Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
Mutual long-term effects of school bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in adolescents Rebecca Bondü a, *, Tobias Rothmund b, Mario Gollwitzer c a
Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany c Department of Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online xxx
In the present study, we investigate long-term relations between experiences of aggression at school and the development of justice sensitivity as a personality disposition in adolescents. We assessed justice sensitivity (from the victim, observer, and perpetrator perspective), bullying, and victimization among 565 German 12- to 18-year-olds in a oneyear longitudinal study with two measurement points. Latent path analyses revealed gender differences in long-term effects of bullying and victimization on observer sensitivity and victim sensitivity. Experiences of victimization at T1 predicted an increase in victim sensitivity among girls and a decrease in victim sensitivity among boys. Bullying behavior at T1 predicted an increase in victim sensitivity among boys and a decrease in observer sensitivity among girls. We did not find long-term effects of justice sensitivity on bullying and victimization. Our findings indicate that experiences of bullying and victimization have gender-specific influences on the development of moral personality dispositions in adolescents. © 2016 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Justice sensitivity Bullying Victimization Adolescence Personality development
Aggression in school is a serious problem, particularly if it occurs repeatedlydas in bullying. Bullying is defined as intentional, repeated aggressive acts against victims who cannot easily defend themselves (Olweus, 1993). Both bullying behavior and victimization from bullying have been linked to impaired well-being and mental health problems (Rigby, 2003). Little, however, is known about the potential long-term effects of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence on the development of moral personality dispositions, such as the dispositional sensitivity to injustice, or “justice sensitivity.” Justice sensitivity is a personality disposition that captures individual differences in the frequency and intensity of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to perceived injustice (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005; Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995). It has been related to a number of pro- and anti, 2015; Gollwitzer, Schmitt, Schalke, Maes, social behaviors in experimental and in cross-sectional studies (e.g., Bondü & Krahe & Baer, 2005), but we do not know how justice sensitivity impacts the likelihood of being a bully or being victimized by bullies in the long run. In addition, there are no empirical studies about how bullying or experiences of victimizationdthat often carry aspects of injusticedmay affect the development of justice sensitivity over time.
* Corresponding author. University of Potsdam, Department of Psychology, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Bondü). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.007 0140-1971/© 2016 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
63
The present study, therefore, examined the mutual effects of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in a sample of German children and adolescents in a one-year longitudinal study with two points of measurement. It extends the present knowledge on the link between antisocial behavior and justice sensitivity by considering repeated forms of aggression such as bullying, by taking into account victimization, and by employing longitudinal data. Bullying and victimization Bullying and victimization are frequent phenomena among children and adolescents. A study including more than 200,000 students at the ages of 11e15 years from 40 Western countries revealed that 12.6% could be identified as perpetrators of bullying (“bullies”), 10.7% as victims of bullying, and 3.6% as both bullies and victims (Craig et al., 2009). This is alarming because bullying and victimization are severe risk factors for a variety of adverse short- and long-term outcomes: Bullying has been linked to antisocial behavior, low prosocial behavior, school failure, or substance abuse, whereas victimization predicts psychosomatic complaints, school absenteeism, low self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness (Rigby, 2003), and the development of €sel, & Loeber, 2011). depressive symptoms (Ttofi, Farrington, Lo Despite abundant research on the consequences of bullying and victimization, research in this area has mainly used personality dispositions to predict who is vulnerable and who is prone to bullying and victimization (Book, Volk, & Hosker, 2012). For instance, De Bolle and Tackett (2013) showed that bullying and victimization in children with a mean age of about 11 years were predicted by an “undercontrolled” personality profile consisting of high Extraversion and Imagination (close to Openness in adults), high Conscientiousness and Benevolence (close to Agreeableness in adults) and moderate emotional stability (i.e., Neuroticism) as well as by a “mixed” personality profile consisting of low scores on all “Big Five” traits. The present study also takes into consideration the opposite view: it investigates how bullying and victimization experiences can shape the development of personality dispositionsdspecifically, justice sensitivity e as well. Justice sensitivity as a multidimensional personality disposition Individuals differ in how easily they perceive injustice and how strongly they react to perceived injustice (Major & Deaux, 1982; Schmitt et al., 1995). Schmitt et al. (2005, 2010) developed the Justice Sensitivity Inventory to assess individual differences in justice sensitivity from different perspectives: those of a victim (victim sensitivity, e.g., “It bothers me when others receive something that ought to be mine”), an observer (observer sensitivity, e.g., “It bothers me when someone gets something they don't deserve”), and a perpetrator (perpetrator sensitivity, e.g., “It gets me down when I take something from someone else that I don't deserve”).1 Highly victim-sensitive individuals experience anger and moral outrage when they feel that others (could) behave unfairly towards them or (might) exploit them. Highly observer-sensitive individuals tend to feel indignant and may retaliate against the perpetrator and/or compensate the victim when witnessing injustice; highly perpetrator-sensitive individuals tend to feel guilty, to compensate the victim, or to punish themselves when theydwillfully or notdtreated others unfairly (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010). Justice sensitivity has been shown to constitute a narrow, but discrete personality trait that cannot sufficiently be explained by broader personality traits or combinations of these traits (Schmitt et al., 2010). It has also been distinguished from similar traits, such as rejection sensitivity (e.g., Bondü & Elsner 2015; Bondü & Richter, 2015), or other traits associated with aggressive behavior, such as trait anger or a dispositional hostile attribution bias (Bondü & Richter, under review). Observer and perpetrator sensitivity have been shown to predict moral, prosocial, and cooperative behaviors in both realworld situations and economic games in adult samples (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2009; Gollwitzer et al., 2005; Rothmund, Baumert, & Zinkernagel, 2014). In studies with children and adolescents, perpetrator sensitivity negatively predicted self-reported aggression, teacher-rated aggression, and conduct problems and positively predicted prosocial behavior, whereas observer sensitivity negatively predicted teacher-rated aggression only (Bondü & , 2015). Elsner, 2015; Bondü & Esser, 2015; Bondü & Krahe Given these effects, one could assume that observer- and perpetrator-sensitive individuals have higher moral concerns for justice (Schmitt et al., 2005), more social competencies, such as empathy, and higher moral reasoning (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). € sser, & Klein, under review; Rothmund, Ma €nnel, & Empirical results support this assumption (Rothmund, Stavrova, Schlo Altzschner, 2012; Schmitt et al., 2005). High social and moral competencies prevent individuals from behaving aggressively (e.g., Joliffe & Farrington, 2006) anddbecause aggressive behavior is associated with victimization by peers (Card & Little, 2006)dalso from being victimized. Prosocial behavior and moral emotions associated with observer and perpetrator sensitivity should, therefore, prevent peer problems and protect children from both becoming victimizers or being victimized (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). Victim sensitivity, on the other hand, has been shown to predict antisocial and uncooperative behavior in socially uncertain situations (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Pfeiffer, & Ensenbach, 2009; Rothmund, Gollwitzer, & Klimmt, 2011; Rothmund, Gollwitzer, Bender, & Klimmt, 2015) as well as forms and functions of aggression in adults (Bondü , 2015). The negative effects of victim sensitivity have been & Richter, 2015) and in children and adolescents (Bondü & Krahe
1 There is a fourth justice sensitivity perspective, the “beneficiary” who profits from injustice without causing it. We did, however, not examine beneficiary justice sensitivity and therefore do not go into more detail here.
