Effects of Self-Esteem and Narcissism On Bullying and Victimization During Early Adolescence

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/259935795
Effects of Self-Esteem and Narcissism on Bullying

and Victimization During Early Adolescence
Article in The Journal of Early Adolescence · January 2014

DOI: 10.1177/0272431613519498
CITATIONS READS
37 1,510
2 authors:
Kostas A Fanti Christopher C Henrich

University of Cyprus Georgia State University
91 PUBLICATIONS 1,972 CITATIONS 65 PUBLICATIONS 2,687 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Parenting Across Cultures project View project
COST Action IS1302 - Towards an EU Research Framework on Forensic Psychiatric Care View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kostas A Fanti on 30 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Journal of Early
Adolescence
http://jea.sagepub.com/
Effects of Self-Esteem and Narcissism on Bullying and Victimization

During Early Adolescence
Kostas A. Fanti and Christopher C. Henrich
The Journal of Early Adolescence published online 23 January 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0272431613519498
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jea.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/22/0272431613519498
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for The Journal of Early Adolescence can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jea.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 23, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

519498
research-article2014
JEAXXX10.1177/0272431613519498Journal of Early AdolescenceFanti and Henrich
Article
Journal of Early Adolescence
1–25
Effects of Self-Esteem © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
and Narcissism sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0272431613519498
on Bullying and jea.sagepub.com
Victimization During
Early Adolescence
Kostas A. Fanti1 and Christopher C. Henrich2
Abstract
The current study investigates the longitudinal association, across a 1-year
period, between self-esteem and narcissism with bullying and peer victimization.
The sample consisted of 1,416 (50.1% girls) Greek Cypriot early adolescents
(M age = 12.89) who completed a battery of self-report measures. The small
correlation found between self-esteem and narcissism suggests that the two
constructs are distinct from one another. Results from the Hierarchical
Linear Regression analyses suggested that the combination of low self-esteem
(i.e., fragile self-concept) with high narcissism (i.e., grandiose self-view) may
contribute to the continuation of both bullying and victimization. Person-
centered analyses clarified narcissism predicted membership into “bully” and
“bully-victim” groups, although “bullies” were distinguished by low self-esteem
when compared with uninvolved children. Current findings can help provide
an explanation of the inconsistency reported in the literature in terms of the
association between self-esteem and bullying behavior, in that low self-esteem
is more strongly associated with bullying for narcissistic youth.
Keywords
narcissism, self-esteem, bullying, victimization, adolescence
1University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

2Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kostas A. Fanti, Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, CY 1678,
Nicosia, Cyprus.
Email: kfanti@ucy.ac.cy

2 Journal of Early Adolescence
Bullying at school is a disturbing phenomenon with potentially serious short-

term and long-term consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator
(e.g., Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Isaacs, Hodges, &
Salmivalli, 2008; Olweus, 1993). Bullying is defined as a physical, verbal, or
psychological attack or intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or
harm to the victim (Olweus, 1993). Bullying differs from other types of
aggressive behaviors in that it refers to aggressive acts that are systematic or
repetitive and characterized by an imbalance of power (Cook, Williams,
Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010; Rigby, 2002). Victims of bullying are usually
students who are perceived as vulnerable, submissive or different (Naylor,
Cowie, & del Rey, 2001; Tanaka, 2001) by peers who are in a dominant role,
either by virtue of their own strength or by virtue of being associated with a
powerful group (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Rantanen, & Rimpelä, 2000).
Understanding the developmental processes that lead to children’s involve-
ment in bullying is important for informing interventions designed to remedi-
ate or prevent problems with peer aggression. Self-esteem and narcissism are
two personality factors that have been implicated in involvement with bully-
ing. This study examines their joint and interactive contributions to bullying
and peer victimization over time.
Self-Esteem
One common perception is that low self-esteem, which refers to the global
and evaluative view of oneself, is a primary factor leading children to be bul-
lies (Frisen, Jonsson, & Persson, 2007). However, the research to date on low
self-esteem as a risk factor for bullying is inconclusive. Although some stud-
ies conducted with community samples of children and adolescents find that
bullies tend to have low self-esteem (e.g., O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001), oth-
ers have found no self-esteem differences between bullies and the children
they victimize (e.g., Seals & Young, 2003), or that bullies have higher self-
esteem (e.g., Karatzias, Power, & Swanson, 2002). Low self-esteem has long
been theorized to be a risk factor for aggression and antisocial behavior. For
example, psychodynamically oriented psychologists have posited that feel-
ings of inferiority lead to aggressive behavior, and sociologists have pro-
posed that low self-esteem leads to weaker social bonds, which place youth
at risk for antisocial behavior (Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, &
Caspi, 2005). However, similar to the bullying literature, research linking
self-esteem to aggression has resulted in mixed findings (Ostrowsky, 2010),
with a number of studies finding no associations between self-esteem and
aggression (e.g., Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991; Prinstein, Boergers, &
Vernberg, 2001). Thus, the prevailing view that bullies and aggressive youth

Fanti and Henrich 3
have low self-esteem has been put into question. On the contrary, the associa-
tion between peer victimization and low self-esteem might be more consis-
tent because victimization is associated with self-blame, loneliness, anxiety,
and low self-worth (Graham & Junoven, 1998; O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001),
and experiences of low self-regard are likely to place youth at higher risk to
be victimized by peers (Egan & Perry, 1998).
Narcissism
Whereas self-esteem is associated with overall acceptance of oneself, feel-
ings of worthiness and self-confidence, narcissism is associated with self-
enhancing tendencies, a grandiose and fragile self-view, exploitation of
others for personal gain, inflated self-appraisals, and superiority beliefs. In
addition, narcissism comprises one dimension of psychopathy that has been
linked to antisocial behavior in youth (Frick & Hare, 2001). Narcissism has
been positively associated with different types of aggressive behavior in chil-
dren and early adolescents, including bullying (Ang, Ong, Lim, & Lim,
2010), and according to Fanti and Kimonis (2012), narcissism predicted a
more stable course of bullying behavior over the course of 3 years. Further,
narcissistic youth reported higher levels of victimization (Fanti & Kimonis,
2012), and tended to perceive themselves as victims of others’ interpersonal
transgressions more so than other youth (McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick,
& Mooney, 2003). Because narcissistic youth show a fragile self-view they
might be more likely to encounter threats from others (Baumeister, Smart, &
Boden, 1996), such as victimization by peers. These findings suggest that
narcissism might be implicated in both bullying and peer victimization,
although evidence using variable centered analyses suggests that narcissism
is more strongly associated with bullying than victimization (Fanti &
Kimonis, 2012).
Interaction of Self-Esteem and Narcissism

