Victims and Offenders, 3:289312, 2008

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 online
DOI: 10.1080/15564880802143397

Bullying: Short-Term and

Long-Term Effects, and the
Importance of Defiance Theory
in Explanation and Prevention
1556-4991
1556-4886
UVAO
Victims
and Offenders
Offenders, Vol. 3, No. 2-3, April 2008: pp. 141

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

Bullying

Maria M. Ttofi and David P. Farrington

Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Abstract: Bullying is often followed by short-term and long-term undesirable psychosocial consequences. Both victims and perpetrators of bullying tend to have high numbers of physical and psychological symptoms. In order to prevent bullying and its
aversive results, it is important to formulate and test theories of bullying. This article
investigates the usefulness of defiance theory in the explanation of the bullying of siblings in families and peers in schools. Questionnaires were completed by 182 children
aged 11 to 12 in ten primary schools in Nicosia, Cyprus. We followed a vignette-based
methodology to investigate childrens defiant behavior. Children were given a hypothetical scenarioin which the perpetrator is sanctioned by the parentsand were
then asked questions that aimed to investigate defiant or compliant reactions to the
sanctions imposed. The type of child in the vignette was experimentally manipulated
so that children could make inferences regarding his/her intentionality of wrongdoing.
The results indicate that defiance theory is useful in explaining bullying behavior. The
main implication from our research is that defiance theory can assist teachers and
practitioners in implementing whole-school restorative justice approaches to reduce
bullying in schools.
Keywords: bullying, parental bonding, fairness, unacknowledged shame, defiance,
anti-bullying programs

INTRODUCTION
Bullying affects about 1 in 5 school-aged children in many different countries
(Glew, Rivara, & Feudtner, 2000). Involvement in bullying (as perpetrators or
victims) has negative effects on the physical and psychological health of

We would like to thank Mr. Lakis Koumi, a dedicated educator, for his assistance in
organizing visits to schools and data collection.
Address correspondence to David P. Farrington, Institute of Criminology, Sidgwick
Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UK. E-mail: dpf1@cam.ac.uk

289

290

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

children and on their future psychosocial adjustment as adults. This article

has two aims: to present an evidence-based review of the effects of bullying
and to describe an empirical test of the usefulness of defiance theory in
explaining bullying and promoting theoretically-grounded interventions to
reduce bullying. In carrying out the literature review on the effects of bullying, we searched several databases (e.g. Google Scholar, PsycInfo, Embase)
using key words including bullying combined with consequences, impact,
effects, health, emotional impact, or victims.

The Impact of Being Involved in Bullying

There is a strong link between involvement in bullying and depressive
symptomatology (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Van der Wal, De Wit, &
Hirasing, 2003). In their follow-up study, Kumpulainen, Rasanen, and
Henttonen (1999) concluded that children involved in bullyingas bullies or
victimsshowed significantly more psychiatric symptoms than other children, and were psychologically disturbed according to the Childrens Depression Inventory. Also, Sourander, Helstela, Helenious, and Piha (2000)
reported that the identification of a child as either a bully or a victim was significantly correlated with referral for psychosocial services. In a study of the
link between bullying and psychosocial adjustment in primary school, Glew,
Fan, Katon, Rivara, and Kernic (2005) found that bullies-only and victimsonly were more likely than bystanders to feel sad most days. Moreover, they
reported that all three groups involved in bullying (bullies, victims, and bullyvictims) were significantly more likely than bystanders to feel unsafe at
school.
In a school-based survey with 16,410 Finnish adolescents aged 14 to 16,
Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen, Rimpela and Rantanen (1999)
showed that adolescents who were being bullied and those who were bullies were at an increased risk of depression and severe suicidal ideation.
Among girls, Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen, and Rimpela (2000)
found that eating disorders were associated with involvement in bullying.
Also, in their study with 1718 Korean middle school students, Kim, Koh,
and Leventhal (2005) concluded that, among female students, all three bullying groupsvictims, bullies, and bully-victimshad increased suicidal
ideation.
Turning to bullies specifically, Salmon (1998), in a sample of children aged
12 to 17, found that those who bullied others tended to have higher scores on
depression. Similarly, Forero, McLellan, Rissel and Bauman (1999), in a survey of 3918 Australian school children, concluded that bullies had high scores
on psychosomatic symptoms. Forero and colleagues also reported that bullies
were significantly more likely to dislike school and to think that school was
not a nice place to be.

Bullying

Bullying others has also been identified as a risk factor for other types of
antisocial behavior (such as excessive drinking and substance use; KaltialaHeino et al., 2000) and later offending (Farrington, 1993; Sourander et al.,
2006). For instance, in a survey of 4811 Dutch primary school children aged
9 to 13, Van der Wal et al. (2003) found that bulliesirrespective of gender
much more often reported delinquent behavior such as shoplifting. In follow-up
studies of bullies in Norway, Olweus (1997) discovered that, of those originally
identified as bullies in the sixth through the ninth grades, 70% were convicted
of at least one crime by age 24.

The Impact of Being Bullied

Exposure to bullying influences childrens physical and emotional health
in many ways. For example, children who are bullied tend to show more anxiety than others (Salmon, 1998). Similarly, Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, and
Patton (2001), in a survey of 2680 secondary school students, found that victimization at age 13 significantly predicted self- reported symptoms of anxiety
or depression at age 14. In a review of existing literature, Salmon, James,
Cassidy and Javaloyes (2000) found that being bullied was frequently a factor
influencing the referral of adolescents to psychiatric services, with depression
being diagnosed in over 70% of cases.
Children who are bullied show symptoms of depression and suicidal ideation. In a cross-sectional study of 2766 elementary school children aged 9 to 12
years, Fekkes, Pijpers, and Verloove-Vanhorick (2004) showed that victims of
bullying, compared to bullies, bully-victims and children who were not
involved, had significantly higher chances of depression and psychosomatic
symptoms (e.g. headaches, sleeping problems, abdominal pain, bed-wetting,
feeling tired). Kaltiala-Heino et al. (1999) in Finland discovered that victims
of bullying had an increased risk of depression and/or suicide and that depression was equally likely to occur among those who were bullied and those who
were bullies. For primary school children, Van der Wal et al. (2003) concluded
that depression and suicidal ideation were common outcomes of being
bulliedirrespective of genderand that these associations were stronger for
indirect than for direct bullying.
Children who are bullied tend to show many psychosomatic symptoms. In
a large-scale international comparison (including 123,227 students aged
11, 13 and 15 in 28 countries) on bullying and health among adolescents, Due
et al. (2005) discovered that those who were bullied showed more evidence of
12 different physical and psychological symptoms (i.e. headache, stomach ache,
backache, dizziness, bad temper, feeling nervous, feeling low, difficulties in
getting to sleep, morning tiredness, feeling left out, loneliness, helplessness).
Similarly, in a study of a representative sample of 15,686 students in grades 6
through 10 in public and private American schools (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla,