64
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
explained by the Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMI) model stating that people high in victim sensitivity are sensitive to cues of meanness and untrustworthiness (Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2009; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, & Süssenbach, 2013). People who score high on victim sensitivity tend to worry that their own investments may be exploited by others and, thus, are generally less willing to act in favor of others (e.g., Gollwitzer et al., 2009; Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2011; Rothmund et al., 2011, 2015). Victim sensitivity, however, not only predicted reactive, but also proactive aggression in different age groups (Bondü & , 2015; Bondü & Richter, 2015) and has therefore been suggested to work in a similar fashion as a dispositional hosKrahe tile attribution bias: Children high in victim sensitivity are more likely to ascribe malevolent intentions to others and to , 2015). Recently, Gollwitzer, Süssenbach, and Hannuschke (2015) aggress in order to avoid being victimized (Bondü & Krahe speculated that the relation between victim sensitivity and victimization experiences in childhood and adolescence can be understood as a vicious cycle: victimization experiences increase an individual's victim sensitivity towards such events. At the same time, victim-sensitive individuals are so strongly motivated to avoid victimization that they appear awkward and hostile to others e in the long run, their “pre-emptive” hostility increases others' hostility towards them, and, thus, creates a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding their latent fear of being victimized. Similarly, Bondü and Elsner (2015) assumed that frequent anger and negative behaviors associated with victim sensitivity impair peer relationships and predispose children to victimize and be victimized by others. Potential influences of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity So far, research has merely considered justice sensitivity as a potential risk or protective factor for antisocial and aggressive behavior, but there are reasons to expect influences of bullying and victimization on the development of justice sensitivity during adolescence as well. Although justice sensitivity is considered a personality trait (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010), there is evidence for plasticity, especially during childhood and adolescence: Among adults, stability rates ranged between .60 and .63 over a two-year interval for the 10-item Justice Sensitivity Inventory (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010) and between .43 and .54 over a six-week interval for the two-item version (Baumert et al., 2014). In children and adolescents, stability rates ranged between .45 and .51 over a 1- to 2-year interval for the five-item version (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). Thus, there is considerable fluctuation over time and across different situations in justice sensitivity during adolescence. For example, victim sensitivity in particular increased in 10- to 17-year-olds in a cross-sectional study (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). There is reason to assume that changes in justice sensitivity are especially likely to occur as a response to socialization processes and critical life events. So far however, the effects of justice-related experiences on justice sensitivity have only been shown in lab experiments (Wijn & Van den Bos, 2010), but not in longitudinal field studies. How can justice-related experiences such as bullying and victimization by peers influence justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence? In recent years, a social-cognitive approach to personality has been fruitful in identifying mechanisms that link changes in personality dispositions to social experiences and cognitive structures (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Baumert & Schmitt, 2012). A central assumption of this approach is that the frequent activation of knowledge structures by means of social experiences can foster the long-term change of these structures and, thus, promote change in personality traits (Higgins, 1996; Todorov & Bargh, 2002). There is evidence for this assumption in regard to some traits, such as trait aggression € ller & Krahe , 2009) and trait anxiety (e.g., MacLeod, Rutherford, Campbell, Ebsworthy, & Holker, 2002). Additionally, (e.g., Mo there is some evidence that social-cognitive processes are important components in justice sensitivity (for an overview see Baumert & Schmitt, 2012). How could bullying and victimization experiences feed into the development of justice sensitivity during adolescence? Bullying behavior can be expected to increase victim sensitivity and to decrease observer and perpetrator sensitivity. First, the perpetration of bullying might lead to higher victim sensitivity in the long run because perpetrators are often rejected or victimized in response to their own behavior. This reaction to bullying might trigger experiences of perceived injustice by the initial perpetrators from the victim perspective and, thus, foster the development of victim sensitivity. Second, the perpetration of bullying might lead to a decrease in observer and perpetrator sensitivity. Bullies might experience cognitive dissonance, resulting from a discrepancy between their moral standards (e.g., expressed in high observer sensitivity) and their negative behavior. This discrepancy could be reduced by lowering their general moral and justice standards in order to avoid feelings of dissonance. Regarding the effect of victimization on justice sensitivity, deriving clear hypotheses is more difficult. On the one hand, Rothmund et al. (2015) have argued that repeated victimization experiences may lead to desensitization against injustice due to habituation effects. According to this reasoning, victimization experiences should lead to a decrease in victim sensitivity over time. On the other hand, experiences of victimization and injustice may make individuals even more sensitive and , 2015; Gollwitzer et al., 2015). This may lead to an vigilant towards injustice and foster sensitization effects (Bondü & Krahe increase in victim sensitivity over time. Gender differences Regarding the variables in our study, there are some gender differences that require consideration. Generally, boys bully more often than girls, but girls are more often victimized by bullying than boys (Craig et al., 2009). At the same time, it is often assumed that females put special emphasis on positive social relationships, whereas males have a stronger focus on aspects of
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
65
power (Nunner-Winkler, Meyer-Nikele, & Wohlrab, 2007). Thus, girls should suffer more severely from and show stronger reactions towards victimization from bullying than boys. We assume that because girls suffer more severely from victimization, they should be less able to cope with these experiences and show more sensitization towards these cues, resulting in higher victim sensitivity in the long run. By contrast, if boys do not suffer from victimization to a similar extent, they should better be able to cope with these negative experiences and to adapt to them, resulting in habituation and lower victim sensitivity in the long run. We did not, however, expect gender differences in the influence of justice sensitivity on later victimization. In previous research, women and girls consistently reported higher observer and perpetrator sensitivity than men and boys (Bondü & Elsner, 2015; Schmitt et al., 2010). Gender differences in victim sensitivity are less consistent: Some studies point to higher victim sensitivity in men (e.g., Schmitt et al., 2010), others to higher victim sensitivity in women (e.g., Bondü & Richter, 2015), or to no gender differences in children and adolescents (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). There was little indication that gender moderates the effects of justice sensitivity on forms and functions of aggression in children and adolescents (Bondü & , 2015). In an adult sample, however, perpetrator sensitivity was consistently negatively linked to forms and functions of Krahe aggression in males and females, whereas particularly in males, observer sensitivity was positively related to some forms and functions of aggression. In contrast, among women, victim sensitivity was closely associated with forms and functions of aggression (Bondü & Richter, 2015). Thus, it has been argued that women and men may differ in their coping and emotion regulation strategies to handle injustice (Bondü & Richter, 2015). Hence the moderating role of gender in the justice sensitivity-aggression link is not entirely clear. In line with previous research in this age range, however, we did not expect gender to moderate the effect of justice sensitivity on bullying in our adolescent sample. The present study The present study sought to extend our knowledge on the long-term links between experiences of aggression and the development of moral personality dispositions. We investigated bullying as well as victimization from bullying in adolescents. The design of our study with two points of measurement (time lag of one year) allowed us to examine the mutual longterm effects of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity. (1) Based on the notion that victim-sensitive individuals are more likely to behave aggressively and because aggression has been linked to peer victimization, we hypothesized that Time 1 (henceforth T1) victim sensitivity positively predicts Time 2 (henceforth T2) (a) bullying and (b) victimization. (2) Based on the notion that observer- and perpetrator-sensitive individuals are less likely to aggress against others and behave more empathically and pro-socially, we hypothesized that T1 observer and perpetrator sensitivity negatively predicts T2 (a) bullying and (b) victimization. We expected Hypotheses (1) and (2) to apply to both boys and girls. Extending previous research, our design also allows us to test the effects of bullying and victimization from bullying on the development of justice sensitivity. (3) Concerning the potential effects of bullying, we expected an increase in victim and a decrease in observer and perpetrator sensitivity after the perpetration of bullying. (4) Concerning the potential effects of victimization on victim sensitivity, we expected girls to show an increase in victim sensitivity after victimization and boys to show a decrease in victim sensitivity after victimization.
Method Sample Seven-hundred and fifty-six German students (47% boys, 41% girls, 12% did not indicate their gender) participated in this study2 at T1. At T1, the mean age was 14.08 years (SD ¼ 1.07, range: 12e18 years). All participants attended 7th, 8th, or 9th grade of one of three types of German mainstream secondary schools (i.e., in terms of increasing educational status: Hauptschule, 22.6%; Realschule, 34.0%; Gymnasium, 43.4%). Twelve months later, 574 students were recruited for a second measurement (T2). Attrition rate (25%) was high for various reasons, including incomplete codes for data matching, school absence on the days of second measurement, and changes in class compositions within that year. We excluded nine additional participants with exceptional response patterns (e.g., marked the first response option on all items). The final sample included 565 children with ages varying between 12 and 18 years (M ¼ 14.20; SD ¼ 1.13) at T1. Among those reporting gender, it was almost equally distributed (50.4% female). Concerning the students' socio-economic background, 25.3% of the mothers and
2
The same dataset has previously been analyzed by Rothmund et al. (2015).
66
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
28.7% of the fathers had no or low level of qualification, 47.4% of mothers and 34.0% of fathers had vocational qualifications, 19.3% of mothers and 21.7% of fathers had university entrance qualifications, and 8.1% of mothers and 15.6% of fathers held a university degree. Measures Justice sensitivity Justice sensitivity was measured with a short version of the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010). Five congruently worded items per scale addressed the victim (e.g., “It makes me angry when I am treated worse than others”), the observer (e.g., “I am upset when someone is treated worse than others”), and the perpetrator perspective (e.g., “I feel guilty when I treat someone worse than others”). Response options ranged from (0) totally disagree to (4) totally agree. Bullying and victimization We assessed bullying and victimization with a German short version of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ, Olweus, 1996). The original questionnaire contains 36 main questions on various forms of bullying and victimization. We selected and translated 12 items measuring bullying behavior and 10 items measuring victimization experiences in order to cover different forms of bullying, such as verbal bullying/victimization (e.g., derogatory comments or bad-mouthing), relational bullying/victimization (e.g., social exclusion or isolation), physical bullying/victimization (e.g., hitting or kicking), bullying/victimization by taking or damaging things, and bullying/victimization by threatening or being forced to do things. Response options ranged from (0) never to (4) daily. Procedure All measures were part of a larger questionnaire that was administered during regular school hours. The study was introduced as investigating adolescents' media habits. Informed consent was obtained from students, parents, local school authorities, the county's school authorities, and the county's commissioner of data protection. Following the completion of measures at T2, students and teachers were informed about different research questions that were addressed by the survey. In addition, all students, schools, and parents received a written report about the study results. Results Descriptive statistics Table 1 shows internal consistencies, means, and standard deviations of all measures for the total sample and separately for boys and girls. All scales showed good or very good internal consistencies. A MANCOVA with all T1 and T2 measures as dependent variables, gender as the independent variable, and age as covariate revealed a significant multivariate gender effect, F(10,470) ¼ 4.47, p < .001, h2 ¼ .087 (N ¼ 481, 233 boys, 249 girls; see Table 1). On the univariate level, girls scored significantly higher on observer and perpetrator sensitivity, and boys scored significantly higher on bullying at T1 and T2, respectively. There were no significant mean changes between corresponding T1 and T2 measures except for a significant decrease in victimization in the total sample (t(542) ¼ 2.96, p ¼ .003) and in boys (t(254) ¼ 3.06, p ¼ .002; see Table 1). Table 2 shows bivariate zero-order correlations between justice sensitivity subscales, bullying, and victimization. All justice sensitivity subscales were positively correlated with each other, as were bullying and victimization. Victim sensitivity was positively related to T1 and T2 victimization, but not to bullying; observer sensitivity was negatively related to T1 and T2 bullying and positively to T1 victimization; perpetrator sensitivity was negatively related to T1 and T2 bullying, but not to victimization. Age was positively related to T1 bullying and to T1 and T2 victimization.
