Download Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter

Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying
This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in School Psychology International
Copyright © 2006 Sage Publication
Gianluca Gini
Department of Developmental and Socialisation Psychology
University of Padova, Italy
Address correspondence to: Gianluca Gini, Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e
della Socializzazione, Università di Padova, via Venezia, 8, 35131, Padova - Italy
Phone: +39 049 8276537
Fax: +39 049 8276511
e-mail: [email protected]
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying.
Abstract
Using social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and social identity development
theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 1999) as a framework, this study investigated attitudes towards
inter-group bullying at school. Preadolescent boys and girls (N=314) participated in a
study, utilizing the short story technique, in which they were induced to identify with their
own school-class, whose social status was manipulated to be high or low. A story was told
in which the group engaged in an episode of physical bullying as either the bully group or
the victim group. The designed out-group was another class of the same school. Attribution
of blame to both the in-group and the out-group was assessed. Results showed an higher
preference for the in-group when it was the victimized group. Moreover, participants
blamed the high status out-group more than any other group. The results are discussed in
relation to the literature about bullying and the application of SIT and SIDT to this domain.
Key-words: bullying; social identity; inter-group relations; attitudes; blame
2
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying.
A common assumption guiding much of research on bullying and peer victimisation
at school pertains to the bully/victim dyad and victimisation is usually seen as the other side
of the coin of bullying. Traditionally, the reasons for a child’s being victimised have been
researched from both sides of the bully/victim dyad and several individual characteristics of
bullies and victims have been identified (Juvonen and Graham, 2001; Olweus, 1993; Smith
et al., 1999). Yet, some authors maintain that the pervasiveness of bullying might be partly
explained by group mechanisms, such as social contagion, weakening of control or
inhibition of aggressive tendencies, diffusion of responsibility, friends’ expectations, etc.
(Olweus, 2001; Rigby, 2005; Salmivalli and Voeten, 2004). Several observational studies,
conducted while children freely interact during recess and in outdoor play, confirmed the
crucial role of peer ecology in the bullying phenomenon. Those studies have consistently
observed peer involvement in 85% of bullying episodes (Atlas and Pepler, 1998; Craig and
Pepler, 1997; Craig et al., 2000). Moreover, Salmivalli et al. (1996) have identified six
different participant roles taken on by individual children in the bullying process (victim,
bully, bully reinforcer, bully assistant, defender of the victim, and outsider). Another study,
conducted by Salmivalli et al. (1997), also revealed a strong influence of group behaviour
on an individual child’s behaviour in bullying incidents.
Despite this knowledge about the importance of individual attitudes and peer
influence, however, little empirical consideration has been focused on the attitudes and
group dynamics that may underlie a certain type of intergroup conflict – i.e., when bullying
is expressed in group-based behaviours directed towards members of one group by
3
Social identity and inter-group bullying
members of another group (Nesdale and Scarlett, 2004). The aim of the present paper was
to extend recent research (Gini, 2006; Ojala and Nesdale, 2004) by analyzing the influence
of group status on preadolescents’ perception of inter-group bullying and, specifically, on
their attribution of blame to the groups involved. Nesdale and Scarlett (2004) also
examined the effect of group status on male students’ attitudes towards intergroup bullying
and found that the group status affected participants’ liking for the bully group (i.e., their
liking was greater when the bully group had high versus low status) but not their attribution
of responsibility. However, most research showed that girls do bully, are bullied and
witness bullying incidents among their schoolmates (e.g., Salmivalli et al., 1996; Smith et
al., 1999). For this reason, our understanding of group dynamics in such circumstances may
be limited when only male participants are involved in an empirical work. Therefore, the
current study extended those findings by assessing both boys and girls preadolescent
students.