Narcissism may also help explain in part the inconsistent findings regarding
self-esteem and bullying. Although self-esteem and narcissism are some-
times conceptualized as similar constructs (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan,
1991), C. T. Barry, Frick, and Killian (2003) found that global self-esteem
and narcissism were relatively uncorrelated (r = .02) in childhood and early
adolescence, and the two interacted such that children with low self-esteem
and high narcissism were at particularly high risk of externalizing and con-
duct problems (C. T. Barry et al., 2003). We examine whether this finding
extends to bullying behavior. Youth low on self-esteem but high on

narcissism might be particularly prone to engage in self-enhancing behaviors

or might be seeking constant attention to protect their vulnerable self-esteem
and enhance their grandiose self-image, characteristics associated with the
construct of defensive egotism proposed by Baumeister et al. (1996). Bullying
behavior is a social phenomenon with other students acting as assistants or
reinforces of bullying and as such it can provide the means for enhancing
ones self-image (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999).
By dominating others, bullies acquire status which allows them to maintain
their feelings of importance in the peer group. Indeed, bullying behavior was
found to be associated with prestige and peer perceived popularity, and with
motivation to acquire status among elementary and middle school students
(Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli,
2009). Therefore, because bullying is a behavior driven by status-related
goals, it may be used by individuals low on self-esteem and high on narcis-
sism to serve the instrumental goal of enhancing their self-image (Caravita &
Cillessen, 2012; Sijtsema et al., 2009).
Some empirical evidence provides initial support for the proposition that
self-esteem and narcissism should be considered together to understand bul-
lying behavior and victimization. Salmivalli et al. (1999) employed a person-
centered analyses with a sample of Finnish eighth-grade students and, based
on measures of self-esteem (self and peer reported) and defensive egotism
(measured with three items indicative of high narcissism: always wants to be
the center of attention, thinks too much of himself or herself, and cannot take
criticism), provided evidence that adolescents with defensive self-esteem
(i.e., high defensive egotism and average self-esteem) exhibited high levels
of bullying, while adolescents with low self-esteem and low defensive ego-
tism were more likely to be victimized by their peers. The group of adoles-
cents with high self-esteem and low defensive egotism reported lower levels
of both bullying and victimization. These findings provide initial support that
including self-esteem and narcissism in the same analysis can provide impor-
tant evidence to distinguish between bullying and victimization. In particular,
youths’ narcissistic traits may play a role in determining the extent to which
self-esteem is related to bullying.
In this study, we test the hypothesis that in addition to its main effects on
bullying and victimization narcissism moderates the effect of self-esteem in
predicting bullying in a large sample of early adolescents. As noted, such an
interactive effect between self-esteem and narcissism has been found for con-
duct problems (C. T. Barry et al., 2003), and the current study expects low
self-esteem and high narcissism to be associated specifically with bullying
behavior.

Fanti and Henrich 5
Self-Esteem and Narcissism Distinguish Bullies,

Victims, and Bully-Victims
Another possible reason for the inconsistent findings on low self-esteem as a
risk factor for bullying is that bullies represent a diverse group of children
who engage in bullying for a variety of reasons. One factor key to differenti-
ating types of bullies is whether the bully is also a victim of bullying. Children
classified as bullies or bully-victims in childhood and early adolescence are
more likely to endorse attitudes consistent with narcissism (i.e., cynicism,
emotional detachment, and interpersonal manipulation) than victims or unin-
volved youth (Andreou, 2000; Sutton & Keogh, 2000). Findings from a
recent study comparing bullies, victims, and bully-victims on measures of
psychopathic traits, including narcissism, suggest that indeed bullies and
bully-victims tend to score higher on narcissism compared to victims and
noninvolved youth (Fanti & Kimonis, 2013). However, it is unclear from
prior work whether bullies or bully-victims show a combination of low self-
esteem and high narcissism. Drawing upon research on youth aggression may
inform the understanding of the relationship between bully status with self-
esteem and narcissism, given that bullying has been referred to as a “distinct
type of aggression” (Cook et al., 2010, p. 65). Importantly, psychopathy-
linked narcissism show robust positive associations with both reactive (i.e.,
defensive, retaliatory, triggered in response to a real or perceived provoca-
tion) and proactive (i.e., instrumentally using purposeful and goal directed
aggression to achieve a desired goal) aggression (T. D. Barry, Thompson, et
al., 2007; Fossati, Borroni, Eisenberg, & Maffei, 2010; Washburn, McMahon,
King, Reinecke, & Silver, 2004).
Bullying is considered as a form of proactive aggression that involves
achieving dominance over peers through intimidation to construct or rein-
force a grandiose self-image (Griffin & Gross, 2004; Washburn et al., 2004).
The motivation to acquire status and to dominate others seen among bullies
(Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010; Salmivalli, 2001; Sijtsema et al., 2009)
are characteristics common to psychopathy-linked narcissism (Frick, 2009;
Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). Bullying behavior is intentional, and bul-
lies tend to victimize and dominate weaker peers who are low on social status
(Sijtsema et al., 2009). Thus, bullies tend to target victims who are weaker,
either physically or socially, than them (Olweus, 1995). In fact, “pure” bullies
might target weaker peers because they lack confidence in their abilities, sug-
gesting that bullies are likely to be characterized by low self-esteem
(Salmivalli, 2001). As a result, youth at highest risk of being classified as
bullies might show a combination of low self-esteem and high narcissism. In
terms of “pure” victims, Salmivalli et al. (1999) proposed a vicious cycle in

which rejection and harassment by others promotes insecurity and low self-
esteem, and in turn low self-esteem places children at risk for being targeted
for subsequent bulling. Furthermore, the low self-esteem of victims might be
the reason that they were chosen by bullies in the first place. The continuous
experiences of rejection and harassment by peers may lead to the develop-
ment of unhealthily low self-esteem (Sijtsema et al., 2009).
Bully-victims have been referred to as reactive or provocative victims
because they tend to respond aggressively to being victimized (Camodeca,
Goossens, Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002;
Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005). The need to be viewed by others as superior
might be a sign of fragile self-concept, indicative of high narcissism, and
individuals with these characteristics may be more likely to react violently
(i.e., reactive aggression) when their inflated senses of self are threatened
(Baumeister et al., 1996). Cale and Lilienfeld (2006) applied the threaten
egotism idea to psychopathy, and found that incarcerated adults scoring high
on psychopathic traits, including narcissism, were more likely to react aggres-
sively in response to ego threats. Thus, it is possible that some youth, when
their feelings of self-worth come under attack through victimization by bul-
lies, might respond aggressively (Thomaes, Bushman, de Castro, Cohen, &
Denissen, 2009; Thomaes, Bushman, Stegge, & Olthof, 2008), suggesting
that bully-victims may show high levels of narcissism. In addition, their
experiences as victims might predispose them to insecurity and low self-
esteem, leading to a combination of low self-esteem and high narcissism.
Current Study
The current study prospectively examines self-esteem and narcissism as pre-
dictors of bullying and peer victimization one year later in a large sample of
early adolescents. Findings are expected to add to a growing body of longitu-
dinal research with samples spanning several continents documenting devel-
opmental processes leading to bullying and victimization. Focusing on these
two personality factors as they relate to bullying and peer victimization in
early adolescence may be particularly important given (a) levels of bullying
and peer victimization are highest in this age period, (b) the salience and mal-
leability of self-image and self-esteem during early adolescence, and (c)
because status goals and popularity, which might explain the link between
narcissism and bullying behavior, become more important during adoles-
cence than childhood (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Sijtsema et al., 2009;
Simmons & Blyth, 1987; Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973; Shahar
& Henrich, 2010; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Given the limited amount
of prior work associating self-esteem and narcissism with bullying and