Table 1 Scale internal consistencies, mean values, and standard deviations for the total sample and separately for boys and girls. Scale
range
a
Total M (SD)
Boys M (SD)
Girls M (SD)
Victim sensitivity T1 Observer sensitivity T1*** Perpetrator sensitivity T1*** Bullying T1* Victimization T1 Victim sensitivity T2 Observer sensitivity T2*** Perpetrator sensitivity T2*** Bullying T2*** Victimization T2
0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4
.79 .87 .86 .91 .89 .81 .88 .87 .89 .87
2.15 2.19 2.46 0.62 0.51 2.23 2.26 2.44 0.65 0.42
2.10 1.96 2.27 0.69 0.54 2.11 2.08 2.23 0.77 0.40
2.18 2.37 2.64 0.55 0.45 2.30 2.43 2.62 0.54 0.41
(0.97) (1.04) (1.07) (0.69) (0.65) (0.95) (1.01) (1.04) (0.67) (0.56)
(0.97) (1.02) (1.05) (0.77) (0.72) (0.98) (1.00) (1.07) (0.73) (0.57)
Note: Significant gender differences: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; minimum N ¼ 545; MANOVA: N ¼ 482, 233 boys, 249 girls.
(0.96) (1.02) (1.05) (3.43) (0.60) (0.57) (0.98) (1.00) (0.54) (0.51)
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
67
Table 2 Bivariate zero-order correlations of the T1 and T2 justice sensitivity scales, bullying, victimization, and age.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
JS-Victim T1 JS-Observer T1 JS-Perpetrator T1 Bullying T1 Victimization T1 JS-Victim T2 JS-Observer T2 JS-Perpetrator T2 Bullying T2 Victimization T2 Age T1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.35*** e
.21*** .51*** e
.04 .17*** .28*** e
.22*** .12** .04 .23*** e
.44*** .20*** .13** .12** .13** e
.14*** .41*** .34*** .16*** .07 .31*** e
.02 .31*** .42*** .24*** .05 .17*** .53*** e
.01 .16*** .23*** .41*** .05 .01 .20*** .34*** e
.12** .03 .01 .06 .49*** .14*** .08 .01 .20*** e
.07 .02 .02 .09* .09* .01 .03 .01 .01 .13** e
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity We examined the long-term effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity using structural equation modeling for cross-lagged designs (Finkel, 1995). Missing values were replaced via 10-times multiple imputation using Mplus 7 n & Muthe n, 1998e2012). We used the MLR estimator to account for non-normally distributed data. Latent factors of (Muthe justice sensitivity were indicated by test-halves (the first three items of the scales forming the first test-half, the last two items forming the second test-half, respectively; Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). An additional methods factor with loadings of all 6 second test-halves (see Fig. 1) accounted for similar wordings between the justice sensitivity subscales. Latent factors of bullying and victimization were indicated by test-thirds (first four items of the scales forming the first test-third, the second four [bullying] or three [victimization] items forming the second test-third, and the last four [bullying] or three [victimization] items forming the last test-third). Factor loadings of accordant indicators and item intercepts were constrained to be equal for T1 and T2, assuming strong factorial invariance between the two points of measurement.3 We were able to replicate the intended factor structure of our measures via a single confirmatory factor analyses including all dependent and independent measures with correlated latent factors (c2 ¼ 388.890, df ¼ 201, p < .001, RMSEA ¼ .041, CFI ¼ .963, SRMR ¼ .035). All indicators showed significant loadings on their latent factors. Correlations between corresponding T1 and T2 indicators of latent factors were allowed and estimated (except for justice sensitivity indicators already covered by the methods factor). All T1 latent factors were allowed to correlate with each other. Error terms of T2 justice sensitivity factors as well as of T2 bullying and victimization factors were allowed to correlate with each other. In all following structural equation models, age was included as a covariate. The cross-lagged model for the total sample (Fig. 1) showed significant auto-regressions of all T2 factors on the corresponding T1 factors, indicating substantial stability of bullying, victimization, and justice-sensitivity perspectives over time. In addition, higher observer sensitivity at T1 predicted higher perpetrator sensitivity at T2, indicating that the concern for others as a passive witness at T1 increased the concern for unjustly treating others at T2. Finally and partially in line with Hypothesis (3), T1 bullying positively predicted T2 victim sensitivity, indicating that participants who had bullied others at T1 perceived injustice to their own disadvantage more frequently and intensely and emphasized egoistic concerns more strongly at T2 (c2 ¼ 459.805, df ¼ 226, p < .001, RMSEA ¼ .043, CFI ¼ .955, SRMR ¼ .041, N ¼ 565). Victimization at T1 did not affect justice sensitivity over time and contrasting Hypotheses (1) and (2), the justice sensitivity dimensions at T1 did not have any long-term effects on bullying or victimization. To analyze gender differences, we computed a multi-group cross-lagged model. The model showed an acceptable fit with the data (c2 ¼ 871.118, df ¼ 464, p < .001, RMSEA ¼ .056, CFI ¼ .926, SRMR ¼ .057, N ¼ 565; Fig. 2). In both girls and boys, all T1 factors significantly predicted the corresponding T2 factors. In girls, T1 bullying predicted a decrease in T2 observer sensitivity, suggesting that bullying reduces moral concerns for justice as an observer among girls. This is partially in line with Hypothesis (3). Second and in line with Hypothesis (4), T1 victimization predicted an increase in T2 victim sensitivity, indicating that experiences of victimization lead to higher sensitivity to one's own disadvantages in girls over time. Finally, T1 observer sensitivity predicted an increase in T2 perpetrator sensitivity in girls. In boys, T1 perpetrator sensitivity and T1 bullying predicted an increase in T2 victim sensitivity, indicating that boys who were sensitive to disadvantages of others and who had shown more bullying at T1 became more sensitive to injustice to their own disadvantage at T2 (partially in line with Hypothesis (3)). In addition, also in line with Hypothesis (4) victimization at T1 predicted a decrease in victim sensitivity at T2, indicating that experiences of victimization lowered boys' sensitivity to their own disadvantages over time.
3 We assumed strong measurement invariance because comparisons with cut-off criteria for absolute fit indices indicated a good model fit (CFI .95, RMSEA .08, SRMR .05; Hu & Bentler, 1998; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003) and because there were no decreases in the CFI larger than .01 in the models assuming strong measurement invariance as compared to the models assuming weak measurement invariance (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).
68
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
Fig. 1. Cross-lagged regression analyses with bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity (controlled for age; all T1 measures allowed to correlate). Only significant pathways shown (standardized path coefficients).
Discussion The present study examined the mutual long-term effects of bullying, victimization from bullying, and justice sensitivity in a sample of German children and adolescents. Our study yielded first evidence that bullying and victimization affect justice sensitivity and impact the long-term development of justice-related personality dispositions in the total sample as well as in boys and in girls. These findings support the notion that critical life events as well as behavior may shape justice sensitivity and, therefore, have important implications for the understanding of this personality disposition (Gollwitzer et al., 2015). They provide information about factors that may alter perceptions of and reactions to injustice long-term and explain some of its plasticity. Mutual long-term effects of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity Whereas there is abundant evidence for the adverse effects of bullying and victimization on emotions and behavior, there is only little knowledge about their effects on personality dispositions. In our study, we found preliminary evidence that bullying and experiencing victimization from bullying can shape the development of justice sensitivity in adolescence. This evidence may help explain negative long-term effects of bullying and victimization on mental health and emotional well-
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
69
Fig. 2. Multi-group cross-lagged model with bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity subscales separated by gender (controlled for age). Only significant pathways displayed except for pathways between corresponding T1 and T2 measures. Dotted line: significant standardized path coefficients for boys, strokepoint line: significant standardized path coefficients for girls. Measurement model as in Fig. 1. Only significant pathways displayed, except for significant autoregressive pathways.
being. For example, higher justice sensitivity in general has been linked to emotional problems in children and adolescents (Bondü & Elsner, 2015) and especially victim sensitivity has been related to aggressive and antisocial behavior in different age , 2015; Gollwitzer et al., 2005). Accordingly, victim sensitivity was most closely groups (Bondü & Esser, 2015; Bondü & Krahe related to bullying and victimization in the latent analyses controlling for the conjoint influences of victim, observer, and perpetrator sensitivity as well as for age. More broadly, our study also contributes to recent theoretical and empirical work in the area of personality development (see Specht et al., 2014 for a review). This research investigates how personality changes and stabilizes as a function of internal (e.g., information processing) and external (e.g., social experiences) factors (e.g, Lang, Reschke, & Neyer, 2006). Victimization experiences represent such a class of external factors. Previous theorizing (Gollwitzer et al., 2015) suggested that victimization may increase victim sensitivity over time. Our findings indicate that this is only the case for girls, but not for boys (see below). Our findings show that bullying increases victim sensitivity among boys, which is in line with the notion that bullies may fear or actually experience revenge and injustice to their own disadvantage in response to their initial perpetration of bullying.
