on the narrow concept of bullying perpetration rather than including all forms of aggression and social status as outcome. The bullying literature has defined a number of features of bullying perpetration that are not needed to define to other forms of aggression such as a power imbalance between the bully and the victim (Volk et al.,  2017 ), the presence of a consistent target (Olweus,  2013 ), and goal‐directed, strategic use of aggression (e.g., Reijntjes et al.,  2013 ; Volk et al.,  2017 ). We were particularly interested in the association between bullying perpetration and later social status ‐ an association often discussed due to the assumption that strategic bullying is motivated by status goals (e.g., Salmivalli,  2010 ). We positioned this study thus firmly within the bullying literature and sought to contribute to this study field by providing a summary of the available evidence on bullying perpetration and later status.

Further, due to the low variation in studies that examined childhood bullying perpetration and popularity, we were not able to perform a moderator analysis on whether the developmental period in which the bullying behavior took place influences the association between bullying and popularity. Likewise, it is unclear whether the fact that we did not find evidence that developmental period moderated the association between bullying perpetration and acceptance was due to the absence of this effect or due to the low number of included studies that examined childhood bullying and acceptance.

Finally, because we meta‐analyzed the effect of bullying perpetration on later social status, we can conclude that bullying is beneficial for obtaining a popular status while at the same time a risk factor for rejection and a lower score on social preference. However, we cannot infer causal claims or whether within‐person change in bullying perpetration is associated with within‐person change in social status with the included studies in the present meta‐analysis. This requires at least three study waves to investigate whether changes in bullying perpetration lead to changes in social status and also requires studies to report analyses on within‐subject change scores.

5. CONCLUSION

We sought to contribute to the bullying research filed by summarizing the available evidence on bullying perpetration and later social status. Overall, we found some support for small prospective links between bullying perpetration and popularity, rejection, and social preference: While bullies become more popular over time, bullies also have a higher risk of being rejected and being less socially preferred. It is problematic that bullies are rewarded for their behavior in terms of popularity, as this might turn into continuation of bullying behaviors across social contexts. Equally problematic might be that high levels of rejection and low levels of social preference could ultimately lead to social and mental health problems later in life. The research field could benefit from well‐designed longitudinal studies which include contextual factors such as classroom norms.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Four of the included articles in the present meta‐analysis were co‐authored by Dr. Kretschmer, Dr. Sentse and/or Dr. Van der Ploeg. To avoid bias toward own papers as much as possible, a third screener was involved if these co‐authors had been assigned to screen their own papers and they were not involved in the data extraction or risk of bias assessment. None of the authors have other conflicts of interest to report.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

Exempt for review because no human subjects data were collected.

Supporting information

Supplementary information.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Preparation of this manuscript has been supported by a European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant awarded to Tina Kretschmer under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program (Grant Agreement Number 757364, Title: Ghosts from the Past ‐ Consequences of Adolescent Peer Relations Across Contexts and Generations).