Fanti and Henrich 7
victimization, the current study employs a short-term longitudinal design to

investigate these associations specifically during early adolescence. This
design allows for controlling for initial levels of bullying and victimization,
and whether self-esteem and narcissism, and their interaction, is associated
with future engagement in bullying and victimization. We hypothesize that
(a) low self-esteem and high narcissism are risk factors for subsequent bully-
ing and victimization, and (b) narcissism moderates the effect of self-esteem
on subsequent bullying, such that early adolescents with low self-esteem are
hypothesized to be at highest risk of subsequent bullying if they also score
high on narcissism. In light of empirical evidence that self-esteem and narcis-
sism may be interactively associated with victimization (Salmivalli et al.,
1999), we also explore the interaction of self-esteem and narcissism in pre-
dicting victimization.
Because bullying and peer victimization are not mutually exclusive (e.g.,
Fanti & Kimonis, 2013; Fanti, Frick, & Georgiou, 2009) and bully-victims
are at highest risk of a host of adjustment problems (Andreou, 2000; O’Moore
& Kirkham, 2001; Rodkin & Berger, 2008; Toblin, Schwartz, Gorman, &
Abou-ezzeddine, 2005), this study also investigated whether self-esteem and
narcissism (both additive and interactive effects) differentiate between sub-
groups of early adolescents exhibiting pure or combined forms of bullying
and peer victimization (i.e., bully, victim, and bully-victim) from nonin-
volved youth. Specifically, compared with uninvolved youth, who are
expected to have high levels of self-esteem, bullies and bully-victims are
expected to show a combination of low self-esteem and high narcissism,
while pure victims are expected to show low self-esteem. We also test whether
self-esteem and narcissism differentiates bullies from bully-victims and
victims.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 1,416 early adolescents living in Cyprus (50.1%
girls; aged 11-13 years at the first assessment, M age = 12.89, SD = .78).
Following approval of the study by the Cyprus Ministry of Education, 13
middle schools were randomly selected (12 public, 1 private) from three of
the four school districts (Lefkosia, Larnaca, Lemeso) in Cyprus. After
approval of the study by the school boards, students were given an informed
consent form for their parents to sign, and 96% of invited parents provided
consent for their child to participate in the study. Only students with parental
consent were permitted to participate in the study. Prior to the first

assessment, parental consent was obtained from 1,513 students, and these
students completed questionnaires administered during Year 1. In the class-
room, students were informed about the study and were also informed about
their rights as participants. Group assessments were conducted with ques-
tionnaires being administered by trained research assistants. At the second
assessment 1 year later, 93.59% (n = 1,416) of the original sample of students
participated. Attrition was due to an inability to contact students who had
moved away or transferred to a different school. The sample was diverse in
terms of parental educational levels (20.1% did not complete high school,
46% had a high school education, and 33.9% had a university degree) and
parental marital status (7.2% of the families consisted of one-parent
households).
There were no differences between participants who dropped out and
those who remained in the study in terms of Year 1 bullying behavior,
t(1512) = .182, p = .86, victimization, t(1512) = .703, p = .48, self-esteem,
t(1512) = .033, p = .97, and narcissism, t(1512) = .352, p = .73. An ANOVA
was also conducted to examine whether the main study variables differed
across schools; post hoc analyses did not reveal any differences between the
schools on any of the measures under investigation.
Measures
Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). RSES is a 10-item (e.g., “I feel that I have a
number of good qualities”) measure of global self-esteem and it has been
widely used with adolescents and adults. The items are placed on a 4-point
scale (ranging from 0 = not at all true to 3 = definitely true), and for the cur-
rent study youth responses were summed with higher scores indicating higher
self-esteem. The internal consistency estimate for the current study was of
0.85. RSES scores have been found to be associated with ratings of aggres-
sion and delinquency (C. T. Barry, Pickard, & Ansel, 2009; Bushman & Bau-
meister, 1998).
Narcissism. The Antisocial Process Screening Device–Youth report (APSD;

Frick & Hare, 2001) was used to measure narcissism. The APSD is a well-
validated measure that assesses children’s behaviors on dimensions associ-
ated with psychopathy. For the present study, only the seven-item narcissism
subscale (e.g., “You think you are better or more important than other peo-
ple”) was used, with an internal consistency estimate of 0.73. The seven
items were placed on a 4-point scale (ranging from 0 = “not at all true” to 3
= “definitely true”), and youth responses were summed with higher scores

Fanti and Henrich 9
indicating higher narcissism. There is substantial support for the validity of

the self-report version of the APSD, and for its ability to designate a group of
antisocial youth with deficits in emotional functioning (e.g., Kimonis, Frick,
Fazekas, & Loney, 2006). Furthermore, the self-report scores on the APSD
were associated with parent ratings of psychopathic traits, aggression, con-
duct problems, and delinquency (Munoz & Frick, 2007).
Bullying and peer victimization. The Student Survey of Bullying Behavior–

Revised (SSBB-R; Varjas, Meyers, & Hunt, 2006) was administered at Years
1 and 2 to measure school bullying and peer victimization. Participants indi-
cated whether they had engaged in different types (physical, verbal, and rela-
tional) of bullying behavior or how often different types (physical, verbal,
and relational) of victimization happened to them on an ordinal scale of: 0 =
never, 1 = once or twice a year, 2 = monthly, 3 = weekly, or 4 = daily. The
scale never mentions the word bullying, but before completing the question-
naire, youth were instructed as follows:
Sometimes there are situations where older, bigger, more popular, or more
powerful kids intentionally pick on younger, smaller, less popular, or less
powerful kids. Sometimes, kids get picked on more than once over a period of
time. Think about these kinds of situations as you answer the rest of the
questions on this survey.
The SSBB-R includes 12 items assessing bullying (e.g., “How often do

you pick on younger, smaller, less powerful, or less popular kids by hitting
or kicking them?”) and 12 items assessing victimization (e.g., “How often
do older, bigger, more popular, or more powerful kids pick on you by hitting
or kicking you?”), and these items are summed to create overall scales of
bullying and of victimization, with possible scores on each ranging from 0
to 48. Overall scale scores were used because factor analytic examination of
the measure’s psychometric properties indicated that the physical, verbal
and relational domains of bullying and victimization are not distinct, but
rather serve as indicators of overall bullying and peer victimization (Varjas,
Henrich, & Meyers, 2009). Previous research using the SSBB-R success-
fully measured school bullying and school victimization in community sam-
ples of children and adolescents in Cyprus and the United States (Fanti et al.,
2009; Hunt, Meyers, Jarrett, & Neel, 2005; Varjas et al., 2006). The
Cronbach’s alpha for the bullying scale was .89 during Year 1 and .92 during
Year 2, and for the victimization scale the Cronbach’s alpha was .90 during
Year 1 and .92 during Year 2.