70
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
Whereas both bullying and victimization showed long-term influences on victim and observer justice sensitivity, we did not find evidence for the opposite influences of justice sensitivity on bullying or on victimization. Why is that the case? One explanation could be that once the stabilities of bullying and victimization are controlled for, justice sensitivity no longer predicts these types of behavior. Instead, other personality traits such as trait anger or the hostile attribution biasdwhich are arguably more strongly conceptually related to bullying and victimization than justice sensitivitydmay be more powerful to predict bullying and victimization (Bondü & Richter, under review) even above and beyond the stability of bullying and victimization. Another potential explanation for this finding can be drawn from an interactionist perspective on personality (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Schmitt et al., 2013). In line with this reasoning, the effects of personality dispositions on behavioral tendencies do not reflect simple main effects but rather result from the interaction with situational cues (e.g., provocation). There is some evidence that long-term effects of justice sensitivity follow such interactionist patterns (Rothmund et al., 2015). Effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity among boys and girls First, boys and girls differed in how their personal experiences of victimization from bullying affected their victim sensitivity. Experiences of victimization predicted an increase in victim sensitivity in girls, but a decrease in victim sensitivity in boys. This finding could indicate that boys tend to cope differently with experiences of victimization than girls. First, boys may be less willing to admit negative feelings and reactions associated with becoming a victim, because this may signal a lack of strength and competence, which is incompatible with male gender self-concepts (e.g., Bem, 1981). Boys might even tend to excuse the bullying behavior, presumably to sustain a sense of self-esteem by viewing aggression as normative and, thus, desensitizing towards experiences of victimization. This effect may even help explain why male victims of bullying in particular often remain in this position for a long time (e.g., Camodeca, Goossens, Meerum Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002). By contrast, girls may be more willing to admit feelings of victimization than boys because the role of a victim may be more easily compatible with the gender self-concept of girls. Experiences of victimization may also lead to higher stress in girls (e.g., because girls generally ascribe higher value to social relationships than boys; Nunner-Winkler et al., 2007), resulting in a higher sensitivity or sensitization towards future injustice to their own disadvantage. Boys and girls also differed in the effects that their own bullying behavior had on the development of justice sensitivity. Bullying behavior lead to an increase in victim sensitivity in boys and to a decrease in observer sensitivity in girls. Both pathways are psychologically plausible. For example, victim sensitivity may increase in bullies because bullies are more likely to be labeled as troublemakers by their teachers and peers (e.g., Lemert, 1951), and such labeling may be perceived as unfair. Also, bullies may be more sensitive to victimization because they may fear their victims' retaliation (Menesini et al., 2003). These effects might be more relevant in boys than in girls: First, sanctions against female bullies in schools have been reported to be less strict than those against male bullies (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Second, aggressive behavior by boys takes on more open forms and is, therefore, more likely to be detected than aggressive behaviors by girls (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008). Bullying may also lower one's standards of benign social conduct and, thus, decrease one's observer sensitivity over time. Lowering one's moral standards may be another attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance that bullying behavior may cause. The dissonance between one's own negative behavior and moral concerns for others such as in observer sensitivity may be more pronounced among girls than among boys because girls tend to show higher levels of empathy and moral motivation than boys (e.g., Malti & Buchmann, 2010; Nunner-Winkler et al., 2007). Thus, boys and girls apparently differ in how they respond to their own bullying behavior. Boys respond with an increase in the expectations of being victimized themselves, whereas girls rationalize their bullying behavior by lowering their moral standards. Limitations and outlook The present study examined the links of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity. This is the first study to test the relation between justice sensitivity and bullying as well as victimization in a longitudinal fashion. Whereas prior studies have mainly focused on the effects of personality (e.g., justice sensitivity) on social behavior (e.g., pro- and antisocial tendencies), the present data allowed us to test both directions of the relation between personality and social behavior. By doing so, the results can advance our understanding of personality development during adolescence. For example, our results may help to explain some of the long-term negative consequences of bullying and victimization. Limitations of our study include the sole reliance on self-report data and the fact that we did not include any other trait factors that might have influenced bullying and victimization in our analyses. Finally, the processes that may explain changes in justice sensitivity after experiences of bullying and victimization are not yet well understood because we did not examine any mediating factors. Despite these limitations, the present study provided evidence for the long-term effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity (Gollwitzer et al., 2015). Future studies may examine how these influences on personality add to explanation of other consequences of bullying and victimization, such as emotional problems. In addition, the processes likely to influence the links between bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity such as desensitization, coping and emotion regulation strategies, changes in normative beliefs about aggression, fear of revenge, or feelings of anger provoked by subsequent unjustified suspicion require further examination.
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
71
Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. References Baumert, A., & Schmitt, M. (2012). Personality and information processing. European Journal of Personality, 26, 87e89. Baumert, A., Beierlein, C., Schmitt, M., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A., Liebig, S., & Rammstedt, B. (2014). Measuring four perspectives of justice sensitivity with two items each. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 380e390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.836526. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354e364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4. 354. Bondü, R., & Elsner, B. (2015). Justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 24, 420e441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12098. Bondü, R., & Esser, G. (2015). Justice and rejection sensitivity in children and adolescents with ADHD. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 185e198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0560-9. , B. (2015). Links of justice and rejection sensitivity with aggression in children and adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 353e368. http:// Bondü, R., & Krahe dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21556. Bondü, R., & Richter, P.. Interrelations of justice, rejection, provocation, and moral disgust sensitivity and their links with hostile attribution bias, trait anger, and aggression. (under review) Bondü, R., & Richter, P. (2015). Linking forms and functions of aggression in adults with justice and rejection sensitivity. Psychology of Violence. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0039200. Online first http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid¼3&sid¼5130b0f7-a779-442e-ac00-2ddbcc382196% 40sessionmgr4001&hid¼4101. Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: an adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 218e223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.028. Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332e345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00203. Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466e480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406071904. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185e1229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008. 01184.x. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233e255. Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., &, HBSC Bullying Writing Group. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216e224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9. De Bolle, M., & Tackett, J. L. (2013). Anchoring bullying and victimization in children within a five-factor model-based person-centered framework. European Journal of Personality, 27, 280e289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1901. Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justive sensitivity and distributive decisions in experimental designs. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1015e1029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00197-1. Finkel, S. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behavior: the sensitivity to mean intensions (SeMI) model. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 135e152). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2011). What exactly are victim-sensitive persons sensitive to? Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 448e455. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.05.003. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 999e1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.003. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., & Süssenbach, P. (2013). The Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMI) model: basic assumptions, recent findings, and potential avenues for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 415e426. Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18, 183e201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-7368-1. Gollwitzer, M., Süssenbach, P., & Hannuschke, M. (2015). Victimization experiences and the stabilization of victim sensitivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 439. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00439. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 133e168). New York: Guilford Press. Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424e453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540e550. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/ab.20154. Lang, F. R., Reschke, F. S., & Neyer, F. J. (2006). Social relationships, transitions, and personality development across the life span. In D. K. Mroczek, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 445e466). Mahwah, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., & Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(1), 107e123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-843X.111.1.107. Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg, & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 43e76). New York: Academic Press. Malti, T., & Buchmann, M. (2010). Socialization and individual antecedents of adolescents' and young adults' moral motivation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 138e149, 0.1007/s10964-009-9400-5. Menesini, E., Sanchez, V., Fonzi, A., Ortega, R., Costabile, A., & Feudo, G. L. (2003). Moral emotions and bullying: a cross-national comparison of differences between bullies, victims, and outsiders. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 515e530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.10060. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246. €ller, I., & Krahe , B. (2009). Exposure to violent video games and aggression in German adolescents: a longitudinal analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), Mo 75e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20290. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing. Principles and applications (6th ed.). New York City, NY: Pearson. n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthe n & Muthe n. Muthe Nunner-Winkler, G., Meyer-Nikele, M., & Wohlrab, D. (2007). Gender differences in moral motivation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 26e52. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1353/mpq.2007.0003. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire for students. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.