Guided by social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and social identity
development theory (SIDT) (Nesdale, 1999), in the present study, we focused on bullying
as a social process, in which two opposite groups (or members of these groups) pursue the
same goal and end up clashing thereby. Our main goal was to investigate the effect of
participant own group, involved in a bullying episode, on perception of the group itself and
on perception of the opposite group. This question was addressed by measuring
preadolescent reactions to a scenario in which some class members bully a member of
another class (the bully condition) or are bullied by members of the other class (the victim
condition). To this end, we used the short story paradigm, which proved to be effective in
4
Social identity and inter-group bullying
measuring social discrimination processes in children (e.g., Nesdale, 1999; Nesdale and
McLaughlin, 1987).
Consistent with SIT and previous research (Gini, 2006), we expected that
participant would favour the in-group over the opposite group and that the tendency to
favour the former group would vary as a function of the bully or victim condition. In terms
of social identity processes, the victim condition represents a threatening condition for the
value of the group itself and for its members’ self-esteem. We therefore expected that
participants would favour their in-group more strongly when it was victimised. For SIT,
however, in-group bias is not inevitable, but is a function of the status positions of the
groups concerned. Therefore, the effect of the social status of the groups involved in the
bullying incident on the participants’ evaluation of the situation was also analysed. To this
end, the group status was manipulated by way of the high versus low ability of the
members of the two groups at basketball. Following the hypothesis that preadolescents may
consider bullying behaviour as a means to increase the group social status (e.g., Emler and
Reicher, 1995), we expected that they would blame less the bully in-group when it had a
low versus high status. In such circumstances, in fact, the bullying behaviour towards an
higher status group might be considered more legitimate. Conversely, we expected that the
bully group would be considered more blameworthy when it had an high status and,
consequently, its bullying behaviour was less justifiable.
Furthermore, unlike previous studies (e.g., Nesdale and Scarlett, 2004) examining
only boys as participants, the present study considered both preadolescent boys and girls in
order to investigate possible gender differences in attitudes towards inter-group bullying. It
was expected that boys would more readily approve of physical bullying and would justify
5
Social identity and inter-group bullying
their in-group members’ bullying behaviour (e.g., by attributing less responsibility for an
aggressive act) than girls would. Conversely, girls were expected to express less acceptance
of physical bullying in all instances, and, therefore, even when the bully was a member of
their own group.
Method
Participants
A convenience sample of 314 Italian preadolescents (146 boys and 168 girls; mean
age = 13; SD=0.80) participated in the study. Students were attending public middle
schools, which had been randomly selected from the population of schools located in two
middle-sized cities (80,000-100,000 inhabitants) in Italy. All schools selected agreed to
participate. As in Italian public schools in general, the students represented all social
classes, from low and working classes through upper middle class. In terms of racial/ethnic
background, all the participants were Caucasian (100%). School and parental permission to
participate in the study was obtained for each participant prior to data collection.
Design and materials
To test our hypotheses, we used an anonymous questionnaire booklet consisting of
three sections. Part A of the booklet asked for personal information about each participant
(age, gender, and school information) and contained a short presentation of the study,
including procedures for answering questions and a practice example using a Likert-type
scale (‘Do you like to ride a bicycle?’, from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 7 = ‘very much’).
Part B of the booklet consisted of an approximately 300-word story about two
groups of schoolmates; the participants’ school-class and another, same-age level class in
the same school. The beginning of the story described the first group (‘your class’) by
6
Social identity and inter-group bullying
emphasizing several similarities between readers and their classmates, who shared the same
interests and everyday activities both in and out of school; the aim of this description was
to encourage the readers to identify with that specific group (the in-group). The story also
mentioned that all students liked to play basketball during gym class but, due to logistical
problems, they all had to share the school-gym. The two classes had not been able to agree
on how to alternate use of the basketball court in a way that all involved considered fair.
The central feature of the story was an aggressive incident in the school-gym, when both
groups claimed the right to use the basketball court (see Appendix).
