Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

Media

Part of Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

Title

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

extracted text

Bullying, Aggression,
and Human Development
SAMUEL E. EHRENREICH and MARION K. UNDERWOOD

Abstract
Children who are the victim of peer harassment are at increased risk for psychological maladjustment. Electronic forms of harassment via text messaging, the Internet,
and social networking sites, often termed cyberbullying, have become increasingly
common during the past several years. This essay presents current research that
describes the predictors and outcomes of cyberbullying. Two features of electronic
communication—permanence and anonymity—that present unique challenges
when trying to understand and assess cyberbullying are discussed, and finally,
recommendations are made for how to best examine how traditional forms of
bullying and cyberbullying may be related to each other.

OVERVIEW
Children who engage in aggression and bullying are at risk for maladjustment: peer rejection, delinquency, substance abuse, and dropping out of
school (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006). Being the target of peer aggression and
bullying is correlated with internalizing symptoms including depression,
anxiety, reduced self-worth (Hawker & Boulton, 2000), and academic failure
(Nishna, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005). Aggression and bullying may take the
form of physical violence and may also include verbal or social aggression,
behaviors that harm relationships, and social status (Underwood, 2003).
In this digital age, aggression and bullying behaviors have moved beyond
playgrounds and neighborhoods and now unfold in electronic communication and social media, a phenomenon often termed cyberbullying. This essay
examines recent advances in our understanding of cyberbullying, future
directions for research, and the challenges that cyberbullying poses for both
the individuals involved in it and the researchers attempting to study it.

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Aggression is defined as behavior that is intended to injure or otherwise harm
another person or persons (Dodge et al., 2006). This is not only limited to
physical harm but can also include behaviors intended to cause emotional
or psychological distress, disrupt an individual’s relationship and social status, or destroy their property. Bullying refers to a specific subset of aggressive behaviors that are (a) chronic and repetitive and (b) involve an imbalance of power between the aggressor and the target (Olweus, 1993; Pepler,
Craig, Connolly, McMaster, & Jiang, 2006). A power differential between the
aggressor and the victim is not limited to physical strength but can also occur
through other characteristics that may make the victim less able to defend
themselves or retaliate, such as lower social capital or popularity (Smith,
Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, & Tippett, 2008). Both of these features
must be present for aggression to be considered bullying. Thus, neither a
single instance of aggression nor aggressive acts exchanged between two
individuals of equivalent strength or status would be considered bullying.
Estimates of involvement in bullying as the perpetrator or victim range from
10% to 30% (Nansel et al., 2001; Solberg & Olweus, 2003).
The term cyberbullying refers to bullying behaviors that are carried out
over electronic forms of communication and media, such as email, cell
phones and text messaging, web sites, or social networking sites (Smith
et al., 2008). Despite its fairly recent advent, cyberbullying has negative
correlates and consequences for children. Being the victim of cyberbullying
is correlated with reduced academic performance and concentration (Beran
& Li, 2007), depression (Ybarra, 2004), and skipping school, detention, and
bringing weapons to school (Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007). Youth
report that cyberbullying is as painful and distressing as more traditional
forms of bullying (Smith et al., 2008). Indeed, several distinct features of
cyberbullying may make cyberbullying even more distressing than traditional bullying (Mishna, Saini, & Solomon, 2009). One of the critical aspects
of cyberbullying is how it extends aggressors reach beyond the schoolyard
into victims’ own homes. Although victims of traditional forms of bullying
may seek refuge when the school day ends, children and adolescents may
be subjected to cyberbullying day and night through email, text messages,
and social networking sites. Furthermore, because it is nearly impossible to
truly remove something once it has been posted on the Internet, children
may be continuously subjected to the pain of a particular incident of cyberbullying far longer than in a more traditional, face-to-face encounter with an
aggressor (Mishna et al., 2009).

