University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Educational Psychology Papers and Publications Educational Psychology, Department of 5-2015 Understanding the Psychology of Bullying: Moving Toward a Social-Ecological Diathesis–Stress Model Susan M. Swearer University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected] Shelley Hymel University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers Part of the Child Psychology Commons, Counseling Commons, Developmental Psychology Commons, Educational Psychology Commons, School Psychology Commons, and the Student Counseling and Personnel Services Commons Swearer, Susan M. and Hymel, Shelley, "Understanding the Psychology of Bullying: Moving Toward a Social-Ecological Diathesis–Stress Model" (2015). Educational Psychology Papers and Publications. 175. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/175 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational Psychology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Psychology Papers and Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in American Psychologist 70:4 (May–June 2015), pp. 344-353; doi: 10.1037/a0038929 Copyright © 2015 American Psychological Association. Used by permission. “This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.” digitalcommons.unl.edu Understanding the Psychology of Bullying: Moving Toward a Social-Ecological Diathesis–Stress Model Susan M. Swearer, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and Born This Way Foundation, Los Angeles, California Shelley Hymel, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, University of British Columbia The authors are Co-Directors of the Bullying Research Network: http://brnet.unl.edu Correspondence — Susan M. Swearer, 40 Teachers College Hall, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska– Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0345, email [email protected] ; or Shelley Hymel, Faculty of Education, University of British Colum- bia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, email [email protected] Abstract 2001). Accordingly, researchers have argued for the utility of With growing recognition that bullying is a complex phenom- a social-ecological framework in understanding school bully- enon, influenced by multiple factors, research findings to date ing (Espelage, Rao, & de la Rue, 2013; Espelage & Swearer, have been understood within a social-ecological framework. 2010; Hong & Garbarino, 2012; Swearer & Espelage, 2004; Consistent with this model, we review research on the known correlates and contributing factors in bullying/victimization Swearer et al., 2012). Social ecological theory (Bronfen- within the individual, family, peer group, school and commu- brenner, 1979) conceptualizes human development as a bi- nity. Recognizing the fluid and dynamic nature of involvement directional interaction between individuals and the multi- in bullying, we then expand on this model and consider re- ple systems in which they operate—home, neighborhood, search on the consequences of bullying involvement, as either school, community, and society. Thus, bullying behavior is victim or bully or both, and propose a social-ecological, diathe- not just the result of individual characteristics, but is influ- sis–stress model for understanding the bullying dynamic and enced by multiple relationships with peers, families, teach- its impact. Specifically, we frame involvement in bullying as a stressful life event for both children who bully and those who ers, neighbors, and interactions with societal influences (e.g., are victimized, serving as a catalyst for a diathesis–stress con- media, technology). Peer witnesses to bullying are also at nection between bullying, victimization, and psychosocial diffi- risk for negative outcomes (Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, culties. Against this backdrop, we suggest that effective bully- 2009), even after controlling for involvement as bullies or vic- ing prevention and intervention efforts must take into account tim (Bonanno & Hymel, 2006). the complexities of the human experience, addressing both in- Complicating our understanding of the consequences of dividual characteristics and history of involvement in bullying, bullying and victimization is recent research documenting risk and protective factors, and the contexts in which bully- ing occurs, in order to promote healthier social relationships. the dynamic and fluid nature of children’s involvement in bullying across roles and over time. Among youth who are Keywords: bullying, victimization, diathesis–stress, involved in bullying, Ryoo, Wang, and Swearer (2014) found social-ecological that frequent victims and frequent perpetrators were the least stable subgroups, and that students assumed different roles ullying is a unique but complex form of interpersonal in bullying across school years. Indeed, youth can observe aggression, which takes many forms, serves differ- bullying (i.e., bystanders), experience bullying (i.e., victims), Bent functions, and is manifested in different patterns and perpetrate bullying (i.e., bullies) across different situa- of relationships. Bullying is not simply a dyadic problem tions and/or over time. Across contexts, for instance, a stu- between a bully and a victim, but is recognized as a group dent may be victimized by classmates at school but bully his phenomenon, occurring in a social context in which various or her siblings at home. Longitudinal studies by Haltigan and factors serve to promote, maintain, or suppress such behav- Vaillancourt (2014) and Barker, Arseneault, Brendgen, Fon- ior (e.g., Olweus, 2001; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003; Salmivalli, taine, and Maughan (2008) explored the joint trajectories of This article is one of six in the “School Bullying and Victimization” special issue of the American Psychologist (May–June 2015). Susan M. Swearer and Shelley Hymel provided the scholarly lead for the special issue. The authors wish to acknowledge the support received for this work, including support to the first author from the Andrew Gomez Dream Foundation, the Woods Charitable Fund, and the College of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and support to the second author from the Edith Lando Charitable Foundation, the University of British Columbia Faculty of Education Infrastructure Grant, and the Canadian Prevention Science Cluster, funded through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 344 A S OCI A L -E COLOGIC A L D I ATH es I S –S TR ess M O de L OF B ULLYING 345 Swearer, 2003) and view bullying as a dynamic experience, influenced by the social ecology. In this article, we summa- rize some of these complexities in support of a social-eco- logical perspective on bullying, and then expand our lens to propose the application of a diathesis–stress model that can further our understanding of the dynamics of bullying among children and youth. Correlates and Contributing Factors in the Bullying/Victimization Dynamic Individual Influences In terms of individual factors, bullying perpetration has been associated with callous-unemotional traits (Muñoz, Qual- ter, & Padgett, 2011; Viding, Simmonds, Petrides, & Fred- erickson, 2009), psychopathic tendencies (Fanti & Kimo- nis, 2012), endorsement of masculine traits (Gini & Pozzoli, 2006; Navarro, Larrañaga, & Yubero, 2011), conduct prob- lems (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010), anti- Susan M. social personality traits (Ferguson, San Miguel, & Hartley, Swearer 2009; Vaughn et al., 2010), susceptibility to peer pressure (Monks & Smith, 2006; Pepler, Craig, & O’Connell, 2010), involvement in bullying and victimization over time among anxiety (e.g., Craig, 1998; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Ran- 9- to 12-year-old and 11- to 16-year-olds, respectively, with tanen, & Rimpelä, 2000), and depression (e.g., Ferguson et similar results. Most students (73% and 75%, respectively) al., 2009). At least some students who bully their peers have showed low levels of bullying and victimization over time been found to be higher in social intelligence (Björkqvist, Ös- (low/uninvolved students), and 11% (both studies) showed terman, & Kaukiainen, 2000; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, trajectories that would identify them as bullies. Another 10% 1999a, 1999b) and social status (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & Mc- and 3% of students, respectively, would be classified as vic- Dougall, 2003), with researchers distinguishing between tims and 2% (Barker et al. only) as bully-victims. However, socially integrated and socially marginalized bullies (e.g., 6% and 3% of students, respectively, showed a pattern of de- Farmer et al., 2010; see Rodkin, Espelage, & Hanish, 2015). clining victimization and increased bullying over time (vic- Being bullied by peers (victimization) has been linked with tim to bully subgroup), a trajectory that was more likely than poor physical health (e.g., Gini & Pozzoli, 2013; Knack, Jen- one in which bullies are increasingly victimized. Importantly, sen-Campbell, & Baum, 2011) and poor school adjustment, these distinct patterns of involvement are associated with dif- including being unhappy, feeling unsafe, being truant, per- ferent mental health outcomes. forming poorly and, in some