Identification of subgroups of early adolescents exhibiting pure or combined

forms of bullying and victimization. Criteria developed by Hunt and col-
leagues (2005) based on recommendations by Solberg and Olweus (2003)
were used to classify students as uninvolved, bullies, victims, or bully-
victims. First, each bullying and victimization item measured at Year 1
(Y1) and Year 2 (Y2) were rescored to be dichotomous. A score of 1 was
assigned if youth reported that bullying or victimization incidents occurred
weekly or daily (i.e., a score of 3 or 4 on the original response scale). A
score of 0 was assigned if youth reported the behavior less frequently (i.e.,
scores of less than 3 on the original response scale). This cutoff selection
was based on conceptual considerations (Hunt et al., 2005). As reported by
Solberg, Olweus, and Endresen (2007), cutoff criteria need to take into
account that bullying happens over time and with repetitiveness, and there-
fore less strict criteria, such as monthly, might provide misleading infor-
mation or might identify youth exposed to temporary victimization. The
dichotomized items were then summed across the 12 bullying and 12 vic-
timization behaviors, respectively, resulting in a new scale for each, rang-
ing from 0 to 12. Following guidelines set by the developers of the survey,
which specify that scores of 2 or higher on the sum scores of dichotomized
items be used as the criteria for classifying youth (Hunt et al., 2005), early
adolescents who indicated that they engaged in at least 2 of the 12 bullying
behaviors weekly or more (i.e., a score of 2 or greater on the bullying sum
score) were classified as bullies (Y1: 6.4%, 62.2% boys; Y2: 6.5%, 66.3%
boys). Participants indicating that they were the target of at least two of the
12 bullying behaviors weekly or more (i.e., a score of 2 or greater on the
victimization sum score) were classified as victims (Y1: 15.3%, 52.6%
boys; Y2: 10.6%, 47.9% boys). Participants who met the classification
criteria for both bullies and victims (i.e., they had a bullying sum score ≥
2 and victimization sum score ≥ 2) were classified as bully-victims (Y1:
10%, 62.6% boys; Y2: 8.7%, 69.5% boys). Participants who did not meet
the criteria for either a bully or a victim (i.e., they had a bullying sum score
≤ 2 and victimization sum score ≤ 2) were classified as uninvolved (Y1:
68.3%, 43.7% boys; Y2: 74.2%, 45% boys). The percentages of youth
assigned to the various bully/victim groups approximate percentages
reported by prior work, and agree with findings that a higher percentage of
youth tend to be identified as victims than bullies or bully-victims (e.g.,
Fanti et al., 2009; Kristensen & Smith, 2003). According to χ2 analyses,
boys were more likely to be identified in the bullying and bully-victim
groups compared with girls at Year 1, χ2 (3, N = 1416) = 39.70, p < .001,
and Year 2, χ2 (3, N = 1416) = 36.85, p < .001.

Fanti and Henrich 11
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between the Variables Under
Investigation (n = 1,416).
Self-esteem Narcissism Bullying Victimization
Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Narcissism (Y1) .07*
Bullying (Y1) −.05 .51**
Bullying (Y2) −.07* .30** .36**
Victimization (Y1) −.03 .31** .49** .23**
Victimization (Y2) −.07* .20** .28** .51** .49**
Descriptive statistics
Means 18.08 5.53 5.23 5.57 8.83 7.21
SD 5.68 3.61 7.17 8.20 9.23 9.16
Note. SD = standard deviation.

*p < .05. **p < .01.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics of the study’s variables measured at
Year 1 and Year 2. According to paired-sample t tests, there was a significant
mean-level decrease in peer victimization from Year 1 to Year 2, t(1415) =
5.81, p < .001. There were no mean-level differences in bullying from Year 1
to Year 2, t(1415) = 1.80, p = .07. Table 1 also reports the correlations among
the variables under investigation. As shown in Table 1, there was a statisti-
cally significant, but small, correlation between self-esteem and narcissism.
Narcissism in Year 1 was related positively to bullying and victimization at
both time points, whereas self-esteem in Year 1 was negatively and weakly
related to Year 2 bullying and peer victimization. Bullying and peer victim-
ization were positively intercorrelated across both time points.
Effects of Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Their Interaction on

Bullying and Victimization One Year Later1
Hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to investigate the unique
and interactive effects of Year 1 self-esteem and narcissism on Year 2 bully-
ing and peer victimization. In all the analyses, gender, age, and Year 1 bully-
ing and peer victimization were included in Step 1 of the regression. Gender
was coded with 0 for boys and 1 for girls. Self-esteem and narcissism were

Table 2. Regression Analyses With Year 2 Bullying and Victimization as the
Outcomes (n = 1,416).
Year 2 bullying Year 2 victimization
B SE B β ΔR2 B SE B β ΔR2
Step 1 .15** .24**
Gender −2.49 .43 −.16** −.82 .46 −.05
Age −.04 .28 −.01 −.10 .29 −.01
Year 1 bullying .35 .04 .30** .03 .04 .03
Year 1 .05 .03 .05 .47 .04 .47**
victimization
Step 2 .03** .01**
Self-esteem −.10 .04 −.07* −.09 .04 −.07*
Narcissism .37 .07 .17* .12 .07 .05
Step 3 .01** .01**
Self-esteem × −.02 .01 −.06* −.02 .01 −.05*
Narcissism
*p < .05. **p < .01.
included in the second step of the regression equation. All continuous vari-
ables were mean centered. Step 3 included the 2-way interaction product
term between self-esteem and narcissism. To probe the interaction effects we
used the procedures described by Aiken and West (1991).
Bullying. Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical linear regression analysis
with Year 2 bullying as the dependent variable. Gender was significantly asso-
ciated with bullying, suggesting that boys exhibited higher levels of bullying
behavior. Bullying—but not victimization—at Year 1 was associated with bul-
lying behavior 1 year later. Step 2 suggested that self-esteem was negatively
and narcissism was positively associated with Year 2 bullying behavior, above
and beyond the demographic variables and Year 1 bullying and victimization.
In addition, the Self-Esteem × Narcissism interaction predicting Year 2 bully-
ing was significant (Figure 1). It shows that self-esteem was not significantly
associated with Year 2 bullying for early adolescents with low levels of narcis-
sism, β = −.02, p = .56, and was negatively associated with Year 2 bullying for
early adolescents with high levels of narcissism, β = −.13, p < .001.
Peer victimization. Table 2 also shows the results of the hierarchical linear

regression analysis predicting Year 2 peer victimization. None of the demo-
graphic variables was significantly associated with Year 2 peer victimization.