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

3

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Current studies examining prevalence rates of cyberbullying have varied
greatly, ranging from 9% (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2006) to as high as
72% (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). These discrepant findings are likely a result
of unique definitions of cyberbullying, different methods of assessing it, and
the different electronic media that are included when participants report their
involvement as the perpetrator or victim of cyberbullying. Although specific
prevalence rates vary greatly, there is growing evidence that involvement
in cyberbullying (as either the perpetrator or victim) is more common than
involvement with traditional forms of bullying and that a greater number
of youth are involved as both the bully and the victim in electronic media
than in traditional forms (Mishna et al., 2012). Interestingly, although boys are
more likely to be involved as the perpetrator or victim of traditional forms
of bullying (Kumpulainen, Rasanen, & Henttonen, 1999), gender differences
in boys’ and girls’ cyberbullying experiences have been mixed, with some
studies reporting cyberbullying being more common among males (Li, 2006),
whereas others have reported that cyberbullying is more often experienced
by females (Mishna et al., 2012).
Cyberbullying seems to be related to more traditional forms of bullying—as
either victim or perpetrator. One study examining harassment on the social
networking site Facebook found that bullying behavior at school was a significant predictor of bullying on Facebook (? = 0.37, p < 0.01), and being
the victim of bullying at school also predicted victimization on Facebook
(? = 0.44, p < 0.01; Kwan & Skoric, 2012). A large study of 4531 middleand high-school students’ involvement in both traditional and cyberbullying
found that traditional bullying perpetration and victimization were moderate predictors of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization (respectively;
Kowalski, Morgan, & Limber, 2012).
Finally, numerous studies have examined the negative outcomes associated
with being the target of electronic forms of harassment. Several negative academic outcomes of cyberbullying have been identified, including decreases
in grades (Beran & Li, 2007), as well as attendance and discipline problems
(Ybarra et al., 2007). Furthermore, being the victim of electronic harassment
has been shown to be correlated with psychosocial problems, including
depression (Didden et al., 2009) and social anxiety (Juvonen & Gross, 2008),
suggesting that the negative outcomes associated with cyberbullying are
similar to those of traditional forms of bullying (Tokunaga, 2010). Although
these foundational studies have increased our understanding of this rapidly
developing phenomenon, several key questions have yet to be answered.
Understanding the relationship dynamics through which cyberbullying

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

unfolds will require researchers to address conceptual questions and employ
more sophisticated methodologies.
ISSUES ARISING OUT OF CURRENT RESEARCH
AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Perhaps the most challenging issue for investigators of cyberbullying is
identifying exactly how it corresponds to traditional bullying. The difficulty
in drawing a connection between traditional bullying and cyberbullying
is largely definitional. The challenge lies in the fact that bullying is distinguished from aggressive behavior in general when it is (a) chronic or
repetitive and (b) involves an imbalance of power. Translating these two
features into virtual environments has proved to be conceptually difficult
owing to the general permanence of electronic communication and the role
of anonymity. The very nature of electronic communication facilitates a
level of permanence that is not present in traditional bullying. A verbal or
physical confrontation in a school hallway would need to be repeated over
time to qualify as chronic and be labeled bullying. In contrast a denigrating
picture or comment posted on the Internet, a single time can remain permanently. Furthermore, because electronic communication involves such a vast
audience and digital content can be so easily stored by third parties, even
if a post is taken down the target can never be sure that the harassment is
finished completely. The fact that negative content may remain indefinitely
challenges the traditional concept of recurrent and repetitive.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the fact that aggression posted or
sent electronically cannot be easily removed is the notion that there may
be nowhere for a child to escape this harassment. With the increasing
popularity of cell phones and smartphones (Lenhart, 2012), adolescents and
even younger children are rarely able to effectively restrict their tormentor’s
access to them. The ability to attack someone throughout the school day,
and also during their job, after-school activities or at home provides a
new meaning for the “chronic” nature of bullying (Mishna et al., 2009).
The inherent permanence and extensive reach of digital harassment is
recognized by children themselves; one young adolescent called it nonstop
bullying (Mishna et al., 2009, p. 1224).
Another feature of traditional bullying that is difficult to extend into virtual
forms of harassment is the imbalance of power. When research on bullying was generally restricted to physical and overt forms of aggression (e.g.,
Olweus, 1993), the concept of a power imbalance generally referred to physical strength. As new forms or aggression entered the research field (e.g.,
social and indirect), the notion of a power imbalance expanded to include a
variety of forms of power, such as popularity, social competence, or wealth.