291

292

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001), bullied students had poorer social
and emotional adjustment, greater difficulty in making friends, poorer relationships with classmates, and greater loneliness. Also, in a study of 344 kindergarten children aged 5 to 7, Perren and Alsaker (2006) concluded that
victims were more submissive, more withdrawn, more isolated, less cooperative, less sociable, had fewer leadership skills, and frequently had no playmates.
Bullying has long-term detrimental effects on victims. Victimization at
school often results in long-term social, emotional and psychological effects
(Duncan, 1999a; Parker & Asher, 1987; Sharp, 1995). In a study of 276 adult
members of the British Stammering Association concerning school experiences related to bullying and its long-term effects, Hugh-Jones and Smith
(1999) found that the majority of respondents had experienced bullying at
school. Of those who were bullied, the majority reported immediate negative
effects and 46% reported undesirable long-term effects.
Jantzer, Hoover and Narloch (2006) collected data on 170 college students
to assess retrospective perceptions of school-age bullying experiences. They
concluded that rates of reported victimization at school were positively correlated with adult levels of shyness. Also, they found a statistically significant
negative relationship between retrospectively reported victimization and current friendship quality and trust. Similarly, Gilmartin (1987) found that men
who had been victimized at school often reported difficulties in trust and intimacy in opposite-sex relationships as adults, and Dietz (1994) replicated these
results for both sexes.
Olweus (1993) discovered that boys who were victims of bullying at school
between ages 13 and 16 were, at age 23, more likely to show depressive tendencies and continued to have poor self-esteem. Matsui, Tsuzuki, Kakuyana
and Onglateo (1996) also reported long-term effects of school bullying on
Japanese students, but only for those who had low self-esteem and high
depression prior to victimization; apparently, victimization amplified these
effects, which is why these authors characterized the whole process as a
vicious cycle.

The Impact on Bully-Victims

Not surprisingly, those who are both bullies and victims tend to have poor
psychosocial adjustment. For instance, Troy and Sroufe (1987) showed that
preschool children who displayed an anxious-avoidant pattern of attachment
tended to be at greater risk of being classified as bully-victims. Glew et al.
(2005) found that victims and bully-victims were most likely to report feeling
that they did not belong at school. Nansel et al. (2001) discovered that bullyvictims demonstrated poorer adjustment across both social/emotional dimensions and problem behaviors; the specific relationships between bullying/being

Bullying

bullied and psychosocial adjustment were similar across all age and sex
groups. Kumpulainen et al. (1999) found that, among 8-year old children, the
most psychologically disturbed group were those who were both bullies and
victims.
Kaltiala-Heino et al. (1999) also concluded that depression was most common among those students who were classified as bully-victims (compared
with bullies-only and victims only). Similarly, Kim et al. (2005) showed
that, compared with students who were not involved with school bullying,
bully-victims reported more suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and suicidal
ideation. Also, Kaltiala-Heino et al. (2000) found that anxiety, depression and
psychosomatic symptoms (i.e. neck and shoulder pain, low back pain, stomach
ache, feeling tensed or nervous, irritation or tantrums, difficulties to get
asleep or waking up at night, headache and fatigue) were most frequent
among bully-victims.
As mentioned above, bully-victims tend to report psychosomatic symptoms.
In a survey of 1639 primary school children, Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, and
Karstadt (2001) found that direct bully-victims (and direct victims) were most
likely to have high psychosomatic health problems (e.g. poor appetite, worries
about going to school) compared to other comparison groups of bullies and
victims. Kaltiala-Heino et al. (2000) reported that, among boys, eating disorders
were especially associated with bully-victims. Forero et al. (1999) found that
bully-victims were significantly more likely to be boys, experienced frequent and
high scores on psychosomatic symptoms, reported being alone, and were current
smokers. In this survey, bully-victims had the greatest number of psychological
and psychosomatic symptoms compared to bullies-only and victims-only.
Existing work indicates that bully-victims also tend to have problem
behaviors and attitudes in favor of aggression. For instance, Andreou (2004),
in a study of 186 primary school children in central Greece, found that bully/
victims (compared to bullies and victims) were worse on Lack of Faith in
Human Nature and overall Machiavellianism. Bully-victims were similar to
victims on Self-efficacy for Assertion and similar to bullies on Self-efficacy for
Aggression. In a study on the association between bullying and behavior problems among primary school children, Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, and Karstadt
(2000) concluded that all children involved in direct bullying (either as bullies,
victims or bully/victims) had significantly greater total behavior problems,
hyperactivity, conduct problems, peer problem scores, and lower prosocial
behavior scores compared to those not involved in bullying. In all cases, for
direct bullying, the mean scores were highest for bully-victims.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

Because involvement in bullyingeither as a bully, victim or bully/victimis
often followed by negative life outcomes (Rigby, 2003), it is important to

293

294

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

develop and test theories of bullying, and this is the main aim of the present
research. Specifically, we focus on the extent to which defiance theory (Sherman,
1993) might be useful in explaining bullying, and especially in explaining the
link between family factors and bullying. Both sibling bullying and peer bullying are studied; it is known that these two types of bullying are linked (Duncan,
1999b; Wiesner, Capaldi & Patterson, 2003; Wolke & Samara, 2004). To the
best of our knowledge, this article is the first attempt to apply defiance theory
to bullying. The theory has been tested on other topics such as self-reported
offending (Freeman, Liosis & David, 2006), marital violence (Sherman, 1995),
public responses to police requests (Mastrofski, Snipes & Supina, 1996), and
gang membership (Brownfield, 2006).