14
12
10
Low
Bullying
8 narcissism
6 High
4 narcissism
2
0
Low self-esteem High self-esteem
Figure 1. The interaction between Year 1 self-esteem and narcissism predicting
Year 2 bullying.
Peer victimization—but not bullying—assessed at Year 1 predicted peer vic-

timization 1 year later. Self-esteem was negatively associated with Year 2
peer victimization. There was no significant unique effect of narcissism.
According to Step 3, there was a significant interaction between self-esteem
and narcissism predicting Year 2 peer victimization. As shown in Figure 2,
self-esteem was not significantly associated with Year 2 peer victimization
for early adolescents with low levels of narcissism, β = −.02, p = .49, but was
negatively associated with Year 2 victimization for youth with high levels of
narcissism, β = −.11, p < .01.
Effects of Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Their Interaction on the

Likelihood of Being Classified as a Bully, Victim, or Bully-Victim
One Year Later
Hierarchical multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to investi-
gate the unique effects of Year 1 self-esteem, narcissism, and the interaction
between self-esteem and narcissism on the likelihood of being classified as a
bully, victim, or bully-victim in Year 2. The first step included Year 1 demo-
graphic variables as well as dummy-coded variables representing classifica-
tion as a bully, victim, or bully-victim, as compared with uninvolved at
Year 1. The second step of the logistic regression included the main effects of
Year 1 self-esteem and narcissism. The third step of the logistic regression
included the interaction between self-esteem and narcissism. Results are
shown in Table 3. Odds ratios are incorporated to compare the different
groups. In general, odds ratios reflect the odds likelihood of being in one
group over the other, on the basis of the level of the independent variable.

12
10
Victimization
8
6 Low
narcissism
4 High
narcissism
2
0
Low self-esteem High self-esteem
Figure 2. The interaction between Year 1 self-esteem and narcissism predicting
Year 2 victimization.
The first step of variables had a significant impact on model fit, χ2(15,
N = 1416) = 212.41, p < .001. Boys had a greater likelihood of being in the
bully-victim and bullying only groups compared with the uninvolved and
victim-only groups. Early adolescents who were classified as bullies or
bully-victims at Year 1 were more likely to be classified in the bully-only,
victim-only, and bully-victim groups at Year 2 compared with the unin-
volved group, and early adolescents classified as bullies were more likely
to be in the bully-only and bully-victim groups compared to the victim-only
group. Early adolescents classified as bully-victims were more likely to be
classified in the bully-victim group than the bully-only group. Early adoles-
cents classified as victims at Year 1 were more likely to be classified in the
victim-only and bully-victim groups at Year 2 compared with the unin-
volved and bully-only groups.
The inclusion of the main effects of self-esteem and narcissism in the sec-
ond step of the multinomial logistic regression improved model fit, χ2(6, N =
1416) = 24.25, p < .001. Early adolescents with lower self-esteem were more
likely to be classified in the bully-only group compared with the uninvolved
group, and youth with higher narcissism scores were more likely to be classi-
fied in the bully-only and bully-victim groups compared with the uninvolved
group. Early adolescents with higher narcissism were also more likely to be
classified in the bully-only group compared with the victim-only group.
Levels of self-esteem and narcissism at Year 1 did not differentiate the odds
of being a bully versus a bully-victim at Year 2. The addition of the interac-
tion between self-esteem and narcissism in Step 3 did not have an impact on
model fit, χ2(3, N = 1416) = 2.33, p = .51.

Table 3. Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis.

Group comparisons based on odds ratios (95% CI)
Bully-only Victim-only Bully-victims Bully-only Bully-victims Bully-victims

vs. uninvolved vs. uninvolved vs. uninvolved vs. victims vs. victims vs. bullies
Step 1
Gender 1.96** .89 2.24** 2.21** 2.52** 1.14
[1.21, 3.18] [.61, 1.30] [1.44, 3.50] [1.23, 3.94] [1.47, 4.32] [.62, 2.13]
Age 1.17 .97 1.03 1.07 1.07 .88
[.87, 1.56] [.77, 1.22] [.79, 1.34] [.77, 1.47] [.77, 1.47] [.61, 1.28]
Bully 8.87** 2.87* 5.63** 3.09* 1.96* .63
[4.50, 17.49] [1.14, 7.22] [2.55, 12.44] [1.11, 8.63] [1.05, 5.93] [.28, 1.57]
Victim 1.58 5.76** 4.28** .27** .74 2.71**
[.81, 3.10] [3.73, 8.88] [2.54, 7.20] [.13, .59] [.40, 1.39] [1.21, 6.06]
Bully-victim 3.58** 7.49** 9.64** .48 1.30 2.70**
[1.80, 7.13] [4.35, 12.88] [5.54, 16.77] [.22, 1.05] [.66, 2.53] [1.22, 5.94]
Step 2
Self-esteem .95* .96† .98 .98 1.01 1.03
[.91, .99] [.93, 1.01] [.94, 1.01] [.93, 1.03] [.96, 1.05] [.98, 1.08]
Narcissism 1.13** 1.01 1.07* 1.11** 1.05 .95
[1.06, 1.20] [.96, 1.07] [1.01, 1.13] [1.02, 1.20] [.98, 1.13] [.88, 1.03]
Step 3
Self-Esteem × 1.00 1.00 .99 1.00 .99 .99
Narcissism [.99, 1.01] [.99, 1.01] [.98, 1.01] [.99, 1.01] [.98, 1.01] [.98, 1.01]
Note. Gender was coded with 0 for boys and 1 for girls.
†p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
Discussion
The current study contributes several novel findings to the literature on the
development of bullying and peer victimization during early adolescence.
Our findings provided some evidence that narcissism is associated with bul-
lying but not peer victimization. The findings also indicated a small associa-
tion between self-esteem and narcissism, which is in agreement with prior
work that distinguishes the two personality factors (Barry, Grafeman, et al.,
2007; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Whereas findings from the first set of
regression analyses suggested that the interaction between self-esteem and
narcissism was associated with both bullying and victimization one year
later, supplementary analyses classifying early adolescents into groups based
on their involvement in bullying revealed that low scores on self-esteem and
high scores on narcissism mainly characterized the bully-only group. Bully-
victims were only differentiated from the uninvolved group on narcissism
scores, and the victim-only group was only differentiated from the unin-
volved group on self-esteem, although this effect only approached signifi-
cance. Narcissism was the only variable that differentiated “pure bullies”