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

5

However, in a virtual world, the most powerful asset may be anonymity, an
asset that is equally available to nearly any cyber-attacker. Not knowing who
is harassing an individual increases the sense of powerlessness that they may
feel (Vandenbosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). The role of anonymity in electronic forms of harassment has been somewhat paradoxical. Although many
studies have reported that victims often do not know who their attacker is
(Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008), some qualitative studies have
reported that children will report that not knowing who is the attacker can
be one of the more distressing aspects of cyberbullying, while at the same
time claiming to generally know who the individuals are (Mishna et al., 2009).
Given how easily individuals can operate anonymously in the virtual world,
essentially anyone on the Internet has access to a position of elevated power
to harass others and simultaneously a diminished ability to defend themselves. Even when children do know who their attacker is, they often feel
there is little that they can do to defend themselves. One of the primary reasons identified for not telling adults when cyberbullying occurs is the belief
that nothing can be done to stop a cyberbully (Mishna et al., 2009).
Given the chronic nature of virtual harassment due to the inherent permanence of electronic communication and inability for victims to defend
themselves (even in the instances that they know whom the attacker is),
it stands to reason that nearly any aggressive act expressed electronically
could be classified as cyberbullying. This poses the question of whether
cyberbullying is indeed a unique form of bullying or has cyberbullying inadvertently subsumed a vast portion of all aggression exchanged via electronic
communication? Is a single aggressive post or message enough to warrant
cyberbullying based solely on the fact that it is anonymous and can remain
in the virtual environment indefinitely? How cyberbullying is conceptually
related to the traditional construct of bullying—and how it is unique from
it—will likely remain a key issue going forward for future research. Recent
examinations have attempted to assess children’s own perceptions of how
cyberbullying and traditional forms of bullying may be related with mixed
results. A series of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses examining
adolescents’ involvement in social, verbal, physical, and cyber-types of
bullying found that although adolescents did distinguish whether they were
the bully or victim, they did not distinguish the type of bullying that was
reported (Law, Shapka, Hymel, Olson, & Waterhouse, 2012). This may be
due to the fact that some of the types of bullying presented to participants in
this study could indeed overlap (e.g., the same behavior could be classified
as social aggression and cyberbullying). To reduce any overlap between
constructs, Ybarra, boyd, Korchmaros, and Oppenheim (2012) propose
examining cyberbullying as a unique mode of bullying, instead of a distinct
type. Instead of attempting to distinguish cyberbullying from other types of

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

bullying behaviors (e.g., social aggression, verbal aggression), researchers
should view cyberbullying and traditional bullying as two distinct modes
(i.e., online vs in-person) in which any of these types of aggressive behavior
can occur. Future research that examines cyberbullying as a mode for
expressing a variety of types of aggression will enhance our understanding
of how aggression is manifested in virtual environments and at the same
time improve prevalence estimates by ensuring that the same behaviors are
not double counted (Ybarra et al., 2012).
It is also important to remember that at its core, bullying is a dysfunctional relationship characterized by ongoing harassment from a more powerful individual toward a less powerful target. In this way, bullying is an
inherently dyadic experience (Pepler et al., 2006). Although current research
has found that involvement in traditional bullying correlates with involvement in cyberbullying (Beran & Li, 2007; Kowalski et al., 2012; Kwan & Skoric,
2012), future research must examine cyberbullying nested within relationships that may exist in both the physical and virtual world. Is it the case that
children and adolescents’ tormenters from school or the playground are following them into the virtual environment and continuing their harassment in
this new venue, or perhaps the characteristics that may make children targets
for face-to-face bullying and aggression are somehow being translated into
their electronic interactions? Few studies have specifically examined if onand offline harassment is being perpetrated by the same individual toward
the same target. One of the few studies that has looked at this found that
youth were more likely to be distressed by electronic harassment when it
was perpetrated by the same individual who was bullying them at school
(Ybarra et al., 2007). Answering these questions will require investigating
how children and adolescents’ specific experiences with face-to-face bullying and aggression are related to their involvement as both the perpetrator
and the victim in cyberbullying episodes.
The studies presented earlier provide evidence that on- and offline harassment are related; however, explaining the dynamics of this relation will
require more rigorous methods, such as longitudinal and observational
designs. The development of increasingly stringent methods for studying traditional bullying over the past several decades should provide a
roadmap for how to proceed in virtual environments. Despite the previously
established risk of underestimation when asking children and adolescents
about their own perpetration of traditional bullying (Espelage & Swearer,
2003; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002), every study mentioned in this
essay relied exclusively on self-reported measures of cyberbullying. Just
as naturalistic observation was critically important in establishing a more
complete understanding of the dynamics of traditional bullying (Craig &
Pepler, 1998; Olweus, 1993), direct observation of online aggression and how

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

7

it relates to offline relationships and adjustment will allow researchers to
better understand how youth’s on- and offline experiences are related. The
call to directly observe youth’s electronic aggression and tie these interactions to their real-world relationships is not made lightly. The anonymity
that makes electronic forms of communication so ideal for children and
adolescence to harass their peers with impunity makes researchers’ efforts
to observe these behaviors all the more challenging. Furthermore, youths’
ever-changing consumption habits for electronic forms of communication
make this task even more daunting, as the preferred electronic media adapt
to technological advances. Although observing the overlap between the
physical world and the virtual world is a difficult endeavor, promising
research designs attempting to accomplish this have been developed (e.g.,
Underwood, Rosen, More, Ehrenreich, & Gentsch, 2012).
CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence suggests that similar to traditional forms of face-to-face
aggression and bullying, involvement in aggression via electronic forms of
communication is associated with academic and psychosocial maladjustment (Tokunaga, 2010; Ybarra et al., 2007). Children’s electronic interactions
are largely grounded within a real-world context, and ignoring this fact risks
presenting cyberbullying as an isolated and overly simplistic phenomena.
More fully understanding the mechanisms and interconnections between
traditional and cyberbullying is a critical next step in understanding how
these behaviors develop and creating effective intervention strategies to
reduce them.

