Elizabeth Cañas
Estefania Estevez*- Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain
Numerous studies have analyzed the relationship between sociometric status and bullying but it is difficult to reach a consensus regarding this issue.
Objective: The present study carried out a systematic review on the sociometric status of adolescent bullies.
Design: The bibliographic search was carried out in the mainly databases.
Results: The findings of 29 studies selected defend three positions. First, bullying is associated with the popular status in their peer group. Second, rejected or unpopular adolescents tend to perpetrate bullying as a response to the frustration generated by their status. Finally, other group the perpetrators of bullying is among these two poles.
Conclusions: The students' sociometric status is necessary for designing bullying intervention programs at school.
Introduction
Adolescence is a period in which profound biological and social changes take place that have important implications for the development of young people. A large part of studies emphasizes the importance of the social changes typical of this stage, given the greater time dedicated to interactions with peers, especially at school (Shin, 2017; Muscatell et al., 2018). As children enter adolescence and begin to form more sophisticated social relationships and compare themselves socially, they become more susceptible to the opinions of others, and the need to “fit in” with the group increases (Veenstra and Laninga-Wijnen, 2022). Thus, at this stage, the position or status, referring to the degree of rejection or social acceptance that an adolescent receives from their peers, becomes a priority (Jiménez et al., 2008; Closson and Hymel, 2016), and is a key aspect for their socio-emotional adjustment (Hoffman et al., 2015).
Sociometry Status
One of the most widely used methodologies to assess the status that an individual presents to their peers is sociometry, which was developed by Moreno (1934). This theory was proposed to investigate, quantify, and qualify interpersonal relationships and social dynamics within the group (Zequinão et al., 2020). For this reason, sociometry is considered one of the most used methods to determine the integration of students in the classroom when evaluating the acceptance and rejection relationships between classmates based on a pre-established criterion (Bacete and Cillessen, 2017; Manring et al., 2018). That is, this methodology allows establishing an organization within the peer group based on the degree of liking and disliking of an adolescent within the peer group (Janošević and Petrović, 2019; Kulawiak and Wilbert, 2020; León-Moreno et al., 2021).
Studies using sociometric methods have identified several different types of profiles obtained from the combination of acceptance and rejection scores (Coie and Cillessen, 1993; Stotsky and Bowker, 2018): (1) Popular status reflects the degree to which the young adolescent is perceived by peers to be popular; (2) Preferred status reflects the degree to which the young adolescent is highly liked (and not disliked) and accepted by peers (Engels et al., 2017; Stotsky and Bowker, 2018). Even though these two profiles correlate with each other, during adolescence, they should be considered as two different concepts (Rubin et al., 2006). This is because, when social status is measured in the adolescent population, popularity refers to social dominance, power and visibility among their peers; and social preference (also known as “acceptance”) is considered an indicator of sympathy (Shin, 2017). However, both concepts are not always considered independently; (3) Rejected status, in contrast, classifies young people who are not like by most of their peers (Farmer et al., 2011); (4) Controversial status includes students who receive high levels of acceptance and rejection, that is, they generate liking for some, and disliking for others; (5) Ignored status identifies students who receive low nomination rates, both liked and disliked, by their peers; (6) Finally, average status is found in those young people who do not receive high scores either on the positive characteristics characteristic of preferred adolescents or on the negative characteristics that characterize rejected adolescents; that is, they do not seem to stand out, although they are more visible than ignored students (Rubin et al., 2009).
In this sense, sociometric status offers the opportunity to categorize social status as positive, for the popular and preferred profile, and negative, for the rejected and ignored profile (Cerezo, 2014; Mikhailova et al., 2018). In this way, status can also be considered an indicator of the reputation adolescents achieve within the peer group (Emler and Hopkins, 1990). According to the Reputation Enhancement Theory of Emler and Reicher (1995), at this stage of development, establishing, maintaining, and improving reputation is essential. Thus, for this purpose, adolescents choose a particular self-image with which to make this reputation public through visible actions in the peer group, which, in turn, becomes a key factor for the regulation of social behavior (Bartolomé and Díaz, 2020). Diverse research have shown that, for some adolescents, positive reputation and status is achieved through involvement in transgressive and violent behaviors in the classroom (Emler, 1990; Carroll, 1995; Emler and Reicher, 1995, 2005; Carroll et al., 1996, 1997, 1999; Cava and Musitu, 2002; Kerpelman and Smith-Adcock, 2005; Estévez et al., 2012; Sánchez et al., 2012). Among these behaviors, bullying is noted as a group problem in the literature (Sekol and Farrington, 2013; Garandeau and Lansu, 2019; Harrison et al., 2021) that is receiving increasing attention over the last decade in terms of prevalence and consequences (Williams et al., 2018). This behavior has been described as a form of violence between peers that is characterized by the repetition of harmful behavior over time, by the intention of hurting or causing suffering to another, and by the imbalance of power between those involved (Rocha et al., 2013; Graham, 2016; Menéndez and Fernández-Río, 2018).