from “pure victims.” These findings are discussed below within the context
of the broader literature.
The hypothesis that narcissism moderated the effect of self-esteem on
reports of bullying behavior was supported by the first set of regressions
predicting bullying behaviors. Low self-esteem was associated with increased
bullying over time for youth high in narcissism. In this way, the combination
of a low or a fragile self-concept, indicative of low self-esteem, with a gran-
diose self-view or the need to be viewed in a grandiose manner by others,
indicative of high narcissism, may contribute to the continuation or worsen-
ing of bullying. Thus, current findings can be used to explain the inconsis-
tency reported in the literature in terms of the association between self-esteem
and bullying behavior, in that low self-esteem is more strongly associated
with bullying for narcissistic youth. We also found that narcissism moderated
the effect of self-esteem on victimization, such that low self-esteem more
strongly predicted increased victimization over time for youth high in narcis-
sism. Thus, it is possible that highly narcissistic youth with low self-esteem
may engage in bullying as a self-enhancing, attention-seeking behavior to
increase social status and protect their vulnerable self-image. However, the
interactive effect on victimization indicates that such a strategy of self-
enhancement might backfire, resulting in decreased social standing, placing
highly narcissistic youth with low self-esteem at increased risk of peer vic-
timization over time. An alternative possibility is that these youth are more
likely to view themselves as victims (McCullough et al., 2003).
The person-centered analysis also provided evidence that early adoles-
cents in the bully-only group were characterized by low self-esteem and high
narcissism. Bullies might have a fragile (low self-esteem) but favorable (high
narcissism) self-view, which has been associated with more severe antisocial
behavior (Fanti, 2013). Bullies tend to use aggression strategically to achieve
a desired goal or to solve problematic situations (Griffin & Gross, 2004). This
level of planning and control that is required for effective delivery is consis-
tent with prior findings of high levels of proactive (i.e., planned, instrumen-
tal) aggression among youth high on narcissism (Fossati et al., 2010;
Washburn et al., 2004). The imbalance of power that characterizes acts of
bullying may motivate early adolescents high on narcissistic traits to commit
such acts because of their grandiose narcissistic self-views and exaggerated
concerns over their social status (Salmivalli, 2001). Among youth low on
self-esteem and high on narcissism, strong feelings of entitlement combined
with the willingness to exploit weaker children, who are less likely to retali-
ate, for their own personal gain may drive the persistence of these behaviors
across development. Importantly, narcissism, but not self-esteem, differenti-
ated “pure bullies” from “pure victims,” providing evidence that narcissism

is a unique personality characteristic associated with bullying behavior. This

finding can provide important information for the development of future
interventions aiming to reduce bullying behavior.
Narcissism, but not self-esteem, also differentiated bully-victims from
uninvolved youth. Thus, narcissism was associated with the co-occurrence
between bullying and victimization over the year, regardless of levels of self-
esteem. This finding points to the robustness of narcissism as a risk factor for
bullying behavior, with or without co-occurring victimization. Furthermore,
this finding contradicts prior work that bully-victims are at high risk for low
self-esteem (e.g., O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001), and suggest that the reactive
aggressive tendencies characterizing bully-victims might be due to their nar-
cissistic self-views. As suggested by prior research, youth who are high on
narcissism might be more likely to act aggressively toward their peers to
defend their highly view of themselves (C. T. Barry et al., 2003; Thomaes
et al., 2009). This finding follows the threatened egotism model, which states
that someone with a highly favorable view of self is more likely to act aggres-
sively against someone who seeks to dispute or question that view (Baumeister
et al., 1996; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Our findings might suggest that
when the ego of a bully-victim with high narcissism is threatened, he or she
is more likely to act aggressively toward peers to perpetuate their views of
self as superior to others or to defend these inflated self-views from real or
perceived ego threats (Barry, Thompson, et al., 2007; Washburn et al., 2004).
Additional studies investigating the association of narcissism with bully-vic-
tim status are needed to understand this higher risk group of youth.
This study’s longitudinal findings also shed some light on how bullying
and victimization change over time in early adolescence, at least over a 1-year
interval. In our sample, victimization decreased during the 1-year period
under study. Prior work by Pellegrini and Bartini (2000) and Georgiou and
Fanti (2010) also found that victimization declined across time, suggesting
that adolescence is associated with lower victimization rates. Findings also
suggested that children who are pure bullies or bully-victims are more likely
to continue exhibiting bullying behavior or to be victims of bullying behavior
or both across time than uninvolved children. The actions of narcissistic
youth with low self-esteem, characterizing bullies, may harm their social
standing in the school (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990), and place them at
risk for being subsequent targets of victimization. However, pure victims
were only at higher risk to continue being victims or bully-victims at Time 2,
indicating that pure victims might engage in bullying behavior only as a
response of being victimized. This finding also provides some evidence that
pure victims do not necessarily remain passive victims across time. In terms
of demographic differences, boys were more likely to bully, as bullies or

bully-victims, but they were at the same risk as girls to be victimized. These
findings are in line with prior findings that boys are more likely to engage in
bullying behaviors (e.g., Fanti et al., 2009; Seals & Young, 2003). Finally, our
findings replicate those of previous studies showing that a higher percentage
of youth tend to be identified as victims than bullies or bully-victims (e.g.,
Fanti et al., 2009; Kristensen & Smith, 2003), and that a higher percentage of
youth are identified as bully-victims than bullies (Andreou, 2000).
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The large sample of early adolescents, which allowed for testing and inter-
preting interactions, and the short-term longitudinal design were strengths of
this investigation. However, the 1-year follow-up time might be considered
to be a limitation, as additional time points of measurement would have
allowed the investigation of trajectories of change over time in bullying and
victimization (Singer & Willett, 2003). Moreover, the data were based on
adolescent self-report for all variables, and the correlations could have been
inflated due to shared method variance, or possibly the underreporting of
undesirable bullying behaviors or victimization experiences (Pakaslahti &
Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2000). In addition, narcissistic youth may be more
likely to perceive themselves as being victimized, compared with what their
peers observe. Nevertheless, self-report instruments administered to adoles-
cents have the advantage that the individual’s attitudes and emotions may not
be apparent to other people (Essau, Sasagawa, & Frick, 2006). In addition,
the validity of self-report measures on psychopathology and personality
increases in adolescence, whereas the validity of parent and teacher report
measures decreases during adolescence (Kamphaus & Frick, 1996). Future
work should consider collecting data from multiple reporters. For example,
Salmivalli et al. (1999) provided evidence that the inclusion of self- and peer-
reports of self-esteem might provide important evidence to distinguish
between bullying and victimization.
In the present study, we used an overall measure of narcissism; however,
future studies should consider different dimensions of narcissism in associa-
tion with self-esteem, and how these constructs relate to both bullying and
victimization. For example, Barry, Grafeman, et al. (2007) distinguished
between adaptive (leadership, authority, self-sufficiency) and maladaptive
(entitlement, exploitativeness, exhibitionism) narcissism, and provided evi-
dence that adaptive narcissism was more closely related to self-esteem and
that maladaptive narcissism was a better predictor of aggressive and external-
izing problems. Furthermore, individuals characterized by maladaptive nar-
cissism may be more concerned of their social status than individuals