REFERENCES
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1, 15–33.
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observation of bullying and victimization in the
school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41–59.
Didden, R., Scholte, R. H. J., Korzilius, H., De Moor, J. M. H., Vermeulen, A., O’Reilly,
M., … , Lancioni, G. E. (2009). Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and
developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12, 146–151.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior
in youth. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 719–788).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology
Review, 32, 365–383.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional
studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school playgrounds?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496–505.
Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33, 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0143034312445244
Kumpulainen, L., Rasanen, E., & Henttonen, I. (1999). Children involved in bullying:
Psychological disturbance and the persistence of the involvement. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 23, 1253–1262.
Kwan, G. C. E. & Skoric, M. M. (2012). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in
school. Computers in Human behavior, 29, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.014
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression
from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance,
estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74–96.
Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The
changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and
internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 226–232.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, Smartphones & Texting. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/
2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx (accessed 10 July 2012).
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27, 157–170.
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for
involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1222–1228.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt,
P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association
with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285,
2094–2100.
Nishna, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my
bones, but names will make me feel sick: the psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic
consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37–48.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

9

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376–384. doi:10.1002/
ab.20136
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic
bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564–575. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.43.3.564
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S. & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 346–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with
the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior,
26, 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York, NY: Guilford.
Underwood, M. K., Rosen, L. H., More, D., Ehrenreich, S. E., & Gentsch, J. K. (2012).
The BlackBerry project: Capturing the content of adolescents’ text messaging.
Developmental Psychology, 48, 295–302.
Vandenbosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11,
499–503. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: 5 years
later. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and Internet
harassment among young regular Internet users. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7,
247–257.
Ybarra, M. J., boyd, d., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 51, 53–58. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in Internet
harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, S42–S50. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004

FURTHER READING
Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33, 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0143034312445244
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for
involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Ybarra, M. J., boyd, d., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 51, 53–58. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

SAMUEL E. EHRENREICH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Samuel E. Ehrenreich earned his PhD from The University of Texas at Dallas in 2012 and he is currently a postdoctoral research fellow examining how
peer interaction relates to involvement with antisocial behavior. Dr Ehrenreich is particularly interested in how adolescent and young adults’ communication with peers via text messaging and Facebook reinforces antisocial
behavior.
MARION K. UNDERWOOD SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Marion K. Underwood is an Ashbel Smith Professor of Psychological Sciences in the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences at the University of
Texas at Dallas. She earned her undergraduate degree from Wellesley College and her doctoral degree in clinical psychology from Duke University in
1991. She began her faculty career at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, and
moved to the University of Texas at Dallas in 1998. Dr Underwood’s research
examines anger, aggression, and gender, with special attention to the development of social aggression. Dr Underwood’s work has been published in
numerous scientific journals and her research program has been supported
by the National Institutes of Health since 1995. In 2003, she authored a book,
Social Aggression among Girls. She and her research group have been conducting a longitudinal study of origins and outcomes of social aggression and
before participants began their ninth grade year, all were given BlackBerry
devices configured to capture the content of their electronic communication
to a secure archive: text messaging, instant messaging, and email.
RELATED ESSAYS
Political Conflict and Youth: A Long-Term View (Psychology), Brian K. Barber
Aggression and Victimization (Psychology), Sheri Bauman and Aryn Taylor
A Social Psychological Approach to Racializing Wealth Inequality (Sociology), Joey Brown
Sibling Relationships and Development (Psychology), Nicole Campione-Barr
and Sarah Killoren
Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris
Restoring Racial Justice (Psychology), Fania E. Davis et al.
Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

11

Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Reconciliation and Peace-Making: Insights from Studies on Nonhuman
Animals (Anthropology), Sonja E. Koski
Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology),
Jennifer Lee
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler
Latinos and the Color Line (Sociology), Clara E. Rodríguez et al.
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Bringing the Study of Street Gangs Back into the Mainstream (Sociology),
James F. Short, Jr. and Lorine A. Hughes
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.