Sociometric Status in Bullying Behavior
Therefore, non-normative behavior can be used by adolescents as a coercive strategy to establish and maintain higher positions in the social hierarchy, such as a dominant position (Malamut et al., 2020; Wright and Wachs, 2021) or leader in the group (Pronk et al., 2013; Herrera et al., 2019). Some studies on bullying in adolescents have shown that a significant percentage of bullies are considered popular by their peers (Guy et al., 2019; Hartl et al., 2020). Likewise, other studies indicate that popular adolescents may be particularly susceptible to engaging in bullying, as they believe they have sufficient support from their peers to implement this type of behavior (Duffy et al., 2017). Although the study of social position in the group process of bullying is a topic that arouses interest in the scientific literature, the findings available so far continue to be controversial, especially about the role of bully.
On the one hand, the results' controversy lies in the differences observed in terms of popularity and social preference in adolescence. Several studies reveal that popular adolescents who bully their peers sometimes obtain a lower social preference in the group compared to those not involved in bullying behavior (Vaillancourt et al., 2003; Caravita et al., 2009). In other words, although the bullies may be considered popular, this does not imply that they are necessarily accepted. In this sense, it is not surprising that diverse authors conclude that a significant percentage of bullying perpetrators have a controversial status within the peer group (Sentse et al., 2007, 2013). According to the literature, this status can be understood by the fact that bullies may arouse rejection in those who are the target of their bullying behaviors, but they may be admired by those who do not suffer this behavior. For some studies, the duality of status achieved by the perpetrators is not casual, as, in most cases, those involved in the bully role know from whom they can receive support, and from whom they cannot, who are the ones who become victims (Reijntjes et al., 2018). Therefore, bullies do not seek global acceptance from the classroom, but only from their reference group (Goossens et al., 2006), which reinforces the repetition of bullying (Huitsing and Veenstra, 2012; Reijntjes et al., 2018).
Although the study of sociometry in bullying provides important information about the relationship between bullying behavior and social interactions within the classroom, the studies available so far do not provide a clear picture of the bully's social position. As mentioned, general behavioral trends may not be appropriate to explain the differences in status between members of the peer group, as it may be the combination of bullying behaviors along with other factors that differentiate adolescents with a positive status from the rest of their classmates. Likewise, the fact that adolescents increasingly value reaching a position of liking in the group and consider bullying as an effective means to achieve it shows the need to deepen and understand the profile of those involved in this behavior to develop interventions aimed at preventing or reducing bullying. Therefore, the objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of studies focused on analyzing the sociometric status and/or social position of the adolescent aggressors of some type of bullying.
Methods
The review was prepared following the PRISMA guidelines, for which definitions have been adopted from the Cochrane Collaboration. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that the articles included are reviewed in their entirety in a clear and transparent manner. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram with the four phases recommended by the PRISMA guidelines, in which the inclusion/exclusion of each article is detailed.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. Exclusion criteria: Not bullies: studies not investigating bully role nor bullying in school; Not sociometric: studies not investigating social status through sociometric measures; Not adolescents: studies not involving adolescent pa1ticipants; Type article: non-quantitative studies or scientific articles; Language: study not written in English or Spanish.
Search Strategy
A systematic search of materials published in the last 20 years (from 2001 to the present) was performed by consulting the following electronic databases: PsychInfo, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. The search strategy was developed for each database using the combination of the terms such as bully*, perpetrat*, sociometric, peer status, popular*, reject*, prefer*, neglect*, controversial, and school. The search terms were used in combination with each other to narrow the search results.
Initially, duplicates were removed from the total number of identified records. Abstracts from the remaining references were screened to retrieve full-text manuscripts. Finally, studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected for assessment.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The search was limited according to the following inclusion criteria:
(1) Studies about bullying.
(2) Studies whose aims (at least one) were to analyze the social status or social position of bullies or perpetrators of bullying at school.
(3) Studies in which the participants were (pre)adolescents (from 9 to 18 years) enrolled in middle and high school or secondary education study centers.
(4) Quantitative and qualitative studies or scientific articles in which the design was cross-sectional or longitudinal.
(5) Articles in Spanish or English, due to difficulties in translating articles in other languages.
The exclusion criteria contemplated in the search were:
(1) Studies investigating other bullying roles or other aggression types.
(2) Studies investigating the social status or social position not linked to bullying or the role of bully.
(3) Studies involving infant or adult participants, as well as students in primary or university education.
(4) Reviews, editorials, theoretical articles, gray literature (file drawer studies, unpublished manuscripts), dissertations, books, case studies, and conference proceedings without conference articles available in the databases.
(5) Articles in languages other than Spanish and English.
Study Selection Process
After compiling the manuscripts, we classified the studies, identifying those that met the inclusion criteria. For each of the studies, we extracted the following information: author and year of publication, study methodology, sample information, instruments for collecting data, key findings, and conclusions. These data were extracted by a researcher and verified by a second researcher to ensure the quality and accuracy of the information. Doubts or disagreements between evaluators were resolved through discussion and consensus with the help of a third reviewer. The results of this selection process are reported below.