characterized by adaptive narcissism, which might lead to aggressive behav-

ior (Barry, Grafeman, et al., 2007; Raskin et al., 1991). In addition, research
is needed to explore the dynamics of bullying behavior in early adolescents
with narcissistic traits with or without low self-esteem to determine whether
such acts are more likely to result from direct or displaced responses to ego-
threats or unprovoked acts to achieve domination and maintain a sense of
superiority (Fossati et al., 2010; Washburn et al., 2004). Longer term longitu-
dinal research is needed to tease apart the extent to which personality factors
may play different roles in the onset versus the subsequent change over time
in bullying and other aggressive and antisocial behaviors in childhood and
adolescence. The associations investigated in the current study might be
unique to the early adolescence age period, and future research should inves-
tigate the interactive effects of self-esteem and narcissism in younger chil-
dren and older adolescents.
In conclusion, our findings point to the potential importance of investi-
gating the interaction between self-esteem and narcissism to better under-
stand the role of personality factors in the development of bullying and
victimization. Person-centered analyses clarified narcissism predicted
membership into “bully” and “bully-victim” groups, although “bullies”
were distinguished by low self-esteem when compared with uninvolved
children. The predictive utility of the construct of narcissism to different
types of aggressive behavior has not been studied extensively in youth
(Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001). For example, there are only a
few studies investigating how narcissism is related to bullying behavior,
and the current study’s results support the need for further research in this
area. Linking narcissistic traits to bullying and victimization can provide
opportunities for antibullying interventions hone their focus on the role of
personality risk factors so that efforts can aim to simultaneously enhance
self-worth and discourage grandiosity. For example, simultaneously focus-
ing on fostering healthy or adaptive self-views and teaching youth alterna-
tive ways to deal with ego threats or concerns over their social status may
increase the effectiveness of interventions to help children cope with bully-
ing and to reduce bullying (Sijtsema et al., 2009). Schools might provide
different ways for students to fulfill their status goals, such as engaging in
their choice of a variety of extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, arts, and
other structured activities), which can build status for victims, and also
redirect bullies away from bullying behaviors. Because bullying is a social
phenomenon, uninvolved children or bystanders should be encouraged not
to reinforce or attribute status goals in this type of behavior, which is at the
expense of one or more of their peers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the
European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-PEOPLE-2007-4-3-
IRG) under grant agreement 224903.
Note
1. We ran a number of hierarchical linear regression analyses with the physical,
verbal, and relational bullying and victimization subscales as the outcomes. The
findings suggested similar associations as found for the overall bullying and vic-
timization scales.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological
constructs in 8 to 12 year-old Greek school children. Aggressive Behaviour, 26,
49-56.
Ang, R. P., Ong, E. Y. L., Lim, J. C. Y., & Lim, E. W. (2010). From narcissistic
exploitativeness to bullying behavior: The mediating role of approval-of-aggres-
sion beliefs. Social Development, 19, 721-735.
Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., & Killian, A. L. (2003). The relation of narcissism and self
esteem to conduct problems in children: A preliminary investigation. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32, 139-152.
Barry, C. T., Grafeman, S. J., Adler, K. K., & Pickard, J. D. (2007). The relations
among narcissism, self-esteem, and delinquency in a sample of at-risk adoles-
cents. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 933-942.
Barry, C. T., Pickard, J., & Ansel, L. L. (2009). The associations of adolescent invul-
nerability and narcissism with problem behaviors. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47, 577-582.
Barry, T. D., Thompson, A., Barry, C. T., Lochman, J. E., Adler, K., & Hill, K. (2007).
The importance of narcissism in predicting proactive and reactive aggression in
moderately to highly aggressive children. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 185-197.
doi:10.1002/ab.20198
Baumeister, R. R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism
to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self esteem. Psychological
Review, 103, 5-33.

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-

esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to
violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.
Cale, E. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2006). Psychopathy factors and risk for aggres-
sive behavior: A test of the“ threatened egotism” hypothesis. Law and Human
Behavior, 30, 51-74.
Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Terwogt, M. M., & Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying
and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and
reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332-345.
Caravita, S., & Cillessen, A. H. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between
interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early ado-
lescence. Social Development, 21, 376-395.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social
status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors
of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic
investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83.
Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, J. (2013). Adult psychiatric
outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence.
JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 419-426. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504
Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A.
(2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delin-
quency. Psychological Science, 16, 328-335.
Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., & Cauffman, E. (2001). Assessment of “juve-
nile psychopathy” and its association with violence: A critical review. Behavioral
Science Law, 19, 53-80.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization?
Developmental Psychology, 34, 299-309.
Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Callous-unemotional traits in com-
munity sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13, 454-469.
Fanti, K. A. (2013). Individual, social, and behavioral factors associated with co-
occurring conduct problems and callous-unemotional traits. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 41, 811-824.
Fanti, K. A., Frick, P. J., & Georgiou, S. (2009). Linking callous-unemotional
traits to instrumental and non-instrumental forms of aggression. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 285-298.
Fanti, K. A., & Kimonis, E. R. (2012). Bullying and victimization: The role of con-
duct problems and psychopathic traits. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22,
617-631.
Fanti, K. A., & Kimonis, E. R. (2013). Dimensions of juvenile psychopathy distin-
guish “Bullies,” “Bully-Victims,” and “Victims.” Psychology of Violence, 3,
396-409.

Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Eisenberg, N., & Maffei, C. (2010). Relations of proactive
and reactive dimensions of aggression to overt and covert narcissism in nonclini-
cal adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 21-27.
Frick, P. J. (2009). Extending the construct of psychopathy to youth: Implications
for understanding, diagnosing, and treating antisocial children and adolescents.
Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 54, 803-812.
Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD).
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Frisen, A., Jonsson, A., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescents’ perception of bully-
ing: Who is the victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying?
Adolescence, 42, 749-761.
Georgiou, S., & Fanti, K. A. (2010). A transactional model of bullying and victimiza-
tion. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 13, 295-311.
Graham, S., & Junoven, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school:
An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587-599.
Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings
and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379-400.
Hunt, M. H., Meyers, J., Jarrett, O., & Neel, J. (2005). Student survey of bullying
behavior: Preliminary development and results from six elementary schools.
Atlanta: Georgia State University, Center for Research on School Safety, School
Climate and Classroom Management.
Isaacs, J., Hodges, E. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Long-term consequences of victim-
ization by peers: A follow-up from adolescence to young adulthood. European
Journal of Developmental Science, 2, 387-397.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000). Bullying
at school-an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of
Adolescence, 23, 661-674.
Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (1996). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent
personality and behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., & Swanson, V. (2002). Bullying and victimization in
Scottish secondary schools: Same or separate entities? Aggressive Behavior, 28,
45-61.
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Fazekas, H., & Loney, B. R. (2006). Psychopathy, aggres-
sion, and the processing of emotional stimuli in non-referred boys and girls.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24, 21-37.
Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies by Danish chil-
dren classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not involved, in response to
different (hypothetical) types of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
44, 479-488.
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1991). Childhood peer rejection, aggression,
withdrawal, and perceived competence as predictors of self-reported behavior
problems in preadolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 427-450.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Mooney, C. N. (2003).
Narcissists as “victims”: The role of narcissism in the perception of transgres-
sions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 885-893.