Bullying, Aggression,
and Human Development
SAMUEL E. EHRENREICH and MARION K. UNDERWOOD

Abstract
Children who are the victim of peer harassment are at increased risk for psychological maladjustment. Electronic forms of harassment via text messaging, the Internet,
and social networking sites, often termed cyberbullying, have become increasingly
common during the past several years. This essay presents current research that
describes the predictors and outcomes of cyberbullying. Two features of electronic
communication—permanence and anonymity—that present unique challenges
when trying to understand and assess cyberbullying are discussed, and finally,
recommendations are made for how to best examine how traditional forms of
bullying and cyberbullying may be related to each other.

OVERVIEW
Children who engage in aggression and bullying are at risk for maladjustment: peer rejection, delinquency, substance abuse, and dropping out of
school (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006). Being the target of peer aggression and
bullying is correlated with internalizing symptoms including depression,
anxiety, reduced self-worth (Hawker & Boulton, 2000), and academic failure
(Nishna, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005). Aggression and bullying may take the
form of physical violence and may also include verbal or social aggression,
behaviors that harm relationships, and social status (Underwood, 2003).
In this digital age, aggression and bullying behaviors have moved beyond
playgrounds and neighborhoods and now unfold in electronic communication and social media, a phenomenon often termed cyberbullying. This essay
examines recent advances in our understanding of cyberbullying, future
directions for research, and the challenges that cyberbullying poses for both
the individuals involved in it and the researchers attempting to study it.

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Aggression is defined as behavior that is intended to injure or otherwise harm
another person or persons (Dodge et al., 2006). This is not only limited to
physical harm but can also include behaviors intended to cause emotional
or psychological distress, disrupt an individual’s relationship and social status, or destroy their property. Bullying refers to a specific subset of aggressive behaviors that are (a) chronic and repetitive and (b) involve an imbalance of power between the aggressor and the target (Olweus, 1993; Pepler,
Craig, Connolly, McMaster, & Jiang, 2006). A power differential between the
aggressor and the victim is not limited to physical strength but can also occur
through other characteristics that may make the victim less able to defend
themselves or retaliate, such as lower social capital or popularity (Smith,
Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, & Tippett, 2008). Both of these features
must be present for aggression to be considered bullying. Thus, neither a
single instance of aggression nor aggressive acts exchanged between two
individuals of equivalent strength or status would be considered bullying.
Estimates of involvement in bullying as the perpetrator or victim range from
10% to 30% (Nansel et al., 2001; Solberg & Olweus, 2003).
The term cyberbullying refers to bullying behaviors that are carried out
over electronic forms of communication and media, such as email, cell
phones and text messaging, web sites, or social networking sites (Smith
et al., 2008). Despite its fairly recent advent, cyberbullying has negative
correlates and consequences for children. Being the victim of cyberbullying
is correlated with reduced academic performance and concentration (Beran
& Li, 2007), depression (Ybarra, 2004), and skipping school, detention, and
bringing weapons to school (Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007). Youth
report that cyberbullying is as painful and distressing as more traditional
forms of bullying (Smith et al., 2008). Indeed, several distinct features of
cyberbullying may make cyberbullying even more distressing than traditional bullying (Mishna, Saini, & Solomon, 2009). One of the critical aspects
of cyberbullying is how it extends aggressors reach beyond the schoolyard
into victims’ own homes. Although victims of traditional forms of bullying
may seek refuge when the school day ends, children and adolescents may
be subjected to cyberbullying day and night through email, text messages,
and social networking sites. Furthermore, because it is nearly impossible to
truly remove something once it has been posted on the Internet, children
may be continuously subjected to the pain of a particular incident of cyberbullying far longer than in a more traditional, face-to-face encounter with an
aggressor (Mishna et al., 2009).