Different versions of the story reflected the manipulation of two variables: group
status (high vs. low status) of each group and group role (bully vs. victim) during the
incident. In the ‘high status’ condition, the class was described as being very good in this
sport, as having some members who regularly play in the local team and as being the
winners of the last school championship. In contrast, the class in the ‘low status’ condition
was described as not very good in this sport, since its members play only to have fun. The
other variable of group role was determined by alternating which class (the in-group or the
out-group) bullied a member of the opposite group, which consequently assumed the role of
victimised group. The bullying episode described in the story consisted in some members
of the bully group directing typical physical bullying (hitting and pushing) towards a
member of the victimised group.
The initial version of each story was pilot-tested with a convenience sample of 20
preadolescents, and a few minor adjustments had been made, based on participant
feedback, to strengthen the effectiveness of the intended manipulations. Concerning the
7
Social identity and inter-group bullying
linguistic formulation of the stories, participants reported no comprehension difficulties,
nor any problems with the ‘authenticity’ of the episodes described.
Part C of the booklet consisted in a manipulation check item concerning perception
of group status. Perceived group status was verified on a 7-point scale (ranging from 1 =
‘not at all’ to 7 = ‘very much’), which rated ‘how good at playing basketball’ are the
reader’s in-group members. The manipulation check item was followed by two items
constituting our main dependent variables. In order to obtain participant response
comparisons for the same measures, the same questions were asked twice (referring once to
the in-group and once to the out-group). The first item measured the participants’ rating of
responsibility for the incident (attribution of blame). The second item asked participants the
extent to which each class deserved to be punished for what had happened (punishment).
Both items presented a response scale ranging from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 7 = ‘very much’.
Order of presentation was counterbalanced.
In summary, in our research design three between-subject factors were used:
participants gender, group status (2 levels) and group role (2 levels). For both in-group and
out-group, two dependent variables were measured: attribution of blame and punishment.
However, since the two measures were positively and highly inter-correlated (r=.65),
responses in these two items were averaged to measure ‘blame’.
‘Table 1 about here’
Procedure
The study was conducted in group format in the participants’ school classrooms.
Each booklet included one of four possible versions of the story, and booklets were
randomly distributed among the students in each class. The researcher told the students that
8
Social identity and inter-group bullying
he was interested in their perception of group behaviour and that he would present a short
story referring to situations they might commonly experience at school. After the researcher
had thoroughly explained how to answer the booklet, the participants were asked to
carefully read the story and to complete the questionnaire, without consulting their
classmates. At the end of the session, all questions were answered and participants were
thanked for their participation in the study.
Results
Status manipulation check
Consistent with the group status manipulation, a t-test for independent samples on
the manipulation check item for status revealed a significant effect, t [312] = 10.14, p<.001.
Participants perceived the in-group to have a significantly higher status in the ‘high’
(M=5.65, SD=1.49) versus ‘low status’ condition (M=4.01, SD=1.38). Moreover, an
ANOVA revealed that neither age nor gender of participants affected their perception of the
group status.
Main analyses
There were no significant main effects and no interactions involving participant age
and this factor was therefore excluded from the analysis reported here below. Blame scores
were analysed in a 2 (sex) x 2 (group status: high vs. low) x 2 (group role: bully vs. victim)
x 2 (target group: in-group vs. out-group) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last
factor.
Analyses revealed a main target group effect, F[1, 306] = 52.61, p<.001, ²= .147:
blame was attributed to the out-group (M=4.41, SD=2.11) more frequently than it was to
the in-group (M=3.22, SD=2.00). Interestingly, the bully role per se did not affect
9
Social identity and inter-group bullying
participant answers, but the target group x group role interaction was significant, F[1, 306]
= 236.36, p<.001, ²= .436. This interaction indicates that participants considered the bully
group more blameworthy when the role was enacted by the out-group (M=5.63, SD=1.42)
than when it was enacted by the in-group (M=4.50, SD=1.75). The target group x sex
interaction was also significant, F[1, 306] = 5.80, p<.05, ²= .019. Independently of the
group role, the difference between boys’ attribution of blame to the out-group (M=4.71,
SD=2.11) and the in-group (M=3.02, SD=2.01) was larger than the difference between
girls’ blame for the out-group (M=4.15, SD=2.08) and the in-group (M=3.39, SD=1.99),
thus showing an higher in-group bias for boys than for girls.
Consistent with our hypothesis, the main effect of target group was also qualified by
the significant target group x group status interaction, F[1, 306] = 10.62, p <.001, ²=.034.
Participants blamed more the out-group than the in-group, independently of the group role.
However, in the high status condition, that is when the in-group had the highest status, the
difference in the attribution of blame to the in-group and to the out-group was smaller
(M=3.50, SD=2.03 vs. M=4.13, DS=2.11) than in the opposite condition (M=2.93, SD=1.94
vs. M=4.70, DS=2.08). That is, the high status out-group was considered the most
responsible group and the low status in-group the least responsible one (Figure 1).
‘Figure 1 about here’
Discussion
The present study aimed at extending previous findings about preadolescents’
attitudes towards inter-group bullying at school by analysing the impact of group status on
both boys and girls perception of a physical bullying incident. Consistent with SIT and
previous research (Gini, 2006; Nesdale and Flesser, 2001), a clear in-group bias emerged.
10
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Our participants, in fact, tended to favour their own group by attributing more blame to the
out-group. Furthermore, the significant interaction between target group and the role (bully
vs. victim) played by the in-group and the out-group qualified this main effect. In fact,
participants showed an higher preference for the in-group when it was the victimised group,
whereas, when it acted aggressively, this preference lessened. This was anticipated by the
SIT, in that being victimised, as individual as well as a whole group, represents a strong
threat to social identity and self-esteem; under these conditions, the SIT expects that
individuals strengthen their identification with the in-group, favour the in-group as much as
possible and tend to avert and derogate the out-group. These findings thus seem to support
the idea that social identity concerns may lay under group conflicts among students, at least
in some circumstances. Future research in this field should further test whether this
hypothesis holds even in younger children and should investigate other possible social and
contextual factors that can moderate aggressive inter-group dynamics during development.
The same findings, however, could be explained by alternative, even though not
really contrasting, theories. For example, Mummendey et al. (1984) analysed the dissent in
the evaluation of aggressive actions between people holding complementary perspectives in
aggressive interaction, such as the aggressor and the victim. According to their model,
participants of an aggressive interaction do not evaluate an offensive action as worse than
an identical defensive one. Moreover, this dissent is rather stable and is not weakened by
normative effects. The main findings derived by their experiments showed that both of the
persons involved in the aggressive interaction evaluate their own behaviour as more
reasonable and less inappropriate than the same behaviour (i.e., an aggressive behaviour)
performed by the other one. The authors concluded that ‘the general assumption of an
11
Social identity and inter-group bullying
actor-recipient dissent has been established as one crucial point within the
conceptualization of aggression as a particular kind of social interaction’ (Mummendey et
al., 1984, p.308). Subsequent research showed that this dissent between actors and
recipients seems to be lower in an intergroup than in an interpersonal condition (Otten et
al., 1995). This approach and SIT have some points in common, in that they both conceive
aggression as social interaction, thus including both perspectives of the participants
involved, the aggressor and the victim. However, what SIT and SIDT allow to do is to link
inter-group conflicts to more general group mechanisms and individual’s seek for social
identity and positive self-image (Nesdale, 1999).
As far as group status is concerned, previous studies (Nesdale and Flesser, 2001;
Nesdale and Scarlett, 2004) have found that the bias in favour of the aggressive in-group
was highest when that group had high versus low status. In contrast, in the current study,
participants blamed the high status out-group more than any other group; conversely, the
low status in-group was blame least. In other words, having an high status seemed to be a
source of responsibility for social behaviour only for the out-group, which has been
considered more blameworthy when it had an higher status. The meaning of these findings,
however, is not completely clear because the effect of group status was independent of the
role played by each group. Group status seemed to influence the perception of the in-group
(and the out-group) in the bullying incident independently of the fact that it was the bully or
the victimised group. This only partially supports the hypothesis that our participants
considered bullying as a means to increase the group’s social status. However, from a more
general point of view, an aggressive conflict between two groups sharing the same
environment (such as the same school) may be seen as a struggle for social power,
12
Social identity and inter-group bullying
particularly in the case in which there is a power differential between the two groups.