72
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583e590. Rothmund, T., Baumert, A., & Zinkernagel, A. (2014). The German “Wutbürger” e how justice sensitivity accounts for individual differences in political engagement. Social Justice Research, 27(1), 24e44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0202-x. Rothmund, T., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Klimmt, C. (2015). Short- and long-term effects of video game violence on interpersonal trust. Media Psychology, 18(1), 106e133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.841526. Rothmund, T., Gollwitzer, M., & Klimmt, C. (2011). Of virtual victims and victimized virtues: differential effects of experienced aggression in video games on social cooperation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 107e119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210391103. Rothmund, T., M€ annel, K., & Altzschner, R. (2012). Justice for me or justice for all of us? the motivational underpinnings of justice sensitivity. In Presentation at the 14th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Justice Research (ISJR) in Tel Aviv, 09.-12. September 2012. €sser, T.. Justice Concerns can feed Nationalistic Concerns and impede Solidarity in the Euro Crisis e How Victim Rothmund, T., Stavrova, O., Klein, S., & Schlo Sensitivity translates into Political Attitudes. (under review). Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodnessof-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23e74. Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The justice sensitivity inventory: factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23, 211e238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0115-2. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Baumert, A., Blum, G., Geschwendner, T., Hofmann, W., & Rothmund, T. (2013). Proposal of a nonlinear interaction of person and situation (NIPS) model. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 499. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00499. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202e211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.3.202. Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research, 4, 385e407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02334713. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317e342. Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hutteman, R., Kandler, C., et al. (2014). What drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28, 216e230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1966. Todorov, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2002). Automatic sources of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 53e68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(00) 00036-7. €sel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? a systematic review and Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lo meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, 3, 63e73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17596591111132873. Wijn, R., & Van den Bos, K. (2010). Toward a better understanding of the justice judgement process: the influence of fair and unfair events on state justice sensitivity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1294e1301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.709.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
Mutual long-term effects of school bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in adolescents Rebecca Bondü a, *, Tobias Rothmund b, Mario Gollwitzer c a
Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany c Department of Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online xxx
In the present study, we investigate long-term relations between experiences of aggression at school and the development of justice sensitivity as a personality disposition in adolescents. We assessed justice sensitivity (from the victim, observer, and perpetrator perspective), bullying, and victimization among 565 German 12- to 18-year-olds in a oneyear longitudinal study with two measurement points. Latent path analyses revealed gender differences in long-term effects of bullying and victimization on observer sensitivity and victim sensitivity. Experiences of victimization at T1 predicted an increase in victim sensitivity among girls and a decrease in victim sensitivity among boys. Bullying behavior at T1 predicted an increase in victim sensitivity among boys and a decrease in observer sensitivity among girls. We did not find long-term effects of justice sensitivity on bullying and victimization. Our findings indicate that experiences of bullying and victimization have gender-specific influences on the development of moral personality dispositions in adolescents. © 2016 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Justice sensitivity Bullying Victimization Adolescence Personality development
Aggression in school is a serious problem, particularly if it occurs repeatedlydas in bullying. Bullying is defined as intentional, repeated aggressive acts against victims who cannot easily defend themselves (Olweus, 1993). Both bullying behavior and victimization from bullying have been linked to impaired well-being and mental health problems (Rigby, 2003). Little, however, is known about the potential long-term effects of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence on the development of moral personality dispositions, such as the dispositional sensitivity to injustice, or “justice sensitivity.” Justice sensitivity is a personality disposition that captures individual differences in the frequency and intensity of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to perceived injustice (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005; Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995). It has been related to a number of pro- and anti, 2015; Gollwitzer, Schmitt, Schalke, Maes, social behaviors in experimental and in cross-sectional studies (e.g., Bondü & Krahe & Baer, 2005), but we do not know how justice sensitivity impacts the likelihood of being a bully or being victimized by bullies in the long run. In addition, there are no empirical studies about how bullying or experiences of victimizationdthat often carry aspects of injusticedmay affect the development of justice sensitivity over time.
* Corresponding author. University of Potsdam, Department of Psychology, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Bondü). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.007 0140-1971/© 2016 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
63
The present study, therefore, examined the mutual effects of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in a sample of German children and adolescents in a one-year longitudinal study with two points of measurement. It extends the present knowledge on the link between antisocial behavior and justice sensitivity by considering repeated forms of aggression such as bullying, by taking into account victimization, and by employing longitudinal data. Bullying and victimization Bullying and victimization are frequent phenomena among children and adolescents. A study including more than 200,000 students at the ages of 11e15 years from 40 Western countries revealed that 12.6% could be identified as perpetrators of bullying (“bullies”), 10.7% as victims of bullying, and 3.6% as both bullies and victims (Craig et al., 2009). This is alarming because bullying and victimization are severe risk factors for a variety of adverse short- and long-term outcomes: Bullying has been linked to antisocial behavior, low prosocial behavior, school failure, or substance abuse, whereas victimization predicts psychosomatic complaints, school absenteeism, low self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness (Rigby, 2003), and the development of €sel, & Loeber, 2011). depressive symptoms (Ttofi, Farrington, Lo Despite abundant research on the consequences of bullying and victimization, research in this area has mainly used personality dispositions to predict who is vulnerable and who is prone to bullying and victimization (Book, Volk, & Hosker, 2012). For instance, De Bolle and Tackett (2013) showed that bullying and victimization in children with a mean age of about 11 years were predicted by an “undercontrolled” personality profile consisting of high Extraversion and Imagination (close to Openness in adults), high Conscientiousness and Benevolence (close to Agreeableness in adults) and moderate emotional stability (i.e., Neuroticism) as well as by a “mixed” personality profile consisting of low scores on all “Big Five” traits. The present study also takes into consideration the opposite view: it investigates how bullying and victimization experiences can shape the development of personality dispositionsdspecifically, justice sensitivity e as well. Justice sensitivity as a multidimensional personality disposition Individuals differ in how easily they perceive injustice and how strongly they react to perceived injustice (Major & Deaux, 1982; Schmitt et al., 1995). Schmitt et al. (2005, 2010) developed the Justice Sensitivity Inventory to assess individual differences in justice sensitivity from different perspectives: those of a victim (victim sensitivity, e.g., “It bothers me when others receive something that ought to be mine”), an observer (observer sensitivity, e.g., “It bothers me when someone gets something they don't deserve”), and a perpetrator (perpetrator sensitivity, e.g., “It gets me down when I take something from someone else that I don't deserve”).1 Highly victim-sensitive individuals experience anger and moral outrage when they feel that others (could) behave unfairly towards them or (might) exploit them. Highly observer-sensitive individuals tend to feel indignant and may retaliate against the perpetrator and/or compensate the victim when witnessing injustice; highly perpetrator-sensitive individuals tend to feel guilty, to compensate the victim, or to punish themselves when theydwillfully or notdtreated others unfairly (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010). Justice sensitivity has been shown to constitute a narrow, but discrete personality trait that cannot sufficiently be explained by broader personality traits or combinations of these traits (Schmitt et al., 2010). It has also been distinguished from similar traits, such as rejection sensitivity (e.g., Bondü & Elsner 2015; Bondü & Richter, 2015), or other traits associated with aggressive behavior, such as trait anger or a dispositional hostile attribution bias (Bondü & Richter, under review). Observer and perpetrator sensitivity have been shown to predict moral, prosocial, and cooperative behaviors in both realworld situations and economic games in adult samples (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2009; Gollwitzer et al., 2005; Rothmund, Baumert, & Zinkernagel, 2014). In studies with children and adolescents, perpetrator sensitivity negatively predicted self-reported aggression, teacher-rated aggression, and conduct problems and positively predicted prosocial behavior, whereas observer sensitivity negatively predicted teacher-rated aggression only (Bondü & , 2015). Elsner, 2015; Bondü & Esser, 2015; Bondü & Krahe Given these effects, one could assume that observer- and perpetrator-sensitive individuals have higher moral concerns for justice (Schmitt et al., 2005), more social competencies, such as empathy, and higher moral reasoning (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). € sser, & Klein, under review; Rothmund, Ma €nnel, & Empirical results support this assumption (Rothmund, Stavrova, Schlo Altzschner, 2012; Schmitt et al., 2005). High social and moral competencies prevent individuals from behaving aggressively (e.g., Joliffe & Farrington, 2006) anddbecause aggressive behavior is associated with victimization by peers (Card & Little, 2006)dalso from being victimized. Prosocial behavior and moral emotions associated with observer and perpetrator sensitivity should, therefore, prevent peer problems and protect children from both becoming victimizers or being victimized (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). Victim sensitivity, on the other hand, has been shown to predict antisocial and uncooperative behavior in socially uncertain situations (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Pfeiffer, & Ensenbach, 2009; Rothmund, Gollwitzer, & Klimmt, 2011; Rothmund, Gollwitzer, Bender, & Klimmt, 2015) as well as forms and functions of aggression in adults (Bondü , 2015). The negative effects of victim sensitivity have been & Richter, 2015) and in children and adolescents (Bondü & Krahe
1 There is a fourth justice sensitivity perspective, the “beneficiary” who profits from injustice without causing it. We did, however, not examine beneficiary justice sensitivity and therefore do not go into more detail here.
64
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
explained by the Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMI) model stating that people high in victim sensitivity are sensitive to cues of meanness and untrustworthiness (Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2009; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, & Süssenbach, 2013). People who score high on victim sensitivity tend to worry that their own investments may be exploited by others and, thus, are generally less willing to act in favor of others (e.g., Gollwitzer et al., 2009; Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2011; Rothmund et al., 2011, 2015). Victim sensitivity, however, not only predicted reactive, but also proactive aggression in different age groups (Bondü & , 2015; Bondü & Richter, 2015) and has therefore been suggested to work in a similar fashion as a dispositional hosKrahe tile attribution bias: Children high in victim sensitivity are more likely to ascribe malevolent intentions to others and to , 2015). Recently, Gollwitzer, Süssenbach, and Hannuschke (2015) aggress in order to avoid being victimized (Bondü & Krahe speculated that the relation between victim sensitivity and victimization experiences in childhood and adolescence can be understood as a vicious cycle: victimization experiences increase an individual's victim sensitivity towards such events. At the same time, victim-sensitive individuals are so strongly motivated to avoid victimization that they appear awkward and hostile to others e in the long run, their “pre-emptive” hostility increases others' hostility towards them, and, thus, creates a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding their latent fear of being victimized. Similarly, Bondü and Elsner (2015) assumed that frequent anger and negative behaviors associated with victim sensitivity impair peer relationships and predispose children to victimize and be victimized by others. Potential influences of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity So far, research has merely considered justice sensitivity as a potential risk or protective factor for antisocial and aggressive behavior, but there are reasons to expect influences of bullying and victimization on the development of justice sensitivity during adolescence as well. Although justice sensitivity is considered a personality trait (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010), there is evidence for plasticity, especially during childhood and adolescence: Among adults, stability rates ranged between .60 and .63 over a two-year interval for the 10-item Justice Sensitivity Inventory (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010) and between .43 and .54 over a six-week interval for the two-item version (Baumert et al., 2014). In children and adolescents, stability rates ranged between .45 and .51 over a 1- to 2-year interval for the five-item version (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). Thus, there is considerable fluctuation over time and across different situations in justice sensitivity during adolescence. For example, victim sensitivity in particular increased in 10- to 17-year-olds in a cross-sectional study (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). There is reason to assume that changes in justice sensitivity are especially likely to occur as a response to socialization processes and critical life events. So far however, the effects of justice-related experiences on justice sensitivity have only been shown in lab experiments (Wijn & Van den Bos, 2010), but not in longitudinal field studies. How can justice-related experiences such as bullying and victimization by peers influence justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence? In recent years, a social-cognitive approach to personality has been fruitful in identifying mechanisms that link changes in personality dispositions to social experiences and cognitive structures (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Baumert & Schmitt, 2012). A central assumption of this approach is that the frequent activation of knowledge structures by means of social experiences can foster the long-term change of these structures and, thus, promote change in personality traits (Higgins, 1996; Todorov & Bargh, 2002). There is evidence for this assumption in regard to some traits, such as trait aggression € ller & Krahe , 2009) and trait anxiety (e.g., MacLeod, Rutherford, Campbell, Ebsworthy, & Holker, 2002). Additionally, (e.g., Mo there is some evidence that social-cognitive processes are important components in justice sensitivity (for an overview see Baumert & Schmitt, 2012). How could bullying and victimization experiences feed into the development of justice sensitivity during adolescence? Bullying behavior can be expected to increase victim sensitivity and to decrease observer and perpetrator sensitivity. First, the perpetration of bullying might lead to higher victim sensitivity in the long run because perpetrators are often rejected or victimized in response to their own behavior. This reaction to bullying might trigger experiences of perceived injustice by the initial perpetrators from the victim perspective and, thus, foster the development of victim sensitivity. Second, the perpetration of bullying might lead to a decrease in observer and perpetrator sensitivity. Bullies might experience cognitive dissonance, resulting from a discrepancy between their moral standards (e.g., expressed in high observer sensitivity) and their negative behavior. This discrepancy could be reduced by lowering their general moral and justice standards in order to avoid feelings of dissonance. Regarding the effect of victimization on justice sensitivity, deriving clear hypotheses is more difficult. On the one hand, Rothmund et al. (2015) have argued that repeated victimization experiences may lead to desensitization against injustice due to habituation effects. According to this reasoning, victimization experiences should lead to a decrease in victim sensitivity over time. On the other hand, experiences of victimization and injustice may make individuals even more sensitive and , 2015; Gollwitzer et al., 2015). This may lead to an vigilant towards injustice and foster sensitization effects (Bondü & Krahe increase in victim sensitivity over time. Gender differences Regarding the variables in our study, there are some gender differences that require consideration. Generally, boys bully more often than girls, but girls are more often victimized by bullying than boys (Craig et al., 2009). At the same time, it is often assumed that females put special emphasis on positive social relationships, whereas males have a stronger focus on aspects of
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
65
power (Nunner-Winkler, Meyer-Nikele, & Wohlrab, 2007). Thus, girls should suffer more severely from and show stronger reactions towards victimization from bullying than boys. We assume that because girls suffer more severely from victimization, they should be less able to cope with these experiences and show more sensitization towards these cues, resulting in higher victim sensitivity in the long run. By contrast, if boys do not suffer from victimization to a similar extent, they should better be able to cope with these negative experiences and to adapt to them, resulting in habituation and lower victim sensitivity in the long run. We did not, however, expect gender differences in the influence of justice sensitivity on later victimization. In previous research, women and girls consistently reported higher observer and perpetrator sensitivity than men and boys (Bondü & Elsner, 2015; Schmitt et al., 2010). Gender differences in victim sensitivity are less consistent: Some studies point to higher victim sensitivity in men (e.g., Schmitt et al., 2010), others to higher victim sensitivity in women (e.g., Bondü & Richter, 2015), or to no gender differences in children and adolescents (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). There was little indication that gender moderates the effects of justice sensitivity on forms and functions of aggression in children and adolescents (Bondü & , 2015). In an adult sample, however, perpetrator sensitivity was consistently negatively linked to forms and functions of Krahe aggression in males and females, whereas particularly in males, observer sensitivity was positively related to some forms and functions of aggression. In contrast, among women, victim sensitivity was closely associated with forms and functions of aggression (Bondü & Richter, 2015). Thus, it has been argued that women and men may differ in their coping and emotion regulation strategies to handle injustice (Bondü & Richter, 2015). Hence the moderating role of gender in the justice sensitivity-aggression link is not entirely clear. In line with previous research in this age range, however, we did not expect gender to moderate the effect of justice sensitivity on bullying in our adolescent sample. The present study The present study sought to extend our knowledge on the long-term links between experiences of aggression and the development of moral personality dispositions. We investigated bullying as well as victimization from bullying in adolescents. The design of our study with two points of measurement (time lag of one year) allowed us to examine the mutual longterm effects of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity. (1) Based on the notion that victim-sensitive individuals are more likely to behave aggressively and because aggression has been linked to peer victimization, we hypothesized that Time 1 (henceforth T1) victim sensitivity positively predicts Time 2 (henceforth T2) (a) bullying and (b) victimization. (2) Based on the notion that observer- and perpetrator-sensitive individuals are less likely to aggress against others and behave more empathically and pro-socially, we hypothesized that T1 observer and perpetrator sensitivity negatively predicts T2 (a) bullying and (b) victimization. We expected Hypotheses (1) and (2) to apply to both boys and girls. Extending previous research, our design also allows us to test the effects of bullying and victimization from bullying on the development of justice sensitivity. (3) Concerning the potential effects of bullying, we expected an increase in victim and a decrease in observer and perpetrator sensitivity after the perpetration of bullying. (4) Concerning the potential effects of victimization on victim sensitivity, we expected girls to show an increase in victim sensitivity after victimization and boys to show a decrease in victim sensitivity after victimization.
Method Sample Seven-hundred and fifty-six German students (47% boys, 41% girls, 12% did not indicate their gender) participated in this study2 at T1. At T1, the mean age was 14.08 years (SD ¼ 1.07, range: 12e18 years). All participants attended 7th, 8th, or 9th grade of one of three types of German mainstream secondary schools (i.e., in terms of increasing educational status: Hauptschule, 22.6%; Realschule, 34.0%; Gymnasium, 43.4%). Twelve months later, 574 students were recruited for a second measurement (T2). Attrition rate (25%) was high for various reasons, including incomplete codes for data matching, school absence on the days of second measurement, and changes in class compositions within that year. We excluded nine additional participants with exceptional response patterns (e.g., marked the first response option on all items). The final sample included 565 children with ages varying between 12 and 18 years (M ¼ 14.20; SD ¼ 1.13) at T1. Among those reporting gender, it was almost equally distributed (50.4% female). Concerning the students' socio-economic background, 25.3% of the mothers and
2
The same dataset has previously been analyzed by Rothmund et al. (2015).
66
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
28.7% of the fathers had no or low level of qualification, 47.4% of mothers and 34.0% of fathers had vocational qualifications, 19.3% of mothers and 21.7% of fathers had university entrance qualifications, and 8.1% of mothers and 15.6% of fathers held a university degree. Measures Justice sensitivity Justice sensitivity was measured with a short version of the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010). Five congruently worded items per scale addressed the victim (e.g., “It makes me angry when I am treated worse than others”), the observer (e.g., “I am upset when someone is treated worse than others”), and the perpetrator perspective (e.g., “I feel guilty when I treat someone worse than others”). Response options ranged from (0) totally disagree to (4) totally agree. Bullying and victimization We assessed bullying and victimization with a German short version of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ, Olweus, 1996). The original questionnaire contains 36 main questions on various forms of bullying and victimization. We selected and translated 12 items measuring bullying behavior and 10 items measuring victimization experiences in order to cover different forms of bullying, such as verbal bullying/victimization (e.g., derogatory comments or bad-mouthing), relational bullying/victimization (e.g., social exclusion or isolation), physical bullying/victimization (e.g., hitting or kicking), bullying/victimization by taking or damaging things, and bullying/victimization by threatening or being forced to do things. Response options ranged from (0) never to (4) daily. Procedure All measures were part of a larger questionnaire that was administered during regular school hours. The study was introduced as investigating adolescents' media habits. Informed consent was obtained from students, parents, local school authorities, the county's school authorities, and the county's commissioner of data protection. Following the completion of measures at T2, students and teachers were informed about different research questions that were addressed by the survey. In addition, all students, schools, and parents received a written report about the study results. Results Descriptive statistics Table 1 shows internal consistencies, means, and standard deviations of all measures for the total sample and separately for boys and girls. All scales showed good or very good internal consistencies. A MANCOVA with all T1 and T2 measures as dependent variables, gender as the independent variable, and age as covariate revealed a significant multivariate gender effect, F(10,470) ¼ 4.47, p < .001, h2 ¼ .087 (N ¼ 481, 233 boys, 249 girls; see Table 1). On the univariate level, girls scored significantly higher on observer and perpetrator sensitivity, and boys scored significantly higher on bullying at T1 and T2, respectively. There were no significant mean changes between corresponding T1 and T2 measures except for a significant decrease in victimization in the total sample (t(542) ¼ 2.96, p ¼ .003) and in boys (t(254) ¼ 3.06, p ¼ .002; see Table 1). Table 2 shows bivariate zero-order correlations between justice sensitivity subscales, bullying, and victimization. All justice sensitivity subscales were positively correlated with each other, as were bullying and victimization. Victim sensitivity was positively related to T1 and T2 victimization, but not to bullying; observer sensitivity was negatively related to T1 and T2 bullying and positively to T1 victimization; perpetrator sensitivity was negatively related to T1 and T2 bullying, but not to victimization. Age was positively related to T1 bullying and to T1 and T2 victimization.
Table 1 Scale internal consistencies, mean values, and standard deviations for the total sample and separately for boys and girls. Scale
range
a
Total M (SD)
Boys M (SD)
Girls M (SD)
Victim sensitivity T1 Observer sensitivity T1*** Perpetrator sensitivity T1*** Bullying T1* Victimization T1 Victim sensitivity T2 Observer sensitivity T2*** Perpetrator sensitivity T2*** Bullying T2*** Victimization T2
0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4 0e4
.79 .87 .86 .91 .89 .81 .88 .87 .89 .87
2.15 2.19 2.46 0.62 0.51 2.23 2.26 2.44 0.65 0.42
2.10 1.96 2.27 0.69 0.54 2.11 2.08 2.23 0.77 0.40
2.18 2.37 2.64 0.55 0.45 2.30 2.43 2.62 0.54 0.41
(0.97) (1.04) (1.07) (0.69) (0.65) (0.95) (1.01) (1.04) (0.67) (0.56)
(0.97) (1.02) (1.05) (0.77) (0.72) (0.98) (1.00) (1.07) (0.73) (0.57)
Note: Significant gender differences: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; minimum N ¼ 545; MANOVA: N ¼ 482, 233 boys, 249 girls.
(0.96) (1.02) (1.05) (3.43) (0.60) (0.57) (0.98) (1.00) (0.54) (0.51)
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
67
Table 2 Bivariate zero-order correlations of the T1 and T2 justice sensitivity scales, bullying, victimization, and age.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
JS-Victim T1 JS-Observer T1 JS-Perpetrator T1 Bullying T1 Victimization T1 JS-Victim T2 JS-Observer T2 JS-Perpetrator T2 Bullying T2 Victimization T2 Age T1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.35*** e
.21*** .51*** e
.04 .17*** .28*** e
.22*** .12** .04 .23*** e
.44*** .20*** .13** .12** .13** e
.14*** .41*** .34*** .16*** .07 .31*** e
.02 .31*** .42*** .24*** .05 .17*** .53*** e
.01 .16*** .23*** .41*** .05 .01 .20*** .34*** e
.12** .03 .01 .06 .49*** .14*** .08 .01 .20*** e
.07 .02 .02 .09* .09* .01 .03 .01 .01 .13** e
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity We examined the long-term effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity using structural equation modeling for cross-lagged designs (Finkel, 1995). Missing values were replaced via 10-times multiple imputation using Mplus 7 n & Muthe n, 1998e2012). We used the MLR estimator to account for non-normally distributed data. Latent factors of (Muthe justice sensitivity were indicated by test-halves (the first three items of the scales forming the first test-half, the last two items forming the second test-half, respectively; Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). An additional methods factor with loadings of all 6 second test-halves (see Fig. 1) accounted for similar wordings between the justice sensitivity subscales. Latent factors of bullying and victimization were indicated by test-thirds (first four items of the scales forming the first test-third, the second four [bullying] or three [victimization] items forming the second test-third, and the last four [bullying] or three [victimization] items forming the last test-third). Factor loadings of accordant indicators and item intercepts were constrained to be equal for T1 and T2, assuming strong factorial invariance between the two points of measurement.3 We were able to replicate the intended factor structure of our measures via a single confirmatory factor analyses including all dependent and independent measures with correlated latent factors (c2 ¼ 388.890, df ¼ 201, p < .001, RMSEA ¼ .041, CFI ¼ .963, SRMR ¼ .035). All indicators showed significant loadings on their latent factors. Correlations between corresponding T1 and T2 indicators of latent factors were allowed and estimated (except for justice sensitivity indicators already covered by the methods factor). All T1 latent factors were allowed to correlate with each other. Error terms of T2 justice sensitivity factors as well as of T2 bullying and victimization factors were allowed to correlate with each other. In all following structural equation models, age was included as a covariate. The cross-lagged model for the total sample (Fig. 1) showed significant auto-regressions of all T2 factors on the corresponding T1 factors, indicating substantial stability of bullying, victimization, and justice-sensitivity perspectives over time. In addition, higher observer sensitivity at T1 predicted higher perpetrator sensitivity at T2, indicating that the concern for others as a passive witness at T1 increased the concern for unjustly treating others at T2. Finally and partially in line with Hypothesis (3), T1 bullying positively predicted T2 victim sensitivity, indicating that participants who had bullied others at T1 perceived injustice to their own disadvantage more frequently and intensely and emphasized egoistic concerns more strongly at T2 (c2 ¼ 459.805, df ¼ 226, p < .001, RMSEA ¼ .043, CFI ¼ .955, SRMR ¼ .041, N ¼ 565). Victimization at T1 did not affect justice sensitivity over time and contrasting Hypotheses (1) and (2), the justice sensitivity dimensions at T1 did not have any long-term effects on bullying or victimization. To analyze gender differences, we computed a multi-group cross-lagged model. The model showed an acceptable fit with the data (c2 ¼ 871.118, df ¼ 464, p < .001, RMSEA ¼ .056, CFI ¼ .926, SRMR ¼ .057, N ¼ 565; Fig. 2). In both girls and boys, all T1 factors significantly predicted the corresponding T2 factors. In girls, T1 bullying predicted a decrease in T2 observer sensitivity, suggesting that bullying reduces moral concerns for justice as an observer among girls. This is partially in line with Hypothesis (3). Second and in line with Hypothesis (4), T1 victimization predicted an increase in T2 victim sensitivity, indicating that experiences of victimization lead to higher sensitivity to one's own disadvantages in girls over time. Finally, T1 observer sensitivity predicted an increase in T2 perpetrator sensitivity in girls. In boys, T1 perpetrator sensitivity and T1 bullying predicted an increase in T2 victim sensitivity, indicating that boys who were sensitive to disadvantages of others and who had shown more bullying at T1 became more sensitive to injustice to their own disadvantage at T2 (partially in line with Hypothesis (3)). In addition, also in line with Hypothesis (4) victimization at T1 predicted a decrease in victim sensitivity at T2, indicating that experiences of victimization lowered boys' sensitivity to their own disadvantages over time.
3 We assumed strong measurement invariance because comparisons with cut-off criteria for absolute fit indices indicated a good model fit (CFI .95, RMSEA .08, SRMR .05; Hu & Bentler, 1998; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003) and because there were no decreases in the CFI larger than .01 in the models assuming strong measurement invariance as compared to the models assuming weak measurement invariance (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).
68
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
Fig. 1. Cross-lagged regression analyses with bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity (controlled for age; all T1 measures allowed to correlate). Only significant pathways shown (standardized path coefficients).
Discussion The present study examined the mutual long-term effects of bullying, victimization from bullying, and justice sensitivity in a sample of German children and adolescents. Our study yielded first evidence that bullying and victimization affect justice sensitivity and impact the long-term development of justice-related personality dispositions in the total sample as well as in boys and in girls. These findings support the notion that critical life events as well as behavior may shape justice sensitivity and, therefore, have important implications for the understanding of this personality disposition (Gollwitzer et al., 2015). They provide information about factors that may alter perceptions of and reactions to injustice long-term and explain some of its plasticity. Mutual long-term effects of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity Whereas there is abundant evidence for the adverse effects of bullying and victimization on emotions and behavior, there is only little knowledge about their effects on personality dispositions. In our study, we found preliminary evidence that bullying and experiencing victimization from bullying can shape the development of justice sensitivity in adolescence. This evidence may help explain negative long-term effects of bullying and victimization on mental health and emotional well-
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
69
Fig. 2. Multi-group cross-lagged model with bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity subscales separated by gender (controlled for age). Only significant pathways displayed except for pathways between corresponding T1 and T2 measures. Dotted line: significant standardized path coefficients for boys, strokepoint line: significant standardized path coefficients for girls. Measurement model as in Fig. 1. Only significant pathways displayed, except for significant autoregressive pathways.
being. For example, higher justice sensitivity in general has been linked to emotional problems in children and adolescents (Bondü & Elsner, 2015) and especially victim sensitivity has been related to aggressive and antisocial behavior in different age , 2015; Gollwitzer et al., 2005). Accordingly, victim sensitivity was most closely groups (Bondü & Esser, 2015; Bondü & Krahe related to bullying and victimization in the latent analyses controlling for the conjoint influences of victim, observer, and perpetrator sensitivity as well as for age. More broadly, our study also contributes to recent theoretical and empirical work in the area of personality development (see Specht et al., 2014 for a review). This research investigates how personality changes and stabilizes as a function of internal (e.g., information processing) and external (e.g., social experiences) factors (e.g, Lang, Reschke, & Neyer, 2006). Victimization experiences represent such a class of external factors. Previous theorizing (Gollwitzer et al., 2015) suggested that victimization may increase victim sensitivity over time. Our findings indicate that this is only the case for girls, but not for boys (see below). Our findings show that bullying increases victim sensitivity among boys, which is in line with the notion that bullies may fear or actually experience revenge and injustice to their own disadvantage in response to their initial perpetration of bullying.