Methodological Characteristics of the Included Studies
A modified version of the Quantitative Research Assessment Tool, developed by the Child Care and Early Education Research Connections (CCEERC, 2013), was used to assess the methodological strength of the studies included in this review. This tool, which includes 12 items, was designed to provide general guidelines evaluating the quality of research studies. For this review, we selected five items from the tool (items 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10): “Randomized Selection of Participants,” “Sample Size,” “Operationalization of Concepts,” “Appropriateness of Statistical Techniques,” and “Omitted Variable Bias” (see Table 1). Item 1 (“Population”) was discarded because it was not considered relevant for the review, as all studies focused on a specific subset of the population (adolescents) and, as most of the studies were cross-sectional, we also excluded Item 4 (“Attrition Rate and Follow-up Studies”). Given that we considered the operationalization of the variables of each of the studies to analyze the methodological quality, we also discarded Item 5 (“Main Variables or Concepts”) to avoid redundant information. Finally, Item 7 (“Numeric Tables”), Item 8 (“Missing Data”), Item 11 (“Analysis of Main Effect Variables”), and Item 12 (“Research Ethical”) were deleted because they did not provide important information for the object of the present review.
Table 1. Methodological quality of studies.
In addition, two author-elaborated items were added: “Types of sociometric status profiles measured” and “Descriptive analysis and reliability of the instrument,” whose purpose was to evaluate whether the selected studies considered the frequency with which the two harassment dynamics occurred and whether it carried out a descriptive and reliability analysis of each of the instruments administered. Finally, we established 7 criteria in the final version, which allowed us to verify the homogeneity of the studies, especially that of the instruments used, which was essential for the comparison of the results. Each item could be rated as −1, 0, 1, or NA, and thus the total score could range from −7 to 7. According to the specifications of the tool, studies with lower scores should be regarded with more caution compared with studies with higher scores. Six of the studies reviewed had a score of 5 or higher.
As shown in Table 1, some studies used interviews or qualitative measures and did not present reliability indices of the instruments used for data collection. Other studies did not measure each of the five sociometric types. These methodological aspects could explain, in part, the observed disparity regarding the social status of the bullies.
Results
Using the research strategy described above, we identified a total of 1,718 references. After eliminating duplicates, 715 references were retained. Of these references, 97 were selected by title and abstract for full-text reading. Finally, 29 studies were included for meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the total set of publications, 9 of them indicated that the bully role was associated with a positive status (Zequinão et al., 2020), that is, the bully profile was positively associated with popularity (Closson, 2009; Farmer et al., 2010; Shi and Xie, 2012; Peets and Hodges, 2014; Pouwels et al., 2018a,b; Guy et al., 2019), acceptance, or social preference (Waasdorp et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2020). In contrast, four studies associated the role of aggressor with a negative status (Cillessen et al., 2014), such as, for example, rejection within the peer group (Warden and Mackinnon, 2003; Greco, 2019) or with popularity and social preference (Palacios and Berger, 2016). However, the results of the remaining 16 studies could be clearly located at any of these poles, but rather lie in the middle of them. Thus, some of these studies indicated that bullies were characterized by reaching high scores in popularity, but low in preference or acceptance (Sentse et al., 2007; Caravita et al., 2009, 2010; De Bruyn et al., 2010; Berger et al., 2015; Van den Berg et al., 2015; Closson and Hymel, 2016; Pouwels et al., 2016, 2018a; Pronk et al., 2017; Malamut et al., 2020) or high in rejection (Dijkstra et al., 2008; Peeters et al., 2010; Veenstra et al., 2010), and even a controversial status within the group (Lee, 2009). Other studies showed that both popularity and rejection can predict bullying behavior (Sentse et al., 2015). The results of the different investigations can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of selected studies.
Positive Status of Bullies
Among the studies that suggest that there is a relationship between perpetrating bullying in adolescence and having a high position in the social hierarchy, Pouwels et al. (2018a,b) observed that adolescents who bully were most popular and had the most socially dominant position in the peer group. In the same way, the study of Zequinão et al. (2020) found that bullies achieved a more positive status than those who were not involved in bullying. More specifically, the results found by Guy et al. (2019) revealed that, compared to the rest of the bullying roles, bullies had higher levels of popularity and social preference. Similarly, Farmer et al. (2010) found higher levels of social prominence, defined by the authors as the degree to which classmates perceive a student as being cool or popular, in those adolescents considered bully. These results are in line with studies that concluded that popular adolescents were involved in more intimidation behaviors than average adolescents (Closson, 2009; Pouwels et al., 2018a), and were more likely to maintain this status during the transition to high school than bullies who were not popular within the group (Shi and Xie, 2012).
The findings of Chen et al. (2020) revealed that adolescents who were bullies had high levels of acceptance and low levels of rejection within the group as long as they alternated the role of aggressor with that of “defender” (a role characterized by supporting the victims and trying to stop bullying). Other studies have observed that bullying toward highly liked peers was associated with popularity for those adolescents who had high preference scores, suggesting that behavior is related to social benefits when it occurs among those at the top tier of the social preference hierarchy (Peets and Hodges, 2014). Similarly, Dijkstra et al. (2008) concluded that popularity moderated the impact of bullying on the social status of bullies, as bullying by popular adolescents, on the one hand, weakened the negative impact that this behavior has on acceptance and, on the other, the positive impact on rejection.