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

3

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Current studies examining prevalence rates of cyberbullying have varied
greatly, ranging from 9% (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2006) to as high as
72% (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). These discrepant findings are likely a result
of unique definitions of cyberbullying, different methods of assessing it, and
the different electronic media that are included when participants report their
involvement as the perpetrator or victim of cyberbullying. Although specific
prevalence rates vary greatly, there is growing evidence that involvement
in cyberbullying (as either the perpetrator or victim) is more common than
involvement with traditional forms of bullying and that a greater number
of youth are involved as both the bully and the victim in electronic media
than in traditional forms (Mishna et al., 2012). Interestingly, although boys are
more likely to be involved as the perpetrator or victim of traditional forms
of bullying (Kumpulainen, Rasanen, & Henttonen, 1999), gender differences
in boys’ and girls’ cyberbullying experiences have been mixed, with some
studies reporting cyberbullying being more common among males (Li, 2006),
whereas others have reported that cyberbullying is more often experienced
by females (Mishna et al., 2012).
Cyberbullying seems to be related to more traditional forms of bullying—as
either victim or perpetrator. One study examining harassment on the social
networking site Facebook found that bullying behavior at school was a significant predictor of bullying on Facebook (𝛽 = 0.37, p < 0.01), and being
the victim of bullying at school also predicted victimization on Facebook
(𝛽 = 0.44, p < 0.01; Kwan & Skoric, 2012). A large study of 4531 middleand high-school students’ involvement in both traditional and cyberbullying
found that traditional bullying perpetration and victimization were moderate predictors of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization (respectively;
Kowalski, Morgan, & Limber, 2012).
Finally, numerous studies have examined the negative outcomes associated
with being the target of electronic forms of harassment. Several negative academic outcomes of cyberbullying have been identified, including decreases
in grades (Beran & Li, 2007), as well as attendance and discipline problems
(Ybarra et al., 2007). Furthermore, being the victim of electronic harassment
has been shown to be correlated with psychosocial problems, including
depression (Didden et al., 2009) and social anxiety (Juvonen & Gross, 2008),
suggesting that the negative outcomes associated with cyberbullying are
similar to those of traditional forms of bullying (Tokunaga, 2010). Although
these foundational studies have increased our understanding of this rapidly
developing phenomenon, several key questions have yet to be answered.
Understanding the relationship dynamics through which cyberbullying

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

unfolds will require researchers to address conceptual questions and employ
more sophisticated methodologies.
ISSUES ARISING OUT OF CURRENT RESEARCH
AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Perhaps the most challenging issue for investigators of cyberbullying is
identifying exactly how it corresponds to traditional bullying. The difficulty
in drawing a connection between traditional bullying and cyberbullying
is largely definitional. The challenge lies in the fact that bullying is distinguished from aggressive behavior in general when it is (a) chronic or
repetitive and (b) involves an imbalance of power. Translating these two
features into virtual environments has proved to be conceptually difficult
owing to the general permanence of electronic communication and the role
of anonymity. The very nature of electronic communication facilitates a
level of permanence that is not present in traditional bullying. A verbal or
physical confrontation in a school hallway would need to be repeated over
time to qualify as chronic and be labeled bullying. In contrast a denigrating
picture or comment posted on the Internet, a single time can remain permanently. Furthermore, because electronic communication involves such a vast
audience and digital content can be so easily stored by third parties, even
if a post is taken down the target can never be sure that the harassment is
finished completely. The fact that negative content may remain indefinitely
challenges the traditional concept of recurrent and repetitive.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the fact that aggression posted or
sent electronically cannot be easily removed is the notion that there may
be nowhere for a child to escape this harassment. With the increasing
popularity of cell phones and smartphones (Lenhart, 2012), adolescents and
even younger children are rarely able to effectively restrict their tormentor’s
access to them. The ability to attack someone throughout the school day,
and also during their job, after-school activities or at home provides a
new meaning for the “chronic” nature of bullying (Mishna et al., 2009).
The inherent permanence and extensive reach of digital harassment is
recognized by children themselves; one young adolescent called it nonstop
bullying (Mishna et al., 2009, p. 1224).
Another feature of traditional bullying that is difficult to extend into virtual
forms of harassment is the imbalance of power. When research on bullying was generally restricted to physical and overt forms of aggression (e.g.,
Olweus, 1993), the concept of a power imbalance generally referred to physical strength. As new forms or aggression entered the research field (e.g.,
social and indirect), the notion of a power imbalance expanded to include a
variety of forms of power, such as popularity, social competence, or wealth.