Defiance Theory
Shermans (1993) theory aims to explain the conditions under which punishment increases offending because of defiant reactions to the sanctions
imposed. The theory explains how the perception of punishment as fair can
lead to compliance and conformity. Conversely, sanctions that are perceived
as unfair can lead to defiant reactions that increase future offending. Sherman (1993, p. 459) differentiates between two types of defiance. Direct defiance is a crime against a sanctioning agency whereas indirect defiance is
defined as the displaced just deserts committed against a target vicariously
representing the sanctioning agent provoking the anger. The latter can be
seen as a form of retaliation.
The focal point of defiance theory is the impact that sanctions can have on
future defiance of the law and future deterrence of lawbreaking. The theory is
based on the notion that punishment does not necessarily control offending.
Similar criminal sanctions can have different effects on different offenders
(Sherman, 1993, p. 449). Given the widely varying results across a range of
sanction studies, we should try to understand the conditions under which each
type of criminal sanction reduces, increases, or has no effect on future crimes
(Sherman, 1993, p. 445). In doing so, we should not only pay attention to the
sanction per se (e.g. severity, length etc.), but also to the way in which it is
delivered. The sanctioning style is linked to the legitimacy of the authority figure and, sequentially, to possible defiance of the law. Sherman (2000, p. 7)
indicates how different types of sanctioning can interact with different kinds
of citizen personalities in ways that predict different rates of repeat offending.
Based on defiance theory, sanctions can lead to defiant reactions under
four conditions (Sherman, 1993, p. 460):
1.

The offender defines the criminal sanction as unfair,

2.

The offender is poorly bonded to or alienated from the sanctioning agent

or the community the agent represents,

Bullying

3.

The offender defines the sanction as stigmatizing and rejecting a person,

not a lawbreaking act, and

4.

The offender denies or refuses to acknowledge the shame the sanction has
actually caused him to suffer.

Applicability to Bullying
Sherman (1993, p. 466) considered that defiance theory could be applied
much more widely than to explain the effect of criminal sanctions on offending. This is reasonable given that the individual learns what it means to be
sanctioned for wrongdoing in the early years of life. Parents and teachers
might be the first persons to be perceived as sanctioning agents by children. In
fact, it could be argued that the quality of sanctioning they offer is a crucial
element of each persons socialization process.
The present article aims to assess the usefulness of defiance theory in
explaining bullying, both of siblings in families and of peers in schools. Past
research has reported a link between bullying and defiance, especially in discussing Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). This link is understandable,
since ODD is a pattern of negative (e.g. deliberately doing things that annoy
other people, blaming others for own mistakes), disobedient (defying or not
complying with grownups rules or requests) and hostile behaviors (e.g. losing
temper) (McMahon & Frick, 2005, p. 478). The Kokkinos and Panayiotou
(2004, p. 528) survey supports the link between ODD and bullying: they found
that high ODD students tended to be bullies.
Figure 1 offers a schematic presentation of defiance theory as applied to
bullying behavior. In line with defiance theory, the following hypotheses are
tested:

Unacknowledged Shame
Sibling
Bullying
Mother/Father Bonding

Perceptions of Fairness

Defiance to the
sanction
imposed
Peer
Bullying

Type of child
Note: The dashed lines indicate interrelationships of constructs that are not directly proposed in defiance theory.

Figure 1: Applying Defiance Theory to Sibling and Peer Bullying; Hypothesized Model.

295

296

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

1.

Unacknowledged shame, parental bonding, perceived fairness and the

type of the child (good or bad; see later) will be directly related to defiance.

2.

Defiance will be directly related to sibling and peer bullying.

3.

The type of the child will be directly related to perceptions of fairness.

Building upon previous research, it is hypothesized that parental bonding will be

positively related to perceptions of fairness (Kochanska and Murray, 2000) and
negatively related to unacknowledged shame (Ahmed and Braithwaite, 2004).

METHOD
Sample and Procedure
Questionnaires were given to 182 male and female primary school
students aged 11 to 12 attending the sixth grade in Nicosia primary schools.
Ten schools were randomly selected based on the registers of primary schools
offered online by the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of
Cyprus. The survey received ethical approval from the Ministry. The students
completed the questionnaire after the researchers obtained consent from both
the children and their parents. No parents denied permission for their children to participate in the survey and no child refused to participate. The questionnaire was self-completed during one teaching period. The researcher
worked beforehand with the children in another teaching period and helped
them practice completing measurement scales based on exercises written on
the blackboard. This was important in producing valid responses.

Measuring Bullying
Several surveys, mainly based on Family Systems Theory (Minuchin,
1974), indicate that there is a strong link between intra-familial and extrafamilial peer relationships (Duncan, 1999a; Garcia, Shaw, Winslow & Yaggi,
2000; Wolke & Samara, 2004). Building upon previous research, the questionnaire included items concerning bullying of both siblings and peers. The items
referred to bullying in a physical/direct and a psychological/indirect way. This
is the only part of the questionnaire in which items from a previous instrument were used (the Negative Family Interactions Scale; Simonelli, Mullis
& Rohde, 2005). The previous instrument concerned familial victimization
and the relevant items referred to psychological, physical and sexual aggression experienced by the respondent. Only items from the first two types of
aggression were included in the present survey and were changed to ask about
bullying rather than being victimized. The prevalence of bullying was defined
according to committing the act three or more times in the previous seven
months, because bullying by definition involves repeated acts. The -value for

Bullying

the overall sibling bullying scale was .89 and for the overall peer bullying
scale was .90.
As in many non-English speaking cultures, capturing terms like bullying
and bully in the Greek language is very difficult. Yet, the terminology used in a
questionnaire can affect the results of the survey. Smith, Cowie, Olafsson & Liefooghe, (2002, p. 1121) give a nice example on how similar terms (e.g. bullying,
teasing, harassment, abuse) are associated with different connotations and contexts and may be understood differently by persons answering questionnaires.
An alternative to using global terms such as bullying in questionnaire surveys is
to ask for information on particular acts (Smith et al., 2002, p. 1131) and this is
what we have done. Other researchers have also commented on how difficult it is
to render the term bullying in the Greek language as well as on the negative
consequences (with regard to admission rates) that could follow from this difficulty (Kalliotis, 2000, p. 49; Pateraki & Houndoumadi, 2001, p. 174).

Measuring Parental Bonding

Within this survey, a parental bonding instrument was constructed. Since
we did not use an existing instrument, exploratory factor analyses were performed on the data from the 182 students. In all cases, principal component
analyses with varimax rotation and eigenvalues greater than 1 were used,
and a loading of 0.4 was taken as the criterion for deciding whether an item
would be retained in the construction of the scale. Cronbach suggested that, if
several factors exist, the -value should be calculated separately for items
relating to different factors (Field, 2005, p. 668), and therefore was calculated separately for each subscale of the questionnaire.
In the questionnaire, 50 questions were used to assess bonding, but only
42 questions were retained after the factor analyses. For both mother and
father scores, the four factors were labelled as:
1.

childs perceptions of maternal/paternal effort;

2.

communication;

3.

psychological autonomy; and

4.

emotional support.