Negative Status in Bullies
Although few studies have considered that bullies maintain a negative social position within the peer group, it is interesting to take their findings into account. In this sense, Greco (2019) observed that bully preadolescents achieved a negative status within the group derived from a higher percentage of rejection nominations. Besides, Palacios and Berger (2016) found that the negative associations of bullying with popularity and social preference were not affected by the normative peer context. Cillessen et al. (2014) detected negative relationships between popularity and bullying. They also indicated that the bully role was more strongly associated with negative status in those adolescents who were more likely to make hostile attributions. For these authors, hostile attributions refer to attributing harmful or adverse intentions to others' ambiguous behaviors, and they suggest that negative status and biased attributional factors can predict subsequent bullying.
Positive Status and Negative Status in Bullies
Most of the studies in this review have reported disparities between the social position of the perpetrators of bullying, finding groups of bullies with a positive social position and other groups with a negative status. Some of them indicated that bullying behaviors at school were associated with greater popularity and a decrease in social preference and likebility (Caravita et al., 2010; Pronk et al., 2017; Malamut et al., 2020), others, in turn, showed differences based on gender and type of bullying. That is, high levels of overt bullying were associated with lower popularity for girls, but higher for boys. In contrast, high levels of relational bullying were only significantly related to popularity in the case of girls (Waasdorp et al., 2013). Along these lines, Peeters et al. (2010) found that positive social status, specifically popularity, was related to social intelligence (the ability to understand the perspective of others and be able to manipulate their thoughts) and with the use of relational bullying, concluding that popularity and social intelligence may be preconditions for using this type of harassment.
The findings of Veenstra et al. (2010) revealed that the bullies, regardless of whether they were girls or boys, were rejected by the gender toward whom the bullying was directed but not by the gender toward whom it was not directed. However, male bullying toward the same gender was positively related to female acceptance. In other words, boys who attacked other boys obtained high levels of liking from the girls, an effect that was not observed in the case of female bullying. Continuing with the differences by gender, Lee (2009) observed that bully boys were likely to be rejected by peers, whereas bully girls were both rejected and accepted by peers. Concerning the type of bullying, verbal bullying was positively related to rejection in boys, but negatively in girls. However, relational bullying was not related to rejection in boys, but it clearly predicted peer rejection in girls. Likewise, the findings of Sentse et al. (2015) showed that, for boys, rejection status acted as a predictor of bullying and, in the case of girls, of popular status.
In line with the results that found positive and negative status simultaneously in the bullies, Berger et al. (2015) and Caravita et al. (2009) observed that bullying was negatively related to acceptance and social preference, and positively to perceived popularity. In the study by Closson and Hymel (2016), both direct and indirect bullying were positively associated with popularity but negatively with acceptance of the bullies. De Bruyn et al. (2010) reported that more bullies were nominated with high popularity status but low acceptance status than adolescents who were popular and accepted. Likewise, the results showed that popular status positively predicted bullying. In contrast, acceptance or preference status negatively predicted bullying and acted as a moderator of the link between popularity and bullying. That is, the correlation between popularity and bullying was stronger in adolescents with low levels of acceptance among peers. Similarly, the results of Dijkstra et al. (2008) revealed that bullying was negatively related to acceptance, and positively to peer rejection but these relationships were weakened when the bully had a popular status within the group.
Sentse et al. (2007) concluded that the norms of behavior in the classroom had an impact on the relationship between participation in bullying and the preference of peers. That is, in classrooms where bullying was not normative, adolescents who bullied were more likely to be rejected by their peers. In contrast, when bullying was normative, bullies were not only less likely to be rejected by their peers but were also more likely to achieve positive status (higher preference) in the group. The study by Van den Berg et al. (2015) showed, on the one hand, that direct bullying was higher in those adolescents with low social preference compared to the average or to highly preferred adolescents, and on the other hand, that relational bullying was higher in popular adolescents than in average or unpopular adolescents.
Discussion
The present study offered a systematic review on the sociometric status and/or social position of adolescents involved in bullying in the role of bully. Based on the literature included in this review, the results suggest that, in general, the role played in bullying behavior is important for the status that youngsters can achieve. However, other factors that may intervene in the social position within the peer group should be taken into account. Of the 29 studies included in this review, 9 found that a high percentage of school bullies had a positive social position in the peer group. Only 4 of the studies in this review indicated that the bullies had a negative status in the group; and 16 of them indicated that the bullies achieved different statuses, positive and negative, simultaneously in the peer group.
Sociometric Status Associated to Bully Role
Regarding the studies that have associated the bully role with the positive status (Closson, 2009; Farmer et al., 2010; Shi and Xie, 2012; Waasdorp et al., 2013; Peets and Hodges, 2014; Guy et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Zequinão et al., 2020), previous literature indicates that bullying behavior by popular adolescents sets the norm within the classroom, and therefore determines peer acceptance or rejection of bullying behavior (Sentse et al., 2007; Dijkstra et al., 2008; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2020). Thus, in a classroom where bullying is normative, it can be especially easy for a popular adolescent to bully others without fear of losing their position of dominance and leadership within the group (Peeters et al., 2010). Likewise, bullies can improve their status in the group and be accepted by their peers, either out of fear of retaliation for not supporting the perpetrators of bullying, or because they also engage in this behavior in the same role (Lee, 2009). This seems to be consistent with an evolutionary theoretical perspective that considers that bullying can be viewed as an adaptive goal-directed behavioral strategy to obtain resource and reputational control. In this sense, Pronk et al. (2017) observed that adolescents' bullying role behavior and their peergroup status are similar across cultures, consistent with the evolutionary theoretical perspective of bullying as an adaptive behavior.
Other studies indicate that the positive status of bullies may be the result of considering bullying behavior as a sign of social dominance (Duffy et al., 2017) or as a way to maintain or increase the status in group (Pouwels et al., 2018a,b). Sometimes this positive status can even be encouraged when the bullying behavior is directed exclusively toward classmates who are among the highest positions of the group's hierarchy because it may be interpreted as a search for social power (Peets and Hodges, 2014). In addition, various authors identify the Reputation Enhancement Theory (Emler and Reicher, 1995), that is, the need to be seen as strong, tough, and powerful individuals, as well as to improve their position in the social hierarchy, as one of the main motives that lead bullies to intimidate others (Pronk and Zimmer-Gembeck, 2010; Houghton et al., 2012). Therefore, the positive status achieved by the perpetrators of bullying could be the result of having managed to manifest in the peer group the desired social image, that is, an image characterized by power and social dominance (Estévez et al., 2012).
Positive status, especially referring to acceptance or preference, has also been associated with bullying behavior when the role of bully coexists with the “defender” role, that is, when bulklying is combined with supportive behaviors toward the victim and with efforts to stop bullying. Thus, those adolescents who, despite being involved in bullying behavior as an bully, also defend the victims, are more likely to achieve higher levels of social preference and less likely to be rejected than the rest of the members of the peer group (Coie et al., 1991; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Warden and Mackinnon, 2003). Therefore, the role of defender seems to have a “protective” effect on the status of bullies (Chen et al., 2020), which could help explain why some bullies achieve a positive status and at the same time, a negative status, by awakening feelings of rejection, especially in those peers who intimidate and maintain negative relationships (Veenstra et al., 2007; Berger and Caravita, 2016; Closson and Hymel, 2016; Reijntjes et al., 2018).
This bipolarity in the status of bullies has been the result observed by most of the studies included in this review, and, according to the previous literature, reflects the superposition of the bullies' different ways of acting to balance the costs and benefits of bullying behavior (Hawley, 1999, 2003; Chen et al., 2020). Various studies have related the controversy over the status of bullying perpetrators to the Resource Control Theory (Hawley, 1999), which states that adolescents tend to use two different strategies, coercive and prosocial, to obtain the necessary resources they need to improve their adaptation in the peer group (Volk et al., 2012; Hartl et al., 2020), or to promote the acceptance, in this case.
On another hand, it has been observed that the acceptance/rejection of peers toward an individual can moderate the association between popularity and the bully role. Thus, adolescents who have a popular status, but also one of rejection, are considered by the peer group as perpetrators of bullying more frequently than youngsters with popular and accepted statuses. The literature indicates that this effect may be a consequence of the type of harassment used. That is, popular bullies who are not liked (rejected) tend to use more direct harassment such as physical assault or damage to property, whereas those who are liked (accepted) harass in a subtler way than direct bullying, such as relational bullying (De Bruyn et al., 2010). However, several studies included in this review have observed that the status attained by bullies within the peer group derives from a purely negative status. According to previous literature, it is not surprising for bullying behavior to be considered unpleasant and to generate rejection in some adolescents, especially in those who do not perpetrate it, causing the role of bully to occupy a low position in the social hierarchy (Berger et al., 2015). In relation to this, bullying seems to be a behavior negatively sanctioned independent of the value the group ascribed to bullying. That is, bullying seems to be unpopular and socially disliked by peers per se as an individual behavior, probably due to its abusive and immoral character (Palacios and Berger, 2016). Another argument that attempts to explain the negative status of bullies is supported by the fact that bullying can be considered a reactive resource to the rejection that bullies perceive from their peers (Cillessen et al., 2014). That is, the literature suggests that adolescents who have a negative status, in which rejection or low acceptance predominates, can rely on bullying as a resource to attract attention and achieve recognition and consideration from their schoolmates (Longobardi et al., 2018).
Despite the heterogeneity of the research included in this review, the findings of the present study show the difficulty, not only of accurately understanding the social status of bullies but also of defining the behavioral profile of adolescents whose status is not clearly located at one pole (positive or negative). Thus, it seems to support the conclusions of previous studies stating that social status not only depends on the behavioral characteristics noticed by the peers in the group but also on non-behavioral characteristics (e.g., perceived as attractive, funny, etc.) (Sentse et al., 2015; Rytioja et al., 2019).
Limitations and Directions For Future Research
The findings are not without limitations. One of them arises from the exclusion criteria, as they could bias the results. Following a stricter protocol and criteria would have made the contribution of this review more robust. Furthermore, we only consulted a limited number of psychology databases. Perhaps consulting a greater number of scientific databases relevant to other disciplines could have strengthened the contribution of this work. Another limitation is due to the experimental designs of the evaluated studies. In most of them, the instruments used did not coincide, and in other studies, sociometric status was measured using non-validated questionnaires or qualitative measures. Furthermore, most of the studies were not considered methodologically robust due to low scores on various methodological criteria of the Quantitative Research Assessment Tool. This contributed to the inability to perform meta-analyses due to the paucity and heterogeneity of the quantitative data. Despite the modest conclusions, this work has provided an approach to understanding social status in the dynamics of bullying. However, the authors are aware that much remains to be done. Thus, for example, for future studies it would be appropriate to include research with good methodological quality, rigorous eligibility, and sample selection criteria, using instruments and measures previously validated in the literature for the investigation of the social status of perpetrators of bullying. It would also be interesting to include some variables at the individual, family, and social level, as well as to extrapolate the study of sociometric status to the context of cyberspace to strengthen the evidence on this important topic. And finally, it would be interesting to address the subject of bullying from the perspective of development, due to the evident changes that occur over time in the functions of the peer group, as well as in the hierarchy that is achieved therein.
Conclusion
Although the present review has some limitations, it also makes relevant contributions, offering a greater understanding of the relationship between the position in the group and social behavior in adolescents. Taken together, the findings show that the differences between adolescents with positive or negative status are not only attributable to the behavior they manifest but also to the way these adolescents behave toward their peers of a particular social status. Thus, the status-behavior link is a complex subject that should be studied further. In this regard, it is relevant to project the study of social status as a multifactorial characteristic in which the sociocognitive and behavioral skills available are taken into account, and not as an individual and invariant characteristic.
Author Contributions
EC has written the main text and carried out the bulk of the literature review. EE has carried out supplementary literature review and written sections related to it. EC and JE has supplemented the literature review, rewritten large portions of the text, and proofread the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This study was part of the project, Bullying and cyberbullying among peers and in adolescent couples: from emotional regulation to suicidal—Reference: PID2019-109442RB-I00, funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain, with Estefanía Estévez as the Principal Researcher.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Bacete, F. G., and Cillessen, A. H. N. (2017). An adjusted probability method for the identification of sociometric status in classrooms. Front. Psychol. 8, 1836. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01836
Bartolomé, R., and Díaz, E. (2020). Social support and self-perception in bullying roles. An. Psicol. 1, 92–101. doi: 10.6018/analesps.301581
Berger, C., Batanova, M., and Cance, J. D. (2015). Aggressive and prosocial? Examining latent profiles of behavior, social status, Machiavellianism, and empathy. J. Youth Adolesc. 44, 2230–2244. doi: 10.1007/s10964-015-0298-9
Berger, C., and Caravita, S. C. (2016). Why do early adolescents bully? Exploring the influence of prestige norms on social and psychological motives to bully. J. Adolesc. 46, 45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.10.020
Caravita, S. C., Di Blasio, P., and Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Soc. Dev. 18, 140–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x
Caravita, S. C., Di Blasio, P., and Salmivalli, C. (2010). Early adolescents' participation in bullying: is ToM involved?. J. Early Adolesc. 30, 138–170. doi: 10.1177/0272431609342983
Carroll, A., Durkin, K., Hattie, J., and Houghton, S. (1997). Goal setting among adolescents: a comparison of delinquent, at-risk, and not-at-risk youth. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 441–450. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.441
Carroll, A., Durkin, K., Houghton, S., and Hattie, J. (1996). An adaptation of Mak's self-reported delinquency scale for Western Australian adolescents. Aust. J. Psychol. 48, 1–7. doi: 10.1080/00049539608259498
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Hattie, J., and Durkin, K. (1999). Adolescent reputation enhancement: differentiating delinquent, nondelinquent, and at-risk youths. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 40, 593–606. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00476
Cava, M. J., and Musitu, G. (2002). La convivencia en la escuela [Coexistence in school]. Barcelona: Paidós.
CCEERC (2013). Quantitative Research Assessment Tool. Available online at: https://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/downloads/quantitativeresearch.pdf
Cerezo, F. (2014). Diferencias en el estatus social entre roles en “bullying”: un análisis sociométrico [Differences in social status between roles in “bullying”: a sociometric analysis]. Bordón. Revista pedagogía 66, 29–42. doi: 10.13042/Bordon.2014.66202
Chen, G., Zhang, W., Zhang, W., and Deater-Deckard, K. (2020). A “defender protective effect” in multiple-role combinations of bullying among Chinese adolescents. J. Interpers. Violence 35, 1587–1609. doi: 10.1177/0886260517698278
Cillessen, A. H., Lansu, T. A., and Van Den Berg, Y. H. (2014). Aggression, hostile attributions, status, and gender: a continued quest. Dev. Psychopathol. 26, 635–644. doi: 10.1017/S0954579414000285
Closson, L. M. (2009). Aggressive and prosocial behaviors within early adolescent friendship cliques: what's status got to do with it? Merrill Palmer Q. J. Dev. Psychol. 4, 406–435. doi: 10.1353/mpq.0.0035
Closson, L. M., and Hymel, S. (2016). Status differences in target-specific prosocial behavior and aggression. J. Youth Adolesc. 45, 1836–1848. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0481-7
Coie, J. D., and Cillessen, A. H. (1993). Peer rejection: origins and effects on children's development. Curr. Dir. Psychol. 2, 89–93. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770946
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., and Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys' play groups. Child Develop. 62, 812–826. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01571.x
De Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A. H. N., and Wissink, I. B. (2010). Associations of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. J. Early Adolesc. 30, 543–566. doi: 10.1177/0272431609340517
Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., and Veenstra, R. (2008). Beyond the class norm: bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance and rejection. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 36, 1289–1299. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9251-7
Duffy, A. L., Penn, S., Nesdale, D., and Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2017). Popularity: does it magnify associations between popularity prioritization and the bullying and defending behavior of early adolescent boys and girls? Soc. Dev. 26, 263–277. doi: 10.1111/sode.12206
Emler, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 1, 171–193. doi: 10.1080/14792779108401861
Emler, N., and Hopkins, N. (1990). “Reputation, social identity, and the self,” in Social Identity Theory, eds D. Abrams and M. A. Hogg (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag), 113–130.
Emler, N., and Reicher, S. (2005). “Delinquency: cause or consequence of social exclusion?,” in The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion, eds D. Abrams, J. Marqués, and M. Hogg (Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press), 211–241.
Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, S., et al. (2017). School engagement trajectories in adolescence: the role of peer likeability and popularity. J. Sch. Psychol. 64, 61–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.006
Estévez, E., Inglés, C. J., Emler, N. P., Martínez-Monteagudo, M. C., and Torregrosa, M. S. (2012). Analysis of the relationship between victimization & school violence: the role of antisocial reputation. Psychosoc. Interv. 21, 53–65. doi: 10.5093/in2012v21n1a3
Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Leung, M. C., Hall, C. M., Hutchins, B. C., and McDonough, E. (2010). Social preference, social prominence, and group membership in late elementary school: homophilic concentration and peer affiliation configurations. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13, 271–293. doi: 10.1007/s11218-009-9107-1
Farmer, T. W., Lines, M. M., and Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: the role of teachers in children's peer experiences. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 32, 247–256. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006
Garandeau, C. F., and Lansu, T. A. (2019). Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?. Aggress. Behav. 45, 348–359. doi: 10.1002/ab.21824
Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., and Dekker, P. H. (2006). New participant role scales: comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behav. 32, 343–357. doi: 10.1002/ab.20133
Graham, S. (2016). Victims of bullying in schools. Theory Pract. 55, 136–144. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1148988
Greco, C. (2019). Peer relationship: acceptance, rejection, victimization, aggression. The importance of this issue for the design of mental health interventions in primary education. Rev. Argentina Clínica Psicol. 28, 575–586. doi: 10.24205/03276716.2017.1037
Guy, A., Lee, K., and Wolke, D. (2019). Comparisons between adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims on perceived popularity, social impact, and social preference. Front. Psychiatry 10, 868. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00868
Harrison, E., Hulme, J., and Fox, C. (2021) A thematic analysis of students' perceptions experiences of bullying in UK higher education. Euro. J. Psychol. 18, 53–69. doi: 10.5964/ejop.3669
Hartl, A. C., Laursen, B., Cantin, S., and Vitaro, F. (2020). A test of the bistrategic control hypothesis of adolescent popularity. Child Dev. 91, e635–e648. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13269
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Dev. Rev. 19, 97–132. doi: 10.1006/drev.1998.0470
Hawley, P. H. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers: an evolutionary perspective. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 85, 213–235. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00073-0
Herrera, J. G., Terán, M. A. C., Jiménez, A. C., and Reyes, M. E. S. H. (2019). “Escalamiento de la violencia y degradación de la convivencia [Escalation of violence and degradation of coexistence],” in Dimensiones de la violencia en el ámbito educativo e identidad [Dimensions of violence in education and identity], eds M. R. Espinosa and J. A. Vírsade (Mexico: Amapsi Editorial), 43–55.
