Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations with desired and acquired dominance in the peer group
Open accessAbstract
To examine whether bullying is strategic behavior aimed at obtaining or maintaining social dominance, 1129 9- to 12-year-old Dutch children were classified in terms of their role in bullying and in terms of their use of dominance oriented coercive and prosocial social strategies. Multi-informant measures of participants' acquired and desired social dominance were also included. Unlike non-bullying children, children contributing to bullying often were bistrategics in that they used both coercive and prosocial strategies and they also were socially dominant. Ringleader bullies also expressed a higher desire to be dominant. Among non-bullying children, those who tended to help victims were relatively socially dominant but victims and outsiders were not. Generally, the data supported the claim that bullying is dominance-oriented strategic behavior, which suggests that intervention strategies are more likely to be successful when they take the functional aspects of bullying behavior into account.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Given high competition for status in adolescence, adolescents may resort to both self-promotion and other-derogation to establish status in the peer group.
“Given the high competition for status in adolescence, adolescents may be susceptible to resort to both self-promotion and other-derogation in their efforts to establish their status in the peer group (Olthof, Goossens, Vermande, Aleva, & van der Meulen, 2011).”
From The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit (2020) · cites this paper as Olthof, Goossens, Vermande, Aleva, & van der Meulen, 2011
The available indexed passages contain the title and keywords (the section labeled Abstract, page unavailable), which identify bullying and peer-group dominance as topics but do not state the claimed behavior. Searches for self-promotion, other-derogation, and status competition found no passage addressing whether adolescents use both strategies to establish status. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74 · Cited by 5,510 · see citing works
The Ontogenesis of Social Dominance: A Strategy-Based Evolutionary Perspective
Hawley, P. H. (1999) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1006/drev.1998.0470 · Cited by 877 · see citing works
The Analysis of Contingency Tables
Everitt, B. S. (1992) · doi:10.1201/b15072 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit
Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691619873350 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Cyberbullying among young adults in Malaysia: the roles of gender, age and Internet frequency
Balakrishnan, V. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.021 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Wolke, D., Baumann, N., Strauss, V., Johnson, S., & Marlow, N. (2015) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.02.055 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Menin, D., Guarini, A., Mameli, C., Skrzypiec, G., & Brighi, A. (2021) · International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100221 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Son, D., & Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2020) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-019-00154-2 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
- Authors
- Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vermande, M. M., Aleva, E. A., & van der Meulen, M.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Olthof, Tjeert
- Venue
- Journal of School Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 339-359
- ISSN
- 0022-4405 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008024235
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 20.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.rug.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of School Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- bullying, strategic behavior, social dominance, bullying victims, peer relationships, children, bullying intervention
- MeSH terms
- Child, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Motivation, Peer Group, Schools, Social Dominance, Social Environment, Students, Bullying
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
