Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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.

Https

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.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep;34(3):1018-1034.
doi: 10.1111/jora.12986. Epub 2024 May 29.

Heterogeneity of adolescent bullying perpetrators: Subtypes based on victimization and peer status

Tiina Turunen  1 , Sarah T Malamut  1   2 , Takuya Yanagida  3 , Christina Salmivalli  1   4   5
Affiliations

Heterogeneity of adolescent bullying perpetrators: Subtypes based on victimization and peer status

Tiina Turunen et al. J Res Adolesc. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

We identified different types of adolescent bullying perpetrators and nonbullies based on peer-reported bullying, victimization, and peer status (popularity, likeability, and rejection) and examined differences between bully subtypes in typical forms of bullying perpetrated. Moreover, we studied how bully subtypes differed from nonbullies with varying levels of victimization and peer status in academic and psychosocial adjustment. The study utilizes data from 10,689 adolescents (48.3% boys, mean age 14.7 years). Latent profile analysis identified three distinct subgroups of bullies: popular-liked bullies (13.5%), popular-rejected bully-victims (5.8%), and bully-victims (6.9%), and four groups on nonbullies. High-status bullies (popular-liked and popular-rejected) resembled nonbullies in many ways and had even lower social anxiety, whereas bully-victims were the most maladjusted group. Overall, popularity seems to protect adolescents from social anxiety, and victimization is related to internalizing problems. Results suggest that bullying, victimization, and peer status can be used to identify distinct subtypes of bullies.

Keywords: bullying; bully‐victims; latent profile analysis; peer status; popularity; victimization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Asparouhov T, & Muthen B (2021). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model. Mplus Web Notes: No. 21, Version 11, 80.
    1. Azevedo Da Silva M, Gonzalez JC, Person GL, & Martins SS (2020). Bidirectional association between bullying perpetration and internalizing problems among youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(3), 315–322. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.09.022 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Badaly D, Kelly BM, 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 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baiden P, LaBrenz CA, Okine L, Thrasher S, & Asiedua-Baiden G (2020). The toxic duo: Bullying involvement and adverse childhood experiences as factors associated with school disengagement among children. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105383. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105383 - DOI
    1. Bakk Z, Tekle FB, & Vermunt JK (2013). Estimating the association between latent class membership and external variables using bias-adjusted three-step approaches. Sociological Methodology, 43(1), 272–311. 10.1177/0081175012470644 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources