IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0223499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in perceived popularity and social preference between bullying roles and class norms

Author

Listed:
  • Eva M Romera
  • Ana Bravo
  • Rosario Ortega-Ruiz
  • René Veenstra

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine differences in perceived popularity and social preference of bullying roles and class norms. In total, 1,339 students (48% girls) participated: 674 primary school (M = 10.41 years, SD = 0.49) and 685 secondary school students (M = 12.67 years, SD = 0.80). Peer nominations and perceptions of class norms were collected. The results showed the highest perceived popularity among aggressors and defenders, except in anti-bullying primary school classes, where aggressors had low levels of popularity. In pro-bullying secondary school classes school, female victims had the lowest popularity levels. These findings suggest that class norms and personal variables as gender and school levels are important to understand bullying roles. Practical implications are discussed to guide teachers and practitioners according to the importance to adapt antibullying programs to the characteristics of the group in each school level and gender.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva M Romera & Ana Bravo & Rosario Ortega-Ruiz & René Veenstra, 2019. "Differences in perceived popularity and social preference between bullying roles and class norms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223499
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223499
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223499&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0223499?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:345-355 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Capraro, Valerio & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2018. "Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 19-23.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fernanda Inéz García-Vázquez & Angel Alberto Valdés-Cuervo & Lizeth Guadalupe Parra-Pérez, 2020. "The Effects of Forgiveness, Gratitude, and Self-Control on Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Bullying," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Manuel Pabón-Carrasco & Lucia Ramirez-Baena & Nerea Jiménez-Picón & José Antonio Ponce Blandón & José Manuel Martínez-Montilla & Raúl Martos-García, 2019. "Influence of Personality Traits and Its Interaction with the Phenomenon of Bullying: Multi-Centre Descriptive Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Britta Hoyer & Dirk van Straaten, 2021. "Anonymity and Self-Expression in Online Rating Systems - An Experimental Analysis," Working Papers Dissertations 70, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    3. Mirko Duradoni & Mario Paolucci & Franco Bagnoli & Andrea Guazzini, 2018. "Fairness and Trust in Virtual Environments: The Effects of Reputation," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Daniela Di Cagno & Arianna Galliera & Werner Güth & Luca Panaccione, 2018. "Gender Differences in Yielding to Social Influence: An Impunity Experiment," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, October.
    5. Maria Vittoria Levati & Ivan Soraperra & Saba Yifredew, 2023. "How to Curb Over-The-Counter Sales of Antibiotics? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Ethiopia," Working Papers 10/2023, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    6. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Valerio Capraro, 2018. "Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 345-355, July.
    8. Oliver Bela Kovacs & Gabor Murai & Zoltan Szabo, 2023. "A dictator game study on human expectations of generosity using time as a reward medium," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(2), pages 999-1009.
    9. Alves, Guillermo & Blanchard, Pablo & Burdin, Gabriel & Chávez, Mariana & Dean, Andrés, 2022. "Like principal, like agent? Managerial preferences in employee-owned firms," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 877-899, December.
    10. Angeliki Antoniou, 2019. "Compatibility of Small Team Personalities in Computer-Based Tasks," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, May.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:50-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Irene Campos-García & José Ángel Zúñiga-Vicente, 2019. "The female presence in different organisational positions and performance in secondary schools: Does a woman leader function as mediator?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, September.
    13. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Kerstin Grosch & Stephan Müller & Holger A. Rau & Lilia Wasserka-Zhurakhovska, 2020. "Gender Differences in Dishonesty Disappear When Leaders Make Decisions on Behalf of Their Team," CESifo Working Paper Series 8514, CESifo.
    15. Bernd Frick & Clarissa Laura Maria Spiess Bru & Daniel Kaimann, 2023. "Are Women (Really) More Lenient? Gender Differences in Expert Evaluations," Working Papers Dissertations 106, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    16. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Jeon, Joo Young & Saha, Bibhas, 2023. "Eye-image as nonverbal social cue has asymmetric gender effects in dictator taking games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    17. Hagit Sabato & Sapir Bar-Ilan, 2023. "Pleasure or Meaning: Subjective Well-Being Orientations and the Willingness to Help Close Versus Distant Others," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 2013-2037, August.
    18. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Tom Y Chang & Agne Kajackaite, 2019. "Battle for the thermostat: Gender and the effect of temperature on cognitive performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-10, May.
    20. Andrea Guazzini & Mirko Duradoni & Ambra Capelli & Patrizia Meringolo, 2019. "An Explorative Model to Assess Individuals’ Phubbing Risk," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, January.
    21. Timothy N. Cason & Lata Gangadharan, 2022. "Gender, Beliefs, and Coordination with Externalities Approach," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1330, Purdue University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.