Cronbachs for the total bonding score was .86 and .88 for mother and father
bonding respectively.

Measuring Fairness and Defiance

A vignette-based methodology was used to measure defiant and compliant
reactions to the sanctions imposed. The questionnaire included a vignette in
which the transgressor (a child) causes harm to a sibling. In order to avoid any

297

298

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

gender bias, female students were given stories in which both the transgressor and the victim were female and similarly for male students. The incident
described in the vignette was ambiguous; the transgressors responsibility for
the wrongdoing was not clearly defined. Several surveys indicate that violent
children are more likely than non-violent ones to attribute negative intentions
to others in ambiguous situations (Astor, 1994, p. 1055).
Sherman (1993, pp. 460461) offered some conditions under which sanctions could be perceived as unfair. Following one of the theory stipulations
that the sanction must be excessivethe parents in the vignette insulted the
child in the presence of the childs friends. Children were asked to indicate
how fair they thought the parents behavior was.
After these questions, children were asked to imagine that this incident happened to them, and they were asked to indicate what they would have done.
Children could choose one of four types of response towards the sanctioning
agents decision. In line with defiance theory, two types of response specified
direct defiance (I would start yelling at my parents to defend myself) and indirect defiance (I would do what my parents say but later on I would teach my
brother/sister a good lesson when my parents are not watching). However, given
the young age of the children, it seemed plausible to anticipate thatat least in
some caseschildren would not defy their parents mainly because they perceived themselves as less powerful and not because they agreed with the sanctions imposed. Therefore, we examined two other forms of reaction towards the
sanctions imposed, namely committed compliance (I would do what my parents
say and feel that they are right) and situational compliance (I would do what
my parents say even though they are not right). The two types of compliance
were defined according to Kochanska, Aksan and Koenig (1995, p. 1753) who distinguished between internally driven, self-regulated committed compliance
and situational compliance when the child, though essentially cooperative, nevertheless lacks sincere commitment and requires parental sustained control.
Apart from the above four options, children were asked the extent to which
they would feel like giving their sibling a good lesson (indirect defiance) and
the extent to which they would feel like yelling at the parents to defend themselves (direct defiance). Given the sensitivity of the topic, it seemed reasonable
to worry about the possibility of some children indicating what they would have
done based not on their real emotions but on what they assumed they should do
(social desirability bias). In order to avoid this problem, we included the above
two questions to detect childrens preference for direct and indirect defiance.
These last two items were used in the path analysis (see later).

The Experimental Manipulation of Type of Child

The wrongdoer of the story was presented to the students (in a short
story along with relevant cartoons) before the actual vignette. In half of the

Bullying

cases, the hero/heroine was described in a way that indicates intentionality of

wrongdoing (bad child), while in the other half the hero/heroine was presented in positive terms so that intentionality of wrongdoing could not be
inferred (good child). Students were asked to put themselves in the place of
the child, so that they would have different ideas about the childs intentionality in regard to the wrongdoing. According to Sherman (1993, pp. 460461)
sanctions that appear to be undeserved are related to perceptions of fairness.
Therefore, it follows that the sanctioning of the good child should be rated as
more unfair than the sanctioning of the bad child.
Other researchers (Martin & Ross, 1996) found that, although parents
considered that sibling physical aggression was a serious transgression, they
believed that mitigated aggression (including provocation or reciprocity or
lack of aggressive intent) was more excusable. Therefore, they intervened less
often to prohibit mitigated than non-mitigated aggression, even when the
aggression was severe. Moreover, these researchers found that children also
believed that mitigated aggression deserved less punishment. Within the
present survey, it seemed interesting to investigate whether defiance levels
would vary according to the type of the offender and his/her intentionality in
regard to the wrong-doing.
Special attention was paid to the administration of the two types of questionnaire. The questionnaires were separated in two piles, one for boys and
one for girls. Within each pile, the two types of questionnaire (one with the
good child and one with the bad child) were placed alternately. In this way,
we could ensure that, within each school, half of the students (chosen at random) would receive one type of questionnaire and the other half would receive
the other type of questionnaire. This alternate allocation was equivalent to
the random assignment of students to experimental conditions.

Measuring Unacknowledged Shame

Following defiance theory, the questionnaire included items on shame
management. Children were asked questions about whether they would be
ashamed of themselves if they committed the act described in the vignette.
The questions were relevant to the possibility of a child not acknowledging
shame and, instead, engaging in neutralization techniques in order to displace
shame and to justify his/her wrongdoing. Questions on neutralization techniques were constructed based on the work of Sykes and Matza (2003). The
factor analysis of the relevant scores yielded two sub-scales (denial of responsibility and condemnation of the condemners) with eigenvalues greater
than 1 and loadings greater than 0.4. Example items were So what! He/she
always cries like that, but its not as if he/she really means it (denial of
responsibility) and My parents always take it out on me (condemnation of
the condemners). The Cronbachs for the total scale was .86.

299

300

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

RESULTS
Prevalence of Bullying
Table 1 shows the bullying items, the prevalence of different types of sibling and peer bullying, and the significance of gender differences in the total
bullying scores. The mean scores were derived by scoring each item 1 (never),
2 (once or twice), 3 (three to six times), or 4 (seven times or more in the previous seven months) and adding up over all the items. The physical and psychological scores for sibling bullying (r = .75, p < .001) and peer bullying (r = .73,
p < .001) were highly correlated, justifying the use of total bullying scores in
subsequent analyses.
On the total sibling bullying score, boys scored higher than girls, and this
difference was statistically significant [t(172) = 2.15, p = .033]. Similarly, on
the total peer bullying score, boys scored higher than girls, and this difference

Table 1: Prevalence of sibling and peer bullying.