Consistent with social identity concerns described by SIT, we may hypothesise that our
participants considered being members of the low status in-group as the most threatening
condition for the group value and their own self-image. As a consequence, they tended to
favour this group by attributing the responsibility of the bullying incident to the high status
out-group.
The last goal of the present study was to investigate possible gender differences in
attitudes towards inter-group bullying. Consistent with previous findings (Gini, 2006), our
data revealed that girls, but not boys, preferred the out-group when it was the victimised
group, despite of the general in-group bias, thus showing more negative attitudes towards
bullying behaviour, at least towards the specific category of physical bullying. These
findings are consistent with those studies that show a prevalence of overt bullying among
male children and adolescents, whereas girls seem to be higher in relational or social
bullying (e.g., Owens et al., 2000; Underwood, 2003). Furthermore, they confirm literature
about gender differences in attitudes towards different types of peer aggression (e.g., Coie
and Dodge, 1998; Crick et al., 1996; Maud and De Mello, 1999).
Whilst by no means representing a comprehensive investigation of the influence of
group dynamics in school bullying, this study represented an example of the way in which
bullying and peer victimisation can be studied by school psychologists within the
theoretical and methodological framework of social identity theory. However, some
limitations of the current study are to be acknowledged. First, we did not collect
information about participants’ actual bullying behaviour and, therefore, we were not able
to test possible effects of different roles (i.e., bullies, victims, bystanders) on the perception
13
Social identity and inter-group bullying
of the aggressive episode presented in our study. Second, we only studied preadolescents’
perception of physical bullying. It would be interesting to analyse other types of aggressive
behaviour that are frequently used during adolescence, such as indirect or relational forms
of aggression towards peers (e.g., Lagerspetz et al., 1988; Putallaz and Bierman, 2004).
Third, from a methodological point of view, the fact that the level of identification with the
in-group was not included in the present study might have raised the possibility that the
effect of threat to group distinctiveness was diluted by differential effects of participant
identification with their group. As such, future studies utilising the short story paradigm
should seek to manipulate the level of identification with the in-group.
In conclusion, this line of research seems to be promising for all researchers who
deal with bullying and peer victimisation at school and future studies should further
investigate children perception and attitudes towards inter-group aggressive behaviours in
relation to both group norms and situational rules. Studying group norms, in particular, is
very important, because they may play a central role in how inter-group relations are
perceived by students of different age-levels. For example, if the group norms are based
upon principles of prosociality and respect, we can expect that a member of that group who
eventually deviate from these norms acting aggressively would be derogated by the other
members of the same group (Christensen et al., 2004; Marques et al., 2001). In contrast, in
some particular groups, which idealise violence and antisocial behaviours, aggressive
behaviour towards peers may be seen as consistent with group norms and, therefore, it may
be more easily approved.
Implications for school-based intervention strategies
14
Social identity and inter-group bullying
The present findings are consistent with the mounting evidence for social identity
development theory as a plausible explanation of intra- and intergroup processes in children
and adolescents (e.g., Gini, 2006; Nesdale, and Flesser, 2001; Nesdale and Scarlett, 2004;
Ojala and Nesdale, 2004). Together with our results, these studies lend further weight to the
importance of recognising the significant role of groups in the bullying of other individuals
and groups in schools. A well-documented need has therefore emerged for going beyond
bully/victim dualism, and research results in this area now show promising potential for
developing programs aimed at preventing and lessening the incidence of bullying. Most of
this research underscores the need for a broader and more ecologically valid approach to
the phenomenon of bullying in our schools, which addresses the characteristics of the
individuals involved, of their peer group, and of the school community in which they live
(Espelage and Swearer, 2004).