Wiertsema, M. , Vrijen, C. , Ploeg, R. , Sentse, M. , & Kretschmer, T. (2023). Bullying perpetration and social status in the peer group: A meta‐analysis . Journal of Adolescence , 95 , 34–55. 10.1002/jad.12109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• *Indicates that the study was included in the meta‐analysis.
• Achenbach, T. M. (2011). Commentary: definitely more than measurement error: but how should we understand and deal with informant discrepancies? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 40 ( 1 ), 80–86. 10.1080/15374416.2011.533416 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Álvarez‐García, D. , García, T. , & Núñez, J. C. (2015). Predictors of school bullying perpetration in adolescence: A systematic review . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 23 , 126–136. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Assink, M. , & Wibbelink, C. J. M. (2016). Fitting three‐level meta‐analytic models in R: A step‐by‐step tutorial . The Quantitative Methods for Psychology , 12 ( 3 ), 154–174. 10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Badaly, D. , Kelly, B. M. , Schwartz, D. , & Dabney‐Lieras, K. (2013). Longitudinal associations of electronic aggression and victimization with social standing during adolescence . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42 ( 6 ), 891–904. 10.1007/s10964-012-9787-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Berg, Y. H. M. , Burk, W. J. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2014). Identifying subtypes of peer status by combining popularity and preference: A cohort‐sequential approach . The Journal of Early Adolescence , 35 ( 8 ), 1108–1137. 10.1177/0272431614554704 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Berg, Y. H. M. , Lansu, T. A. M. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2020). Preference and popularity as distinct forms of status: A metaanalytic review of 20 years of research . Journal of Adolescence , 84 , 78–95. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Berger, C. , & Caravita, S. C. S. (2016). Why do early adolescents bully? exploring the influence of prestige norms on social and psychological motives to bully . Journal of Adolescence , 46 , 45–56. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.10.020 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Boulton, M. J. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal relations between children's playground behavior and social preference, victimization, and bullying . Child Development , 70 ( 4 ), 944–954. 10.1111/1467-8624.00068 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caravita, S. C. S. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence: Goals, popularity, and bullying . Social Development , 21 ( 2 ), 376–395. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casper, D. M. , Card, N. A. , & Barlow, C. (2020). Relational aggression and victimization during adolescence: A meta‐analytic review of unique associations with popularity, peer acceptance, rejection, and friendship characteristics . Journal of Adolescence , 80 , 41–52. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casper, D. M. , Meter, D. J. , & Card, N. A. (2015). Addressing measurement issues related to bullying involvement . School Psychology Review , 44 , 353–371. 10.17105/spr-15-0036.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, D. , Drabick, D. A. , & Burgers, D. E. (2015). A developmental perspective on peer rejection, deviant peer affiliation, and conduct problems among youth . Child Psychiatry and Human Development , 46 ( 6 ), 823–838. 10.1007/s10578-014-0522-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compas, B. E. , Jaser, S. S. , Bettis, A. H. , Watson, K. H. , Gruhn, M. A. , Dunbar, J. P. , Williams, E. , & Thigpen, J. C. (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta‐analysis and narrative review . Psychological Bulletin , 143 ( 9 ), 939–991. 10.1037/bul0000110 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crick, N. R. , & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children's treatment by peers: victims of relational and overt aggression . Development and Psychopathology , 8 ( 2 ), 367–380. 10.1017/S0954579400007148 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dijkstra, J. K. , & Gest, S. D. (2015). Peer norm salience for academic achievement, prosocial behavior, and bullying: Implications for adolescent school experiences . The Journal of Early Adolescence , 35 ( 1 ), 79–96. 10.1177/0272431614524303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson, S. M. , & Ryan, A. M. (2019). It's lonely at the top: Adolescent students’ peer‐perceived popularity and self‐perceived social contentment . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 48 ( 2 ), 341–358. 10.1007/s10964-018-0970-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Godleski, S. A. , Kamper, K. E. , Ostrov, J. M. , Hart, E. J. , & Blakely‐McClure, S. J. (2015). Peer victimization and peer rejection during early childhood . Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 44 ( 3 ), 380–392. 10.1080/15374416.2014.940622 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Gower, A. L. , Lingras, K. A. , Mathieson, L. C. , Kawabata, Y. , & Crick, N. R. (2014). The role of preschool relational and physical aggression in the transition to kindergarten: Links with social‐psychological adjustment . Early Education and Development , 25 ( 5 ), 619–640. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guy, A. , Lee, K. , & Wolke, D. (2017). Differences in the early stages of social information processing for adolescents involved in bullying . Aggressive Behavior , 43 , 578–587. 10.1002/ab.21716 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guy, A. , Lee, K. , & Wolke, D. (2019). Comparisons between adolescent bullies, victims, and bully‐victims on perceived popularity, social impact, and social preference . Frontiers in Psychiatry , 10 . 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00868 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins, J. , & Thomas, J. (2020). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 6.1 [updated 2020]. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