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

5

However, in a virtual world, the most powerful asset may be anonymity, an
asset that is equally available to nearly any cyber-attacker. Not knowing who
is harassing an individual increases the sense of powerlessness that they may
feel (Vandenbosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). The role of anonymity in electronic forms of harassment has been somewhat paradoxical. Although many
studies have reported that victims often do not know who their attacker is
(Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008), some qualitative studies have
reported that children will report that not knowing who is the attacker can
be one of the more distressing aspects of cyberbullying, while at the same
time claiming to generally know who the individuals are (Mishna et al., 2009).
Given how easily individuals can operate anonymously in the virtual world,
essentially anyone on the Internet has access to a position of elevated power
to harass others and simultaneously a diminished ability to defend themselves. Even when children do know who their attacker is, they often feel
there is little that they can do to defend themselves. One of the primary reasons identified for not telling adults when cyberbullying occurs is the belief
that nothing can be done to stop a cyberbully (Mishna et al., 2009).
Given the chronic nature of virtual harassment due to the inherent permanence of electronic communication and inability for victims to defend
themselves (even in the instances that they know whom the attacker is),
it stands to reason that nearly any aggressive act expressed electronically
could be classified as cyberbullying. This poses the question of whether
cyberbullying is indeed a unique form of bullying or has cyberbullying inadvertently subsumed a vast portion of all aggression exchanged via electronic
communication? Is a single aggressive post or message enough to warrant
cyberbullying based solely on the fact that it is anonymous and can remain
in the virtual environment indefinitely? How cyberbullying is conceptually
related to the traditional construct of bullying—and how it is unique from
it—will likely remain a key issue going forward for future research. Recent
examinations have attempted to assess children’s own perceptions of how
cyberbullying and traditional forms of bullying may be related with mixed
results. A series of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses examining
adolescents’ involvement in social, verbal, physical, and cyber-types of
bullying found that although adolescents did distinguish whether they were
the bully or victim, they did not distinguish the type of bullying that was
reported (Law, Shapka, Hymel, Olson, & Waterhouse, 2012). This may be
due to the fact that some of the types of bullying presented to participants in
this study could indeed overlap (e.g., the same behavior could be classified
as social aggression and cyberbullying). To reduce any overlap between
constructs, Ybarra, boyd, Korchmaros, and Oppenheim (2012) propose
examining cyberbullying as a unique mode of bullying, instead of a distinct
type. Instead of attempting to distinguish cyberbullying from other types of

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

bullying behaviors (e.g., social aggression, verbal aggression), researchers
should view cyberbullying and traditional bullying as two distinct modes
(i.e., online vs in-person) in which any of these types of aggressive behavior
can occur. Future research that examines cyberbullying as a mode for
expressing a variety of types of aggression will enhance our understanding
of how aggression is manifested in virtual environments and at the same
time improve prevalence estimates by ensuring that the same behaviors are
not double counted (Ybarra et al., 2012).
It is also important to remember that at its core, bullying is a dysfunctional relationship characterized by ongoing harassment from a more powerful individual toward a less powerful target. In this way, bullying is an
inherently dyadic experience (Pepler et al., 2006). Although current research
has found that involvement in traditional bullying correlates with involvement in cyberbullying (Beran & Li, 2007; Kowalski et al., 2012; Kwan & Skoric,
2012), future research must examine cyberbullying nested within relationships that may exist in both the physical and virtual world. Is it the case that
children and adolescents’ tormenters from school or the playground are following them into the virtual environment and continuing their harassment in
this new venue, or perhaps the characteristics that may make children targets
for face-to-face bullying and aggression are somehow being translated into
their electronic interactions? Few studies have specifically examined if onand offline harassment is being perpetrated by the same individual toward
the same target. One of the few studies that has looked at this found that
youth were more likely to be distressed by electronic harassment when it
was perpetrated by the same individual who was bullying them at school
(Ybarra et al., 2007). Answering these questions will require investigating
how children and adolescents’ specific experiences with face-to-face bullying and aggression are related to their involvement as both the perpetrator
and the victim in cyberbullying episodes.
The studies presented earlier provide evidence that on- and offline harassment are related; however, explaining the dynamics of this relation will
require more rigorous methods, such as longitudinal and observational
designs. The development of increasingly stringent methods for studying traditional bullying over the past several decades should provide a
roadmap for how to proceed in virtual environments. Despite the previously
established risk of underestimation when asking children and adolescents
about their own perpetration of traditional bullying (Espelage & Swearer,
2003; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002), every study mentioned in this
essay relied exclusively on self-reported measures of cyberbullying. Just
as naturalistic observation was critically important in establishing a more
complete understanding of the dynamics of traditional bullying (Craig &
Pepler, 1998; Olweus, 1993), direct observation of online aggression and how

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

7

it relates to offline relationships and adjustment will allow researchers to
better understand how youth’s on- and offline experiences are related. The
call to directly observe youth’s electronic aggression and tie these interactions to their real-world relationships is not made lightly. The anonymity
that makes electronic forms of communication so ideal for children and
adolescence to harass their peers with impunity makes researchers’ efforts
to observe these behaviors all the more challenging. Furthermore, youths’
ever-changing consumption habits for electronic forms of communication
make this task even more daunting, as the preferred electronic media adapt
to technological advances. Although observing the overlap between the
physical world and the virtual world is a difficult endeavor, promising
research designs attempting to accomplish this have been developed (e.g.,
Underwood, Rosen, More, Ehrenreich, & Gentsch, 2012).
CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence suggests that similar to traditional forms of face-to-face
aggression and bullying, involvement in aggression via electronic forms of
communication is associated with academic and psychosocial maladjustment (Tokunaga, 2010; Ybarra et al., 2007). Children’s electronic interactions
are largely grounded within a real-world context, and ignoring this fact risks
presenting cyberbullying as an isolated and overly simplistic phenomena.
More fully understanding the mechanisms and interconnections between
traditional and cyberbullying is a critical next step in understanding how
these behaviors develop and creating effective intervention strategies to
reduce them.

