Longitudinal Associations Between Adolescents' Bullying‐Related Indirect Defending, Outsider Behavior, and Peer‐Group Status

During adolescence, youth become more likely to avoid involvement in witnessed bullying and less likely to support victims. It is unknown whether-and how-these bystander behaviors (i.e., outsider behavior and indirect defending) are associated with adolescents' peer-group status (i.e., popularity and social acceptance) over time. Cross-lagged path modeling was used to examine these longitudinal associations in a sample of 313 Dutch adolescents (Mage-T1 = 10.3 years). The results showed that status longitudinally predicted behavior, rather than that behavior predicted status. Specifically, unpopularity predicted outsider behavior and social acceptance predicted indirect defending. These findings suggest that a positive peer-group status can trigger adolescents' provictim stance. However, adolescents may also strategically avoid involvement in witnessed bullying to keep a low social profile

Longitudinal Associations Between Adolescents' Bullying-Related Indirect Defending, Outsider Behavior, and Peer-Group Status

During adolescence, youth become more likely to avoid involvement in witnessed bullying and less likely to support victims. It is unknown whether-and how-these bystander behaviors (i.e., outsider behavior and indirect defending) are associated with adolescents' peer-group status (i.e., popularity and social acceptance) over time. Cross-lagged path modeling was used to examine these longitudinal associations in a sample of 313 Dutch adolescents (Mage-T1 = 10.3 years). The results showed that status longitudinally predicted behavior, rather than that behavior predicted status. Specifically, unpopularity predicted outsider behavior and social acceptance predicted indirect defending. These findings suggest that a positive peer-group status can trigger adolescents' provictim stance. However, adolescents may also strategically avoid involvement in witnessed bullying to keep a low social profile

Differences between resource control types revisited:A short term longitudinal study

Hawley's influential resource control theory (RCT) posits that both coercive and prosocial strategies may yield social dominance, as indexed by resource control. Based on differences in youths’ relative use of these strategies, RCT a priori defines five distinct subtypes. Several studies by Hawley and colleagues have revealed substantial differences between subtypes in terms of obtained resource control and various social characteristics (e.g., agreeableness). The present longitudinal study (N = 394; Mage = 10.3; SD = 0.5) expands on previous work. Firstly, because several items used to assess strategies in RCT appear to confound strategy use with the resulting benefits (resource control), we disentangled between strategy use as such and obtained resource control. Secondly whereas previous work has been exclusively cross‐sectional, the present study was longitudinal. ANOVAs comparing subgroups provided support for some core tenets of RCT, but not for others. For instance, bistrategic children scored high on both resource control and perceived popularity. However, bistrategics engaged in elevated bullying, and whereas Hawley asserts that they are proficient in balancing ‘getting ahead’ with ‘getting along’, their behavior appeared to evoke clear negative reactions in the peer group at large. Findings also showed that non‐controllers did not experience more negative outcomes than their peers across all domains