• Huitsing, G. , Veenstra, R. , Sainio, M. , & Salmivalli, C. (2012). “It must be me” or “it could be them?”: the impact of the social network position of bullies and victims on victims’ adjustment . Social Networks , 34 ( 4 ), 379–386. 10.1016/j.socnet.2010.07.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter, J. E. , & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta‐Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings . SAGE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman, T. M. L. , Huitsing, G. , & Veenstra, R. (2020). Refining victims’ self‐reports on bullying: Assessing frequency, intensity, power imbalance, and goal‐directedness . Social Development , 29 ( 2 ), 375–390. 10.1111/sode.12441 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Kochel, K. P. , Miller, C. F. , Updegraff, K. A. , Ladd, G. W. , & Kochenderfer‐Ladd, B. (2012). Associations between fifth graders’ gender atypical problem behavior and peer relationships: A short‐term longitudinal study . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 41 ( 8 ), 1022–1034. 10.1007/s10964-011-9733-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladd, G. W. , & Kochenderfer‐Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross‐informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims . Psychological Assessment , 14 ( 1 ), 74–96. 10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.74 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lease, A. M. , Musgrove, K. T. , & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likability, perceived popularity, and social dominance . Social Development , 11 ( 4 ), 508–533. 10.1111/1467-9507.00213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Los Reyes, A. (2011). Introduction to the special section: More than measurement error: Discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents . Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 40 ( 1 ), 1–9. 10.1080/15374416.2011.533405 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Noortgate, W. , López‐López, J. A. , Marín‐Martínez, F. , & Sánchez‐Meca, J. (2013). Three‐level meta‐analysis of dependent effect sizes . Behavior Research Methods , 45 ( 2 ), 576–594. 10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do . Blackwell Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges . Annual review of clinical psychology , 9 ( 1 ), 751–780. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Orue, I. , & Calvete, E. (2011). Reciprocal relationships between sociometric indices of social status and aggressive behavior in children: Gender differences . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 28 ( 7 ), 963–982. 10.1177/0265407510397982 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson, R. A. , & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta‐analysis . Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 ( 1 ), 175–181. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Platt, B. , Kadosh, K. C. , & Lau, J. Y. F. (2013). The role of peer rejection in adolescent depression . Depression and Anxiety , 30 ( 9 ), 809–821. 10.1002/da.22120 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * van der Ploeg, R. , Steglich, C. , & Veenstra, R. (2020). The way bullying works: How new ties facilitate the mutual reinforcement of status and bullying in elementary schools . Social Networks , 60 , 71–82. 10.1016/j.socnet.2018.12.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Pouwels, J. L. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2013). Correlates and outcomes associated with aggression and victimization among elementary‐school children in a low‐income urban context . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42 ( 2 ), 190–205. 10.1007/s10964-012-9875-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pouwels, J. L. , Lansu, T. A. M. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Participant roles of bullying in adolescence: status characteristics, social behavior, and assignment criteria . Aggressive Behavior , 42 ( 3 ), 239–253. 10.1002/ab.21614 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Pozzoli, T. , & Gini, G. (2021). Longitudinal relations between students' social status and their roles in bullying: The mediating role of self‐perceived social status . Journal of School Violence , 20 , 76–88. 10.1080/15388220.2020.1850462 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Prinstein, M. J. , & Cillessen, A. H. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status . Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly , 49 ( 3 ), 310–342. 10.1353/mpq.2003.0015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R Core Team . (2013). R: A langauge and environment for staistical computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Reijntjes, A. , Vermande, M. , Goossens, F. A. , Olthof, T. , van de Schoot, R. , Aleva, L. , & van der Meulen, M. (2013). Developmental trajectories of bullying and social dominance in youth . Child Abuse & Neglect , 37 ( 4 ), 224–234. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.12.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothstein, H. R. , Sutton, A. J. , & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta‐analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments . John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• RStudio Team . (2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R . RStudio, Inc. http://www.rstudio.com/