70
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
Whereas both bullying and victimization showed long-term influences on victim and observer justice sensitivity, we did not find evidence for the opposite influences of justice sensitivity on bullying or on victimization. Why is that the case? One explanation could be that once the stabilities of bullying and victimization are controlled for, justice sensitivity no longer predicts these types of behavior. Instead, other personality traits such as trait anger or the hostile attribution biasdwhich are arguably more strongly conceptually related to bullying and victimization than justice sensitivitydmay be more powerful to predict bullying and victimization (Bondü & Richter, under review) even above and beyond the stability of bullying and victimization. Another potential explanation for this finding can be drawn from an interactionist perspective on personality (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Schmitt et al., 2013). In line with this reasoning, the effects of personality dispositions on behavioral tendencies do not reflect simple main effects but rather result from the interaction with situational cues (e.g., provocation). There is some evidence that long-term effects of justice sensitivity follow such interactionist patterns (Rothmund et al., 2015). Effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity among boys and girls First, boys and girls differed in how their personal experiences of victimization from bullying affected their victim sensitivity. Experiences of victimization predicted an increase in victim sensitivity in girls, but a decrease in victim sensitivity in boys. This finding could indicate that boys tend to cope differently with experiences of victimization than girls. First, boys may be less willing to admit negative feelings and reactions associated with becoming a victim, because this may signal a lack of strength and competence, which is incompatible with male gender self-concepts (e.g., Bem, 1981). Boys might even tend to excuse the bullying behavior, presumably to sustain a sense of self-esteem by viewing aggression as normative and, thus, desensitizing towards experiences of victimization. This effect may even help explain why male victims of bullying in particular often remain in this position for a long time (e.g., Camodeca, Goossens, Meerum Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002). By contrast, girls may be more willing to admit feelings of victimization than boys because the role of a victim may be more easily compatible with the gender self-concept of girls. Experiences of victimization may also lead to higher stress in girls (e.g., because girls generally ascribe higher value to social relationships than boys; Nunner-Winkler et al., 2007), resulting in a higher sensitivity or sensitization towards future injustice to their own disadvantage. Boys and girls also differed in the effects that their own bullying behavior had on the development of justice sensitivity. Bullying behavior lead to an increase in victim sensitivity in boys and to a decrease in observer sensitivity in girls. Both pathways are psychologically plausible. For example, victim sensitivity may increase in bullies because bullies are more likely to be labeled as troublemakers by their teachers and peers (e.g., Lemert, 1951), and such labeling may be perceived as unfair. Also, bullies may be more sensitive to victimization because they may fear their victims' retaliation (Menesini et al., 2003). These effects might be more relevant in boys than in girls: First, sanctions against female bullies in schools have been reported to be less strict than those against male bullies (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Second, aggressive behavior by boys takes on more open forms and is, therefore, more likely to be detected than aggressive behaviors by girls (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008). Bullying may also lower one's standards of benign social conduct and, thus, decrease one's observer sensitivity over time. Lowering one's moral standards may be another attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance that bullying behavior may cause. The dissonance between one's own negative behavior and moral concerns for others such as in observer sensitivity may be more pronounced among girls than among boys because girls tend to show higher levels of empathy and moral motivation than boys (e.g., Malti & Buchmann, 2010; Nunner-Winkler et al., 2007). Thus, boys and girls apparently differ in how they respond to their own bullying behavior. Boys respond with an increase in the expectations of being victimized themselves, whereas girls rationalize their bullying behavior by lowering their moral standards. Limitations and outlook The present study examined the links of bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity. This is the first study to test the relation between justice sensitivity and bullying as well as victimization in a longitudinal fashion. Whereas prior studies have mainly focused on the effects of personality (e.g., justice sensitivity) on social behavior (e.g., pro- and antisocial tendencies), the present data allowed us to test both directions of the relation between personality and social behavior. By doing so, the results can advance our understanding of personality development during adolescence. For example, our results may help to explain some of the long-term negative consequences of bullying and victimization. Limitations of our study include the sole reliance on self-report data and the fact that we did not include any other trait factors that might have influenced bullying and victimization in our analyses. Finally, the processes that may explain changes in justice sensitivity after experiences of bullying and victimization are not yet well understood because we did not examine any mediating factors. Despite these limitations, the present study provided evidence for the long-term effects of bullying and victimization on justice sensitivity (Gollwitzer et al., 2015). Future studies may examine how these influences on personality add to explanation of other consequences of bullying and victimization, such as emotional problems. In addition, the processes likely to influence the links between bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity such as desensitization, coping and emotion regulation strategies, changes in normative beliefs about aggression, fear of revenge, or feelings of anger provoked by subsequent unjustified suspicion require further examination.
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
71
Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. References Baumert, A., & Schmitt, M. (2012). Personality and information processing. European Journal of Personality, 26, 87e89. Baumert, A., Beierlein, C., Schmitt, M., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A., Liebig, S., & Rammstedt, B. (2014). Measuring four perspectives of justice sensitivity with two items each. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 380e390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.836526. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354e364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4. 354. Bondü, R., & Elsner, B. (2015). Justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 24, 420e441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12098. Bondü, R., & Esser, G. (2015). Justice and rejection sensitivity in children and adolescents with ADHD. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 185e198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0560-9. , B. (2015). Links of justice and rejection sensitivity with aggression in children and adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 353e368. http:// Bondü, R., & Krahe dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21556. Bondü, R., & Richter, P.. Interrelations of justice, rejection, provocation, and moral disgust sensitivity and their links with hostile attribution bias, trait anger, and aggression. (under review) Bondü, R., & Richter, P. (2015). Linking forms and functions of aggression in adults with justice and rejection sensitivity. Psychology of Violence. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0039200. Online first http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid¼3&sid¼5130b0f7-a779-442e-ac00-2ddbcc382196% 40sessionmgr4001&hid¼4101. Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: an adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 218e223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.028. Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332e345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00203. Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466e480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406071904. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185e1229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008. 01184.x. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233e255. Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., &, HBSC Bullying Writing Group. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216e224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9. De Bolle, M., & Tackett, J. L. (2013). Anchoring bullying and victimization in children within a five-factor model-based person-centered framework. European Journal of Personality, 27, 280e289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1901. Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justive sensitivity and distributive decisions in experimental designs. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1015e1029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00197-1. Finkel, S. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behavior: the sensitivity to mean intensions (SeMI) model. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 135e152). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2011). What exactly are victim-sensitive persons sensitive to? Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 448e455. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.05.003. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 999e1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.003. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., & Süssenbach, P. (2013). The Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMI) model: basic assumptions, recent findings, and potential avenues for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 415e426. Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18, 183e201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-7368-1. Gollwitzer, M., Süssenbach, P., & Hannuschke, M. (2015). Victimization experiences and the stabilization of victim sensitivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 439. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00439. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 133e168). New York: Guilford Press. Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424e453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540e550. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/ab.20154. Lang, F. R., Reschke, F. S., & Neyer, F. J. (2006). Social relationships, transitions, and personality development across the life span. In D. K. Mroczek, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 445e466). Mahwah, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., & Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(1), 107e123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-843X.111.1.107. Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg, & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 43e76). New York: Academic Press. Malti, T., & Buchmann, M. (2010). Socialization and individual antecedents of adolescents' and young adults' moral motivation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 138e149, 0.1007/s10964-009-9400-5. Menesini, E., Sanchez, V., Fonzi, A., Ortega, R., Costabile, A., & Feudo, G. L. (2003). Moral emotions and bullying: a cross-national comparison of differences between bullies, victims, and outsiders. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 515e530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.10060. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246. €ller, I., & Krahe , B. (2009). Exposure to violent video games and aggression in German adolescents: a longitudinal analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), Mo 75e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20290. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing. Principles and applications (6th ed.). New York City, NY: Pearson. n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthe n & Muthe n. Muthe Nunner-Winkler, G., Meyer-Nikele, M., & Wohlrab, D. (2007). Gender differences in moral motivation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 26e52. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1353/mpq.2007.0003. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire for students. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.
72
R. Bondü et al. / Journal of Adolescence 48 (2016) 62e72
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583e590. Rothmund, T., Baumert, A., & Zinkernagel, A. (2014). The German “Wutbürger” e how justice sensitivity accounts for individual differences in political engagement. Social Justice Research, 27(1), 24e44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0202-x. Rothmund, T., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Klimmt, C. (2015). Short- and long-term effects of video game violence on interpersonal trust. Media Psychology, 18(1), 106e133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.841526. Rothmund, T., Gollwitzer, M., & Klimmt, C. (2011). Of virtual victims and victimized virtues: differential effects of experienced aggression in video games on social cooperation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 107e119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210391103. Rothmund, T., M€ annel, K., & Altzschner, R. (2012). Justice for me or justice for all of us? the motivational underpinnings of justice sensitivity. In Presentation at the 14th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Justice Research (ISJR) in Tel Aviv, 09.-12. September 2012. €sser, T.. Justice Concerns can feed Nationalistic Concerns and impede Solidarity in the Euro Crisis e How Victim Rothmund, T., Stavrova, O., Klein, S., & Schlo Sensitivity translates into Political Attitudes. (under review). Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodnessof-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23e74. Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The justice sensitivity inventory: factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23, 211e238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0115-2. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Baumert, A., Blum, G., Geschwendner, T., Hofmann, W., & Rothmund, T. (2013). Proposal of a nonlinear interaction of person and situation (NIPS) model. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 499. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00499. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202e211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.3.202. Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research, 4, 385e407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02334713. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317e342. Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hutteman, R., Kandler, C., et al. (2014). What drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28, 216e230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1966. Todorov, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2002). Automatic sources of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 53e68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(00) 00036-7. €sel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? a systematic review and Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lo meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, 3, 63e73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17596591111132873. Wijn, R., & Van den Bos, K. (2010). Toward a better understanding of the justice judgement process: the influence of fair and unfair events on state justice sensitivity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1294e1301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.709.