% Sibling
Bullying
Items on Bullying

Physical
Pushed, shoved or pulled him/her
Scratched and/or pinched him/her, but not for a joke
Hit him/her on the face
Threatened him/her with, or used, a knife or any
other sharp object
Threw things on him/her (e.g. shoe, pen, rubber)
Pulled his/her hair
Mean Physical Bullying
p-value
Psychological
Made fun of him/her in a hurtful way
Screamed at him/her
Treated him/her like he/she was stupid
Turned other kids against him/her
Called him/her names or cursed at him/her
Excluded him/her from games (did not let him/her play)
Mean Psychological Bullying
p-value
Mean Total Bullying
p-value

%Peer
Bullying

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

30.8
29.7
14.5
6.6

16.5
13.2
7.7
1.1

30.8
16.5
18.7
4.4

9.9
4.4
5.5
1.1

30.0
30.0
11.2

20.0
19.8
9.4

25.3
15.4
10.2

13.2
8.8
7.9

**
49.5
59.4
40.7
NA
40.7
26.4
11.8

***
49.5
62.7
20.9
NA
31.9
14.3
11.1

28.9
42.2
24.5
19.8
40.0
18.7
11.9

20.5

22.1

ns
22.9
*

18.7
27.0
17.6
9.9
23.3
5.5
10.3
**
18.1
***

Notes: ns = nonsignificant; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Prevalence=% committing the act against the same person three or more times in the previous seven months.
NA = not applicable; in the sibling bullying scale, the wording of this item was turned other
siblings against him/her. Because some children came from families of only one or two siblings, this item was omitted from the sibling bullying scale.

Bullying

was statistically significant [t(167) = 3.76, p < .0001]. Regarding different

types of bullying within the family, boys scored higher than girls in both physical and psychological bullying, but the gender difference was significant only
for physical bullying. Regarding different types of bullying within the school,
boys scored higher than girls in both physical and psychological bullying, and
both differences were statistically significant.

Path Analysis Model

This survey was theory-oriented: our aim was to test the theoretical constructs of defiance theory and the interrelationships among these constructs
as proposed by the theory. This is why we conducted path analysis using
AMOS 5.0.1 structural equation modelling software, which is a useful tool for
theory testing. Maximum likelihood estimation was used for the estimation of
the model.
As a first step in this analysis, a hypothesized model was developed in line
with the basic postulates of defiance theory (Figure 1). Figure 2 represents the
final path model that the sample data fitted best. In Figure 2, all paths from

Figure 2: Applying Defiance Theory to Sibling and Peer Bullying; Final Model.

301

302

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

father bonding to other variables are omitted. Bonding towards the sanctioning agent (in this case, the parents) is an important theoretical construct of
the theory. Yet, the path coefficients from father bonding to other observed
variables were very small and not statistically significant, indicating that the
contribution of this factor to the model was negligible. Thus, father bonding
was omitted from the model. This did not affect the goodness-of-fit indices.
Moreover, we omitted all the path coefficients from mother bonding to other
variables when these estimates were small and not statistically significant.
According to Schumacker and Lomax (2004, p. 71) the statistical significance
of a path coefficient is an intuitive indicator that should guide the researcher to
omit some paths from the model. At the same time, however, we acknowledge
that the statistical significance of the estimates is dependent on sample size.
Where paths were not clearly specified by defiance theory, we chose them
according to the best-fitting model. For example, it was not clear a priori
whether unacknowledged shame led to fairness, whether fairness led to unacknowledged shame, or whether there was no path between the two constructs
(see Figure 1). The assumption that unacknowledged shame led to fairness
produced the best-fitting model (see Figure 2).
The first step in evaluating the results of the path analysis was the examination of the fit criteria, to determine whether the hypothesized model fitted the
sample data. Nine fit indices were taken into consideration. For the total sample,
the chi-square (x2 = 22.73), which is a global fit measure, was not statistically significant (p = .16), indicating that the data were not significantly different from the
model. The x2/df. ratio indicated a good fit as well, since its value of 1.33 was less
than 2.5. The RMSEA was .04; according to Hu and Bentler (1999), its value
should be equal or less than .06. The NFI, the IFI, the TLI, the CFI and the GFI
all indicated a very good fit of the model (.94; .99; .97; .99; .94 respectively).
When constructing structural equation models, 100 to 150 subjects is considered to be the minimum satisfactory sample size (Schumacker and Lomax,
2004, p. 49). Moreover, both in SEM and path analysis, the statistical significance of the path coefficients is dependent on sample size. However, it was
considered useful to examine the model for boys and girls separately (91 individuals each). Table 2 shows the path coefficients, and generally suggests that
direct defiance had greater effects on bullying for boys. Because of the small
sample size for each gender separately, the results for boys and girls should be
regarded as tentative. The main finding is that the data fitted the model
(shown in figure 2) very well. The path coefficients will be discussed below.

Type of Child, Perceptions of Fairness, Unacknowledged Shame,

and Defiance
Based on the survey design, the type of the child should affect perceptions
of fairness which, in turn, should influence defiant or compliant reactions.

Bullying
Table 2: Standardized path coefficients.
Variable Relationships

Direct Defiance Sibling Bullying

Indirect Defiance Sibling Bullying
Unacknowledged Shame Sibling Bullying
Direct Defiance Peer Bullying
Indirect Defiance Peer Bullying
Unacknowledged Shame Peer Bullying
Type of Child Direct Defiance
Fairness Direct Defiance
Unacknowledged Shame Direct Defiance
Type of Child Indirect Defiance
Fairness Indirect Defiance
Unacknowledged Shame Indirect Defiance
Mother Bonding Fairness
Type of Child Fairness
Unacknowledged Shame Fairness
Mother Bonding Unacknowledged Shame

Boys

Girls

Total

.26*
.11
.27**
.38***
.23*
.04
.02
.37***
.29**
.11
.29**
.40***
.26*
.29**
.07
.32**

.06
.23*
.26*
.05
.23*
.17
.20*
.23*
.23*
.17
.19*
.36***
.04
.16
.26*
.40***

.15*
.20*
.25***
.20*
.28***
.07
.10
.31***
.26***
.14*
.23***
.37***
.14*
.22**
.17*
.36***

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3 presents the interrelationships of constructs for each gender separately and for the total sample. When the perpetrator of the vignette was
good (thus implying no intentionality of wrongdoing) the majority of both
boys (68.4%) and girls (64.6%) perceived the sanctioning agents behavior as
unfair. The association between the type of the child and fairness was statistically significant for boys, girls and the total sample. Based on the path
analysis, the type of child had a direct effect on fairness for boys ( = .29) and
the total sample ( = .22), but not for girls. Based on the way the values were
coded, sanctioning of the bad child was considered more fair than sanctioning of the good child.
Another variable that affected the perceptions of fairness was unacknowledged shame. Table 3 shows that there was an association between perceptions of unfairness and unacknowledged shame. In the path analysis, the
parameter estimates from unacknowledged shame to fairness were statistically significant for girls ( = .26) and the total sample ( = .17), but not for
boys ( =.07).
The association between the type of child and defiance (dichotomized into
compliance versus defiance) was not statistically significant for the total sample or for boys and girls separately (Table 3). Looking at Table 2, the type of
child influenced direct defiance only for girls (= -.20). Based on the path analysis, the type of child significantly influenced indirect defiance for the whole
sample (= -.14).
Fairness was significantly related to defiance (Table 3). The majority of
boys (62.8%) and girls (54.0%) who perceived the sanctioners behavior as
unfair responded with defiance. In the path analysis, fairness influenced