Munoz, L. C., & Frick, P. J. (2007). The reliability, stability, and predictive utility of
the self-report version of the antisocial process screening device. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 48, 299-312.
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school
children in response to being bullied. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 6,
114-120.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization be peers: Antecedents and long term outcomes. In
K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorf (Eds.), Social withdrawal inhibition and shyness
(pp. 315-341). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and interventions. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 196-200.
O’Moore, A. M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying
behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269-283.
Ostrowsky, M. K. (2010). Are violent people more likely to have low self-esteem or
high self-esteem? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 69-75.
Pakaslahti, L., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2000). Peer-attributed prosocial behav-
ior among aggressive/preferred, aggressive/non-preferred, non-aggressive/pre-
ferred and non-aggressive/non-preferred adolescents. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 903-916.
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of
psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.
Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913-938.
Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2010).Clueless or powerful?
Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
39, 1041-1052.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimiza-
tion, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary to middle school.
American Educational Research Journal, 37, 699-725.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggres-
sion in adolescents: Social-psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 479-491.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive
self-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 19-38.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rodkin, P. C., & Berger, C. (2008). Who bullies whom? Social status asymmetries by
victim gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 473-485.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Salmivalli, C. (2001). Feeling good about oneself, being bad to others? Remarks on
self-esteem, hostility, and aggressive behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
6, 375-393.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1999). Self-
evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as pre-
dictors of adolescents’ participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268-1278.

Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among
school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30-44.
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relation-
ship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence,
38, 735-747.
Shahar, G., & Henrich, C. C. (2010). Do depressive symptoms erode self-esteem in
early adolescence? Self and Identity, 9, 403-415.
Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of
bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive
Behavior, 35, 57-67.
Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of
pubertal change and school context. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine.
Simmons, R. G., Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, M. (1973). Disturbance in the self-
image at adolescence. American Sociological Review, 38, 553-568.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling
change and event occurrence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types,
effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools,
27, 101-110.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with
the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.
Solberg, M. E., Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (2007). Bullies and victims at school:
Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 441-
464.
Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bul-
lying, Machiavellianism and personality. The British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, 443-456.
Tanaka, T. (2001). The Identity Formation of the Victim of “Shunning. School
Psychology International, 22, 463-476.
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., de Castro, B. O., Cohen, G. L., & Denissen, J. A.
(2009). Reducing narcissistic aggression by buttressing self-esteem: An experi-
mental field study. Psychological Science, 20, 1536-1542.
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping shame by
blasts of noise: Narcissism, self-esteem, shame, and aggression in young adoles-
cents. Child Development, 79, 1792-1801.
Toblin, R. L., Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., & Abou-ezzeddine, T. (2005). Social-
cognitive and behavioral attributes of aggressive victims of bullying. Applied
Developmental Psychology, 26, 329-346.
Varjas, K., Henrich, C. C., & Meyers, J. (2009). Urban middle school students’
perceptions of bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety. Journal of School
Violence, 8, 159-176.
Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Hunt, M. H. (2006). Student Survey of Bullying Behavior–
Revised 2 (SSBB-R2). Atlanta: Georgia State University, Center for Research on
School Safety, School Climate and Classroom Management.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents
in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45, 368-375.
Washburn, J. J., McMahon, S. D., King, C. A., Reinecke, M. A., & Silver, C. (2004).
Narcissistic features in young adolescents: Relations to aggression and internal-
izing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 247-260.
Author Biographies
Kostas A. Fanti is a developmental psychologist and assistant professor at University
of Cyprus. He received his PhD in psychology from Georgia State University. The
main focus of his research is the development of various types of externalizing prob-
lems, and how generalized and specific types of externalizing problems relate to con-
textual or individual factors.
Christopher C. Henrich is a developmental psychologist and associate professor at
Georgia State University. He received his PhD in psychology from Yale University.
His research focuses on contextual factors that influence children’s academic achieve-
ment and social adjustment. He is particularly interested in transactions between indi-
vidual and environmental factors during developmental transitions.

View publication stats

Effects of Self-Esteem and Narcissism On Bullying and Victimization During Early Adolescence

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Effects of Self-Esteem and Narcissism On Bullying and Victimization During Early Adolescence

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Effects of Self-Esteem and Narcissism on Bullying

Article in The Journal of Early Adolescence · January 2014

Kostas A Fanti Christopher C Henrich

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Parenting Across Cultures project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effects of Self-Esteem and Narcissism on Bullying and Victimization

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 23, 2014

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Kostas A. Fanti1 and Christopher C. Henrich2

1University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Bullying at school is a disturbing phenomenon with potentially serious short-

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Interaction of Self-Esteem and Narcissism

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

narcissism might be particularly prone to engage in self-enhancing behaviors

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Self-Esteem and Narcissism Distinguish Bullies,

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

victimization, the current study employs a short-term longitudinal design to

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Narcissism. The Antisocial Process Screening Device–Youth report (APSD;

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

indicating higher narcissism. There is substantial support for the validity of

Bullying and peer victimization. The Student Survey of Bullying Behavior–

The SSBB-R includes 12 items assessing bullying (e.g., “How often do

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Identification of subgroups of early adolescents exhibiting pure or combined

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Self-esteem Narcissism Bullying Victimization

Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Note. SD = standard deviation.

Effects of Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Their Interaction on

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Year 2 bullying Year 2 victimization

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Peer victimization. Table 2 also shows the results of the hierarchical linear

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Peer victimization—but not bullying—assessed at Year 1 predicted peer vic-

Effects of Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Their Interaction on the

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Table 3. Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis.

Bully-only Victim-only Bully-victims Bully-only Bully-victims Bully-victims

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

is a unique personality characteristic associated with bullying behavior. This

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

characterized by adaptive narcissism, which might lead to aggressive behav-

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014

Downloaded from jea.sagepub.com at University of Cyprus on January 27, 2014