Another important implication of the present findings concerns the likelihood of
changing bullying behaviour. Zero-tolerance policies, as well as other school based
programs that strive against bullying by awarding negative sanctions against aggressive
behaviours may not be effective in that they do not address the apparent social success of
those who bully. Furthermore, bullying others may receive some peer support when
students perceive an interpersonal or intergroup conflict within school as a struggle for
social power and dominance. To this respect, we propose school-based intervention that is
focused on group identification processes and group norms, and in particular, on
cooperative activities and mediation skills. Moreover, we also recommend the
implementation of peer support programs, such as befriending and peer mediation, which
have also been shown to be highly efficacious in reducing the incidence of bullying at
15
Social identity and inter-group bullying
school and in fostering prosocial behaviour towards victims, in various countries and with
students of all ages (e.g., Cowie et al., 2002; Gini, 2004; Menesini et al., 2003).
References
Atlas, R.S. and Pepler, D.J. (1998) ‘Observations of bullying in the classroom’, The
Journal of Educational Research 92: 86-97.
Christensen, P.N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W. and Matz, D.C. (2004) ‘Social norms and
identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior’, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 1295-1309.
Coie, J.D. and Dodge, K.A. (1998) ‘Aggression and antisocial behavior’, in W. Damon
(Series ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Volume 3.
Social, Emotional and Personality Development, 5th ed., pp. 779-862. New York:
John Wiley.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Talamelli, L., Chauhan, P. and Smith, P.K. (2002) ‘Knowledge, use
and attitudes towards peer support’, Journal of Adolescence 25: 453-67.
Craig, W.M. and Pepler, D.J. (1997) ‘Observations of bullying and victimization in the
schoolyard’, Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2: 41-60.
Craig, W.M., Pepler, D.J. and Atlas, R. (2000) ‘Observations of bullying in the playground
and in the classroom’, School Psychology International 21: 22-36.
Crick, N.R., Bigbee, M.A. & Howes, C. (1996) ‘Children's normative beliefs about
aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways’, Child Development 67:
1003-14.
Emler, N. and Reicher, S. (1995) Adolescence and delinquency, Oxford: Blackwell.
16
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Espelage, D.L. and Swearer, S.M. (2004) Bullying in American schools. A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gini, G. (2004) ‘Bullying in Italian schools: An overview of intervention programmes’,
School Psychology International 25: 106-16.
Gini, G. (2006) ‘Bullying as a social process: The role of group membership in students’
perception of inter-group aggression at school’, Journal of School Psychology 44: 5165.
Juvonen, J. and Graham, S. (2001) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable
and victimized, New York: Guilford Press.
Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Björkqvist, K. and Peltonen, T. (1988) ‘Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children’,
Aggressive Behavior 14: 403-14.
Marques, J., Abrams, D. and Serôdio, R.G. (2001) ‘Being better by being right: Subjective
group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are
undermined’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 436-47.
Maud, M.M. & De Mello, L.R. (1999) ‘The development of the Children's Attitudes
towards Aggression Scale (CASS)’, Psychological Studies 44(3): 103-11.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B. and Cowie, H. (2003) ‘Enhancing children's
responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention
in Italian middle schools’, Aggressive Behavior 29: 10-14.
Nesdale, D. (1999) ‘Social identity and ethnic prejudice in children’, in P. Martin and W.
Noble (Eds.), Psychology and Society, pp. 92-110. Brisbane: Australian Academic
Press.
17
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Nesdale, D. and Flesser, D. (2001) ‘Social identity and the development of children’s group
attitudes’, Child Development 72: 506-17.
Nesdale, A.R. and McLaughlin, K. (1987) ‘Effects of sex stereotypes on young children’s
memories, predictions, and liking’, British Journal of Developmental Psychology 5:
231-41.