303

304
18.3

19.3

19.0

69.5

82.6
ns

**

ns

**

**

ns

***

***

***

Compliance

21.3

70.4

Note: ns = nonsignificant; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Mean Mother Bonding

p-value
Mean Father Bonding
p-value
Mean of Un-acknowledged Shame
p-value
Mean Sibling Bullying
p-value
Mean Peer Bullying
p-value

Within the type of response

34.1

% Defiance
p-value
Mean Mother Bonding
p-value
Mean Father Bonding
p-value
Mean of Un-acknowledged Shame
p-value
83.5

Fair

48.8

68.4
**

Boys
Good Child

Within perceptions of fairness

% Unfair
p-value
% Defiance
p-value

Within the type of child

Table 3: Inter-relationships of constructs.

26.3

27.1

26.9

65.2

75.4

Defiance

24.4

65.1

74.9

62.8

Unfair

46.9

34.0

Bad Child

17.5

18.4

20.1

68.2

82.8

ns

ns

***

**

ns

ns

ns

***

Compliance

21.1

68.1

84.0

15.4

Fair

38.3

64.6

Good Child

Girls

19.5

24.1

26.5

62.9

81.8

Defiance

24.9

64.6

81.1

54.0

Unfair

35.7

44.2

Bad Child

17.9

18.8

20.1

68.8

82.7

***

***

***

**

**

***

ns

***

Compliance

21.2

69.3

83.7

25.3

Fair

43.2

66.3

Good Child

Total

23.4

25.8

26.7

64.2

78.2

Defiance

24.7

64.8

78.3

58.1

Unfair

41.8

38.7

Bad Child

Bullying

direct and indirect defiance (Table 2).Unacknowledged shame was significantly related to defiance (Table 2). Similarly, in the path analysis, there was
a direct path from unacknowledged shame to direct defiance for boys ( = .29),
girls ( = .23), and the total sample ( = .26). The same pattern is seen for
unacknowledged shame and indirect defiance.

Defiance, Unacknowledged Shame, and Bullying

Following our theoretical model, it was anticipated that children would be
more likely to bully if they held attitudes of defiance towards the sanctioning
agent than if they held attitudes of compliance. This is confirmed in Table 3
for both sibling and peer bullying. Based on the results of the path analysis,
direct defiance influenced sibling bullying, but the path coefficient was significant only for boys ( = .26) and for the total sample ( =.15). Indirect defiance,
on the other hand, influenced sibling bullying and this result was statistically
significant for girls ( = .23) and the total sample ( = .20). Direct defiance significantly influenced peer bullying for boys ( = .38) and the total sample ( = .20),
but not for girls. The path coefficents from indirect defiance to peer bullying
were statistically significant for boys ( = .23), girls ( = .23) and the total
sample ( = .28).
Unacknowledged shame had a direct effect on sibling bullying (table 2).
The path coefficients from unacknowledged shame to sibling bullying were
statistically significant for boys ( = .27), girls ( = .26), and the total sample
( = .25). Unacknowledged shame did not have a direct effect on peer bullying
in the path analysis.

Parental Bonding, Fairness, Unacknowledged Shame,

and Defiance
In line with defiance theory, we tested whether bonding towards the sanctioning agent was related to perceptions of fairness and defiance. Table 3
shows that high mother bonding was related to perceptions of fairness for boys
and the total sample, but not for girls. High father bonding was related to perceived fairness only for the total sample. The path from mother bonding to
fairness (Table 2) was significant for boys ( = .26) and for the total sample
( = .14) only.
For the total sample, the mean score for mother and father bonding was
lower for children who chose defiance as a way of reaction to the sanctions
imposed than for children who chose compliance. For boys, only mother bonding was related to compliance, whereas for girls only father bonding was
related to compliance. In the path analysis, mother (and father) bonding did
not have a direct effect on defiant reactions to the sanctions imposed. Mother
bonding had a direct effect on unacknowledged shame and this was significant
for boys ( = .32), girls ( = .40) and the total sample ( = .36).

305

306

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

Parental Bonding and Bullying in the Family and School

We examined whether parental bonding was related to bullying. For the
total sample, mother and father bonding were negatively correlated with sibling (r = .27 and r = .15 accordingly) and peer bullying (r = .27 and r = .18).
The same results were obtained for boys for sibling (r = .47 and r = .23 for
mother/father bonding) and peer bullying (r = .29 and r = .22). Mother and
father bonding were not related to sibling bullying for girls, but were negatively related to peer bullying (r = .19 and r = .18). Sibling and peer bullying
were significantly correlated for boys (r = .63), girls (r = .43) and the total
sample (r = .57). All these correlations were statistically significant.

DISCUSSION
Most of the results support the idea that defiance theory is a powerful analytical
tool to explain bullying. A focal point of the theory is the impact that sanctions
can have on future defiance of the law (or, in our case, defiance of parental
authority) either directly or indirectly. For our sample, defiant reactions to
parental sanctions could be viewed under the spectrum of reciprocal justice since
they were strongly related to perceptions of fairness. The strong link between
indirect defiance and bullying suggests that some bullying can be conceptualized
as an auxiliary device children use to administer justice. Previous research
indicates that children apply moral concepts of harm, rights and justice to evaluate laws and to inform their judgments of legal compliance (Helwig & Jasiobedzka, 2001). It is worth mentioning that, of those children who chose indirect
defiance as the best reaction to the sanctions imposed, 67% defined sanctions as
unfair; in a way, these children maintained that they would take the law into
their own hands and administer justice for the unfair sanctions imposed
through getting back at a target who represents the unfair sanctioning agent.
The direct impact of the experimentally manipulated variable (type of
perpetrator in the vignette) on perceptions of fairness indicates the presence
of moral reasoning and information processing abilities in young children. In
line with previous research (Gold, Darley, Hilton and Zanna, 1984, p. 1758),
our data show that children are sensitive to manipulations of procedural justice and judge the guilt or innocence of the punished protagonist based on the
situational variations presented in the vignettes.
Children who were highly bonded to the mother tended to judge parental
sanctions as fair, whilst fairness had the strongest effect on direct defiance.
This indicates that children tended to judge a persons behavior in positive
terms if they had a good relationship with that person; in which case they
complied with rather than defied that persons decisions. The relationship
between bonding and fairness is not derived directly from the postulates of
defiance theory, suggesting how the theory might be expanded.