REFERENCES
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1, 15–33.
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observation of bullying and victimization in the
school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41–59.
Didden, R., Scholte, R. H. J., Korzilius, H., De Moor, J. M. H., Vermeulen, A., O’Reilly,
M., … , Lancioni, G. E. (2009). Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and
developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12, 146–151.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior
in youth. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 719–788).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology
Review, 32, 365–383.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional
studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school playgrounds?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496–505.
Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33, 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0143034312445244
Kumpulainen, L., Rasanen, E., & Henttonen, I. (1999). Children involved in bullying:
Psychological disturbance and the persistence of the involvement. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 23, 1253–1262.
Kwan, G. C. E. & Skoric, M. M. (2012). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in
school. Computers in Human behavior, 29, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.014
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression
from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance,
estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74–96.
Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The
changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and
internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 226–232.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, Smartphones & Texting. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/
2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx (accessed 10 July 2012).
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27, 157–170.
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for
involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1222–1228.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt,
P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association
with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285,
2094–2100.
Nishna, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my
bones, but names will make me feel sick: the psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic
consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37–48.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

9

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376–384. doi:10.1002/
ab.20136
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic
bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564–575. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.43.3.564
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S. & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 346–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with
the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior,
26, 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York, NY: Guilford.
Underwood, M. K., Rosen, L. H., More, D., Ehrenreich, S. E., & Gentsch, J. K. (2012).
The BlackBerry project: Capturing the content of adolescents’ text messaging.
Developmental Psychology, 48, 295–302.
Vandenbosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11,
499–503. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: 5 years
later. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and Internet
harassment among young regular Internet users. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7,
247–257.
Ybarra, M. J., boyd, d., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 51, 53–58. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in Internet
harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, S42–S50. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004

FURTHER READING
Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33, 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0143034312445244
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for
involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Ybarra, M. J., boyd, d., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 51, 53–58. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

SAMUEL E. EHRENREICH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Samuel E. Ehrenreich earned his PhD from The University of Texas at Dallas in 2012 and he is currently a postdoctoral research fellow examining how
peer interaction relates to involvement with antisocial behavior. Dr Ehrenreich is particularly interested in how adolescent and young adults’ communication with peers via text messaging and Facebook reinforces antisocial
behavior.
MARION K. UNDERWOOD SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Marion K. Underwood is an Ashbel Smith Professor of Psychological Sciences in the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences at the University of
Texas at Dallas. She earned her undergraduate degree from Wellesley College and her doctoral degree in clinical psychology from Duke University in
1991. She began her faculty career at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, and
moved to the University of Texas at Dallas in 1998. Dr Underwood’s research
examines anger, aggression, and gender, with special attention to the development of social aggression. Dr Underwood’s work has been published in
numerous scientific journals and her research program has been supported
by the National Institutes of Health since 1995. In 2003, she authored a book,
Social Aggression among Girls. She and her research group have been conducting a longitudinal study of origins and outcomes of social aggression and
before participants began their ninth grade year, all were given BlackBerry
devices configured to capture the content of their electronic communication
to a secure archive: text messaging, instant messaging, and email.
RELATED ESSAYS
Political Conflict and Youth: A Long-Term View (Psychology), Brian K. Barber
Aggression and Victimization (Psychology), Sheri Bauman and Aryn Taylor
A Social Psychological Approach to Racializing Wealth Inequality (Sociology), Joey Brown
Sibling Relationships and Development (Psychology), Nicole Campione-Barr
and Sarah Killoren
Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris
Restoring Racial Justice (Psychology), Fania E. Davis et al.
Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn

Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development

11

Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Reconciliation and Peace-Making: Insights from Studies on Nonhuman
Animals (Anthropology), Sonja E. Koski
Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology),
Jennifer Lee
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler
Latinos and the Color Line (Sociology), Clara E. Rodríguez et al.
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Bringing the Study of Street Gangs Back into the Mainstream (Sociology),
James F. Short, Jr. and Lorine A. Hughes
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.