• Rubin, K. H. , Coplan, R. , Chen, X. , Buskirk, A. A. , & Wojslawowicz, J. C. (2005). Peer relations in childhood. In Bornstein M. H., & Lamb M. E. (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 469–512). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.1007/978-1-4615-0195-4_117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 15 , 112–120. 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli, C. , & Peets, K. (2008). Bullies, victims, and bully–victim relationships. In Rubin K. H., Bukowski W. M., & Laursen B. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 322–340). The Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandstrom, M. J. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment . International Journal of Behavioral Development , 30 ( 4 ), 305–314. 10.1177/0165025406072789 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scholte, R. H. J. , Engels, R. C. M. E. , Overbeek, G. , de Kemp, R. A. T. , & Haselager, G. J. T. (2007). Stability in bullying and victimization and its association with social adjustment in childhood and adolescence . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 35 ( 2 ), 217–228. 10.1007/s10802-006-9074-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children's peer groups . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 12 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Sentse, M. , Kiuru, N. , Veenstra, R. , & Salmivalli, C. (2014). A social network approach to the interplay between adolescents’ bullying and likeability over time . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 43 ( 9 ), 1409–1420. 10.1007/s10964-014-0129-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Sentse, M. , Kretschmer, T. , & Salmivalli, C. (2015). The longitudinal interplay between bullying, victimization, and social status: Age‐related and gender differences . Social Development , 24 ( 3 ), 659–677. 10.1111/sode.12115 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sentse, M. , Scholte, R. , Salmivalli, C. , & Voeten, M. (2007). Person–Group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 35 ( 6 ), 1009–1019. 10.1007/s10802-007-9150-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Sentse, M. , Veenstra, R. , Kiuru, N. , & Salmivalli, C. (2015). A longitudinal multilevel study of individual characteristics and classroom norms in explaining bullying behaviors . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 43 ( 5 ), 943–955. 10.1007/s10802-014-9949-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabachnick, B. G. , Fidell, L. S. , & Ullman, J. B. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (Seventh edition). Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, H. J. , Connor, J. P. , & Scott, J. G. (2018). Why do children and adolescents bully their peers? A critical review of key theoretical frameworks . Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , 53 ( 5 ), 437–451. 10.1007/s00127-017-1462-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Troop‐Gordon, W. , & Kopp, J. (2011). Teacher‐Child relationship quality and children's peer victimization and aggressive behavior in late childhood: Teacher‐Child relationships and peer victimization . Social Development , 20 ( 3 ), 536–561. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00604.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Tseng, W. L. , Banny, A. M. , Kawabata, Y. , Crick, N. R. , & Gau, S. S. F. (2013). A cross‐lagged structural equation model of relational aggression, physical aggression, and peer status in a Chinese culture . Aggressive Behavior , 39 ( 4 ), 301–315. 10.1002/ab.21480 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veenstra, R. , Lindenberg, S. , Munniksma, A. , & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences . Child Development , 81 ( 2 ), 480–486. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01411.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veenstra, R. , Lindenberg, S. , Oldehinkel, A. J. , De Winter, A. F. , Verhulst, F. C. , & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents . Developmental Psychology , 41 ( 4 ), 672–682. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta‐analyses in R with the metafor package . Journal of Statistical Software , 36 ( 3 ), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v036.i03 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volk, A. A. , Camilleri, J. A. , Dane, A. V. , & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior , 38 ( 3 ), 222–238. 10.1002/ab.21418 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volk, A. A. , Dane, A. V. , & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition . Developmental Review , 34 , 327–343. 10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volk, A. A. , Dane, A. V. , Marini, Z. A. , & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Adolescent bullying, dating, and mating: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis . Evolutionary Psychology , 13 ( 4 ), 1474704915613909. 10.1177/1474704915613909 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volk, A. A. , Veenstra, R. , & Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 36 , 34–43. 10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Vries, E. , Kaufman, T. M. L. , Veenstra, R. , Laninga‐Wijnen, L. , & Huitsing, G. (2021). Bullying and victimization trajectories in the first years of secondary education: Implications for status and affection . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 50 ( 10 ), 1995–2006. 10.1007/s10964-020-01385-w [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vrijen, C. , Wiertsema, M. , Ackermans, M. A. , van der Ploeg, R. , & Kretschmer, T. (2021). Childhood and adolescent bullying perpetration and later substance use: A meta‐analysis . Pediatrics , 147 , e2020034751. 10.1542/peds.2020-034751 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Wang, J. M. , Duong, M. , Schwartz, D. , Chang, L. , & Luo, T. (2014). Interpersonal and personal antecedents and consequences of peer victimization across middle childhood in Hong Kong . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 43 ( 11 ), 1934–1945. 10.1007/s10964-013-0050-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * Wegge, D. , Vandebosch, H. , Eggermont, S. , & Pabian, S. (2016). Popularity through online harm: The longitudinal associations between cyberbullying and sociometric status in early adolescence . The Journal of Early Adolescence , 36 ( 1 ), 86–107. 10.1177/0272431614556351 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells, G. , Shea, B. , O'Connell, D. , Robertson, J. , Peterson, J. , Welch, V. , Losos, M. , & Tugwell, P. (2011). The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta‐analysis . http://www.evidencebasedpublichealth.de/download/Newcastle_Ottowa_Scale_Pope_Bruce.pdf
• Wolke, D. , Copeland, W. E. , Angold, A. , & Costello, E. J. (2013). Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes . Psychological Science , 24 ( 10 ), 1958–1970. 10.1177/0956797613481608 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]