Bullying

In agreement with previous research (Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1992;

Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1994), parental bonding was negatively related to
bullying. We found that bonding to the mother had a significant negative
effect on unacknowledged shame, which had a large effect on sibling bullying, in
concordance with previous studies (Ahmed, 2005; Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004).
We also added to the existing body of knowledge (Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2004;
Kumpulainen, Rasanen & Puura, 2001) by finding a direct link between
defiance and bullying behavior.
The innovative character of this survey should be stressed. To the best of
our knowledge, this is the first time anyone has attempted to test the applicability of defiance theory to bullying. Defiance theory helps in understanding
how family functioning is related to bullying. Sherman (1993) maintains that
punishment does not necessarily control offending. Applying this to the family
context, punishment by parents does not necessarily control childrens problem behavior because sanctions have different effects on the sanctioned
behavior according to whether they are perceived as fair or unfair (Sherman,
1993, p. 448). When looking at the relationship between punishment and
undesirable results (e.g. children misbehaving more after the punishment), it
is important not only to focus on the relationship between these two constructs. Analyses should look into the black box and investigate the intervening processes that lead from action A (e.g. parental sanctioning) to action
B (e.g. a childs problematic reaction). Defiance theory can help us look into
the black box and understand the varying results of sanction effects on sanctioned behavior, thus making it easier to appreciate how family functioning is
related to childrens problematic behaviors.

Implications for the Prevention of Bullying

Defiance theory can help parents and teachers understand why children engage in bullying of siblings in families and peers in schools. Efforts
should be made to enhance students attitudes regarding the legitimacy of
the sanctioning agent and increase their abilities to manage shame in
adaptive ways. At the same time, efforts should be made to sensitize teachers and parents to the importance of respectful sanctioning since the style
of the authority figure is linked to childrens understanding of legitimacy
and therefore compliance (Sherman, 2000). Also, parents and teachers
need to enhance their relationships with children since bonding towards
the authority figure affects compliance.
Children involved in bullying are caught up in cycles of alienation and
need help to re-establish their ties with the school community (Morrison,
2001). Poor social relationships at school can be repaired through restorative
justice approaches, which involve bringing together all children (i.e. bullies,
victims and bully-victims) in a participatory process that addresses wrongdoing

307

308

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

while offering respect to the parties involved (Morrison, 2007, p. 198). Within
a whole school restorative justice perspective everyones point of view is
taken into account, including bullies justifications for their behavior. Giving perpetrators a voice may help them acknowledge their wrongdoing and,
in consequence, this may help victims to forgive their transgressors, in this
way breaking the vicious cycle of bullying. Previous work on restorative justice approaches indicates that it is possible to incorporate both compassion
and accountability in the sanctions imposed on school aggression (Morrison,
2001).
A number of existing anti-bullying programs include ideas similar to
these. The Expect Respect program in Texas (Whitaker, Rosenbluth, Valle,
& Sanchez, 2004) and the Steps to Respect program in the Pacific Northwest
(Frey et al. 2005) both aimed to encourage respectful interactions in schools.
Similarly, the SAVE project in Seville (Spain) aimed to foster a spirit of solidarity, a desire for mutual understanding and conflict resolution through nonviolent methods (Ortega & Lera, 2000).
Interventions to reduce bullying should be theoretically grounded (Baldry
& Farrington, 2007). Such interventions would greatly benefit from a wholeschool approach which should take account of everyones point of view: bullies,
victims, bully-victims, and noninvolved children. Defiance theory, we argue, is
a helpful analytical tool that may assist teachers and practitioners to understand bullying behavior because it places emphasis on crucial notions such as
bonding to the sanctioner, shame management, legitimateand respectful
sanctioning conduct.

REFERENCES
Ahmed, E. (2005). Pastoral care to regulate school bullying: Shame management
among bystanders. Pastoral Care in Education, 23, 2329.
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). What, me ashamed? Shame management and
school bullying. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(3), 269294.
Andreou, E. (2004). Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism
and self-efficacy in Greek primary school children. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 297309.
Astor, R.A. (1994). Childrens moral reasoning about family and peer violence: The role
of provocation and retribution. Child Development, 65(4), 10541067.
Baldry, A.C., & Farrington, D.P. (2007). Effectiveness of Programs to prevent school
bullying. Victims and Offenders, 2, 183204.
Bond, L., Carlin, J.B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause
emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical
Journal, 323, 480484.
Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying
behavior in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 341362.

Bullying
Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children:
Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315329.
Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school
children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 7387.
Bowers, L., Smith, P.K. & Binney, V. (1992). Cohesion and power in the families of children
involved in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 371387.
Bowers, L., Smith, P.K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies,
victims and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11, 215232.
Brownfield, D. (2006). Defiance theory of sanctions and gang membership. Journal of
Gang Research, 13(4), 3143.
Chapell, M.S., Hasselman, S.L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S.N., MacIver, K.W., & Sarullo,
P.L. (2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence,
41, 633648.
Dietz, B. (1994). Effects on subsequent heterosexual shyness and depression of peer
victimization at school. Paper presented at International Conference on Peer Relations, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Due, P., Holstein, B.E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S.N., Scheidt, P., Currie, C.,
& Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Bullying Working Group. (2005).
Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: international comparative
cross sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15,
128132.
Duncan, R.D. (1999a). Maltreatment by parents and peers: the relationship between child
abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child Maltreatment, 4, 4555.
Duncan, R.D. (1999b). Peer and sibling aggression: An investigation of intra- and
extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(8), 871886.
Farrington, D.P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.),
Crime and Justice: A review of research, vol. 17 (pp. 381458). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F.I.M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P. (2004). Bullying behavior and
associations with psychosomatic complaints and depression in victims. Journal of
Pediatrics, 144, 1722.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behaviour and psychosocial health among school students in New South Wales, Australia: Cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 344348.
Freeman, J., Liossis, P., & David, N. (2006). Deterrence, defiance and deviance: An
investigation into a group of recidivist drink drivers self-reported offending behaviours. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), 119.
Frey, K., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L.V.S., MacKenzie, E. P., &
Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs:
An experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41, 479491.
Garcia, M.M., Shaw, D.S., Winslow, E.B., & Yaggi, K.E. (2000). Destructive sibling conflict and the development of conduct problems in young boys. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 4453.