Nesdale, D. and Scarlett, M. (2004) ‘Effects of group and contextual factors on preadolescent children’s attitudes to school bullying’, International Journal of
Behavioral Development 28: 428-34.
Ojala, K. and Nesdale, D. (2004) ‘Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms
and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying’, British Journal of
Developmental Psychology 22: 19-35.
Olweus, D. (1993), Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2001) ‘Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues’, in J.
Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimized, pp. 3-20. New York: Guilford Press.
Owens, L., Shute, R. and Slee, P. (2000) ‘“Guess what I just heard…” Indirect aggression
among teenage girls in Australia’, Aggressive Behavior 26: 67-83.
Rigby, K. (2005) ‘Why do some children bully at school?: The contributions of negative
attitudes towards victims and the perceived expectations of friends, parents and
teachers, School Psychology International 26: 147-61.
Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A. and Lagerspetz, K. M. (1997) ‘Peer networks and bullying in
schools’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 38: 305-12.
18
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K. and Kaukiainen, A. (1996)
‘Bullying as a group process: Participant Roles and their relations to social status
within the group’, Aggressive Behavior 22: 1-15.
Salmivalli, C. and Voeten, M. (2004) ‘Connections between attitudes, group norms, and
behaviors associated with bullying in schools’, International Journal of Behavioral
Development 28: 246-58.
Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. and Slee, P. (Eds.) (1999)
The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective, London: Routledge.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979) ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in W.G.
Austin and S. Worschel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, pp.3347. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Underwood, M.K. (2003) Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford.
Appendix
An example of the short stories used in the study is as follow [This story represents the
experimental condition in which the in-group has an high status and is the aggressor
group]:
You get along very well with your class-mates, since you have several interests in common
with them. You and your class-mates often meet outside school for a stroll in the park or to
eat an ice cream. Also at school, you and your mates usually enjoy yourselves; most of all,
you like to play basketball during the gymnastic hours.
Due to the large number of students in your school, in order to allow everybody to attend
the gymnastic class, two class-groups have to share the school-gym during the same school
19
Social identity and inter-group bullying
hour; in this way, each class-group uses half of the court. However, one basket in the
school-gym was broken the last week, therefore only one half of the court is now
practicable.
During the gymnastic hour, you and your class-mates go to the school-gym to play
basketball and, there, you meet students of the other class, who usually share the schoolgym with you. They also want to play basketball. Everybody in your school knows that
your class is very skilled in playing basketball, since some of you play in the local team.
Moreover, last year you won the school championship. In contrast, the students from the
other class usually play just for fun and they never reached a good position in the
championship.
Since you cannot mediate the use of the basketball court and neither your class nor the
other class want to release the right to use the basketball court, a teacher proposes to toss
for who would play in the court. However, before the teacher can toss for, some of your
classmates start playing basketball. At this point, a student from the other class protests and
your classmates start hitting and kicking him. Immediately, the teacher intervenes to stop
them and, while helping the victim, threatens your classmates to punish them.
Manipulation of ‘group status’: low status condition (i.e., the in-group has low status and
the out-group has high status): ‘You and your class-mates usually play basketball just for
fun and no one play in the local team. Last year your class played in the school
championship, but you didn’t reached a good final position. In contrast, the other class is so
skilled in playing basketball that last year won the school championship’
20
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Table 1. Distribution of participants in the different levels of the between-subject variables
Group role
Bully
Victim
Total
N = 79
N = 80
N = 159
M = 36; F = 43
M = 38; F = 42
M = 74; F = 85
N = 75
N = 80
N = 155
M = 35; F = 40
M = 37; F = 43
M = 72; F = 83
N = 154
N = 160
N = 314
M = 71; F = 83
M = 75; F = 85
M =146; F = 168
High
Group
status
Low
Total
21
Social identity and inter-group bullying
Figure 1. Target group x group status interaction on mean blame score
7
6
Blame
5
High status
condition
Low status
condition
4
3
2
1
In-group
Out-group
22