309

310

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

Gilmartin, B. G. (1987). Peer group antecedents of severe love-shyness in males. Journal of Personality, 55, 467489.
Glew, G.M., Fan, M.Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F.P., & Kernic, M.A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 10261031.
Glew, G., Rivara, F., & Feudtner, C. (2000). Bullying: Children hurting children.
Pediatrics in Review, 21, 183190.
Gold, L.J., Darley, J.M., Hilton, J.L., & Zanna, M.P. (1984). Childrens perceptions of
procedural justice. Child Development, 55, 17521759.
Helwig, C.C., & Jasiobedzka, U. (2001). The relation between law and morality: Childrens reasoning about socially beneficial and unjust laws. Child Development,
72(5), 13821393.
Hu, Li-tze., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structual Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 155.
Hugh-Jones, S., & Smith, P.K. (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects of bullying
on children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 141158.
Jantzer, A.M., Hoover, J.H., & Narloch, R. (2006). The relationship between schoolaged bullying and trust, shyness and quality of friendships in young adulthood.
School Psychology International, 27, 146156.
Kalliotis, P. (2000). Bullying as a special case of aggression: Procedures for crosscultural assessment. School Psychology International, 21, 4764.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpela, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999).
Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: school survey.
British Medical Journal, 319, 348351.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpela, A. (2000). Bullying at
school: An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661674.
Kim, Y.S., Koh, Y-J., & Leventhal, B. (2005). School bullying and suicidal risk in
Korean middle school students. Pediatrics, 115, 357363.
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Koenig, A.L. (1995). A longitudinal study of the roots of
preschoolers conscience: Committed compliance and emerging internalization.
Child Development, 66(6), 17521769.
Kochanska, G., & Murray, K.T. (2000). Mother-child mutually responsive orientation
and conscience development: From toddler to early school age. Child Development,
71(2), 417431.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting bullying and victimization among
early adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders. Aggressive
Behavior, 30(6), 520533.
Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., & Henttonen, I. (1999). Children involved in bullying:
Psychological Disturbance and the persistence of the involvement. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 23, 12531262.
Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric disorders and the use
of mental health services among children involved in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27(1), 102110.
Martin, J.L., & Ross, H.S. (1996). Do mitigating circumstances influence family reactions to physical aggression? Child Development, 67(4), 14551466.

Bullying
Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., & Supina, A. E. (1996). Compliance on demand: The
publics response to specific police requests. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 33(3), 269305.
Matsui, T., Tsuzuki, Y., Kakuyama, T. & Onglatco, M. L. (1996). Long term outcomes
of early victimization by peers among Japanese male university students: Model of
a vicious cycle. Psychological Reports, 79, 711720.
McMahon, R. J., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of conduct problems
in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
34(3), 477505.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Family and family therapy. London: Tavistock.
Morrison, B. (2001). Restorative justice and school violence: Building theory and practice. Paper presented at the International Conference on Violence in Schools and
Public Policies, Palais de l UNESCO, Paris, March 57, 2001.
Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying, violence and alienation. Sidney: The Federation Press.
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association-JAMA, 285, 20942100.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K.
H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in
childhood (pp. 315342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495510.
Ortega, R., & Lera, M. J. (2000). The Seville anti-bullying in school project. Aggressive
Behavior, 26, 113123.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357389.
Pateraki, L., & Houndoumadi, A. (2001). Bullying among primary school children in
Athens, Greece. Educational Psychology, 21(2), 167175.
Perren, S., & Alsaker, F.D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims,
bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Pshychology and Psychiatry, 47, 4557.
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of Bullying in Schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583590.
Salmon, G. (1998). Bullying in schools: Self reported anxiety, depression, and self
esteem in secondary school children. British Medical Journal, 317, 348352.
Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E.L., & Javaloyes, M. A. (2000). Bullying a Review: Presentations to an adolescent psychiatric service and within a school for emotionally and
behaviorally disturbed children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 5, 563579.
Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginners guide to structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrences Erlbaum Associates.
Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal
wellbeing and educational progress of secondary aged students. Educational and
Child Psychology, 12, 8188.
Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal
sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445473.

311

312

M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

Sherman, L. W. (1995). Domestic violence and defiance theory: Understanding why
arrest can backfire. In D. Chappell & S. J. Egger (Eds.), Australian violence: Contemporary perspectives II (pp. 207220). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Sherman, L.W. (2000). The defiant imagination: Consilience and the science of sanctions. The Albert M. Greenfield Chair Inaugural Lecture, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (February 24, 2000).
Simonelli, C.J., Mullis, T., & Rohde, C. (2005). Scale of negative family interactions:
A measure of parental and sibling aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
20(7), 792803.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R.F., & Liefooghe, A.P.D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteencountry international comparison. Child Development, 73 (4), 11191133.
Sourander, A., Elonheimo, H., Niemela, S., Nuutila, A., Helenius, H., Sillanmaki, L.,
Piha, J., Tamminen, T., Kumpulainen, K., Moilenen, I., & Almiqvistt, F. (2006).
Childhood predictors of male criminality: A prospective population-based follow-up
study from age 8 to late adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 578586.
Sourander, A., Helstela, L., Helenius, H., & Piha, J. (2000). Persistence of bullying
from childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 24, 873881.
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (2003). A social learning theory of crime. In F. T. Cullen & R.
Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory; Past to present: Essential readings (pp. 135141).
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment
relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 26, 166172.
Van der Wal, M.F., De Wit, C.A.M., & Hirasing, R.A. (2003). Psychosocial health
among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111,
13121317.
Whitaker, D. J., Rosenbluth, B., Valle, L. A., & Sanchez, E. (2004). Expect Respect:
A school-based intervention to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying
in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention
(pp. 327350). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wiesner, M., Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. (2003). Development of antisocial behavior and crime across the life-span from a social interactional perspective: The coercion model. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds.), Social learning theory and the
explanation of crime (pp. 317338). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Wolke, D., & Samara, M. M. (2004). Bullied by siblings: The association with peer victimization and behaviour problems in Israeli lower secondary school children.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(5), 10151029.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2000). The association between
direct and relational bullying and behavior problems among primary school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 9891002.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2001). Bullying involvement in
primary school and common health problems. Archives of Disease in Childhood,
85, 197201.