Hoffman, A. S., Hamm, J. V., and Farmer, T. W. (2015). Teacher attunement: supporting early elementary students' social integration and status. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 39, 14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2015.04.007
Houghton, S., and Carroll, A. (2002). Longitudinal rates of self-reported delinquency of at-risk and not at-risk Western Australian high school students. Aust. N. Z. J. Criminol. 35, 99–113. doi: 10.1375/acri.35.1.99
Houghton, S. J., Nathan, E., and Taylor, M. (2012). To bully or not to bully, that is not the question: Western Australian early adolescents' in search of a reputation. J. Adolesc. Res. 27, 498–522. doi: 10.1177/0743558411432638
Huitsing, G., and Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: participant roles from a social network perspective. Aggressive Behav. 38, 494–509. doi: 10.1002/ab.21438
Janošević, M., and Petrović, B. (2019). Effects of personality traits and social status on academic achievement: gender differences. Psychol. Sch. 56, 497–509. doi: 10.1002/pits.22215
Jiménez, T. I., Moreno, D., Murgui, S., and Musitu, G. (2008). Psychosocial factors related to the student's social status in the classroom: the role of social reputation, friendship, violent behaviour and relationship with the teacher. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 8, 227–236. Available online at: https://www.uv.es/lisis/terebel/tj_art3.pdf
Kerpelman, J. L., and Smith-Adcock, S. (2005). Female adolescents' delinquent activity: the intersection of bonds to parents and reputation enhancement. Youth Soc. 37, 176–200. doi: 10.1177/0044118X04272831
Kulawiak, P. R., and Wilbert, J. (2020). Introduction of a new method for representing the sociometric status within the peer group: the example of sociometrically neglected children. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 43, 127–145. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2019.1621830
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Dijkstra, J. K., Veenstra, R., and Vollebergh, W. (2020). Who sets the aggressive popularity norm in classrooms? It's the number and strength of aggressive, prosocial, and bi-strategic adolescents. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 48, 13–27. doi: 10.1007/s10802-019-00571-0
Lee, E. (2009). The relationship of aggression and bullying to social preference: differences in gender and types of aggression. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 33, 323–330. doi: 10.1177/0165025408098028
León-Moreno, C., Musitu, G., Cañas, E., Estévez, E., and Callejas-Jerónimo, J. E. (2021). Relationship between school integration, psychosocial adjustment and cyber-aggression among adolescents. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 18, 108–118. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010108
Longobardi, C., Iotti, N. O., Jungert, T., and Settanni, M. (2018). Student-teacher relationships and bullying: the role of student social status. J. Adolesc. 63, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.001
Malamut, S. T., van den Berg, Y. H., Lansu, T. A., and Cillessen, A. H. (2020). Dyadic nominations of bullying: comparing types of bullies and their victims. Aggressive Behav. 46, 232–243. doi: 10.1002/ab.21884
Manring, S., Elledge, L. C., Swails, L. W., and Vernberg, E. M. (2018). Functions of aggression and peer victimization in elementary school children: the mediating role of social preference. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 46, 795–809. doi: 10.1007/s10802-017-0328-z
Menéndez, J. I., and Fernández-Río, J. (2018). Actitudes hacia la violencia y papel importante del alumnado en el aula de educación física [Attitudes towards violence and the important role of students in the physical education classroom]. Rev. Complutense Educ. 29, 1293–1308. doi: 10.5209/RCED.55352
Mikhailova, I. V., Orlova, L. V., Erofeeva, M. A., Stanovova, L. A., Khudyakova, T. L., Fomina, E. V., et al. (2018). Students-leaders and students-outsiders: cognitive style and personal constructs of students with different sociometric status. Modern J. Lang. Teach. Methods 8, 152–161. doi: 10.26655/mjltm.2018.9.1
Muscatell, K. A., McCormick, E., and Telzer, E. H. (2018). Subjective social status and neural processing of race in Mexican American adolescents. Dev. Psychopathol. 30, 1837–1848. doi: 10.1017/S0954579418000949
Palacios, D., and Berger, C. (2016). What is popular? Distinguishing bullying and aggression as status correlates within specific peer normative contexts. Psicologia Reflexao e Critica 29, 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s41155-016-0031-y
Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H., and Scholte, R. H. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 39, 1041–1052. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9
Peets, K., and Hodges, E. V. (2014). Is popularity associated with aggression toward socially preferred or marginalized targets? J. Exp. Child Psychol. 124, 112–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.002
Pouwels, J. L., Lansu, T. A., and Cillessen, A. H. (2016). Participant roles of bullying in adolescence: status characteristics, social behavior, and assignment criteria. Aggress. Behav. 42, 239–253. doi: 10.1002/ab.21614
Pouwels, J. L., Salmivalli, C., Saarento, S., van den Berg, Y. H., Lansu, T. A., and Cillessen, A. H. (2018b). Predicting adolescents' bullying participation from developmental trajectories of social status and behavior. Child Dev. 89, 1157–1176. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12794
Pouwels, J. L., van Noorden, T. H., Lansu, T. A., and Cillessen, A. H. (2018a). The participant roles of bullying in different grades: prevalence and social status profiles. Soc. Dev. 27, 732–747. doi: 10.1111/sode.12294
Pronk, J., Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., De Mey, L., and Willemen, A. M. (2013). Children's intervention strategies in situations of victimization by bullying: social cognitions of outsiders versus defenders. J. Sch. Psychol. 51, 669–682. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.09.002
Pronk, J., Lee, N. C., Sandhu, D., Kaur, K., Kaur, S., Olthof, T., et al. (2017). Associations between Dutch and Indian adolescents' bullying role behavior and peer-group status: cross-culturally testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 41, 735–742. doi: 10.1177/0165025416679743
Pronk, R. E., and Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2010). It's “mean,” but what does it mean to adolescents? Relational aggression described by victims, aggressors, and their peers. J. Adolesc. Res. 25, 175–204. doi: 10.1177/0743558409350504
Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vink, G., Aleva, L., et al. (2018). Differences between resource control types revisited: a short term longitudinal study. Soc. Dev. 27, 187–200. doi: 10.1111/sode.12257
Rocha, M., Costa, C., and Neto, I. (2013). Bullying eo papel da sociedade [Bullying and the role of society]. Cadernos Graduação Ciências Humanas Sociais 1, 191–199. Available online at: https://periodicos.set.edu.br/cadernohumanas/article/view/534/259
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., and Parker, J. G. (2006). “Interactions, relationships, and groups with peers,” in Child Psychology Manual. Social, Emotional and Personality Development, eds N. Eisenberg and W. Damon (New York, NY: Wiley), 571–645.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R., and Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 141–171 doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642
Rytioja, M., Lappalainen, K., and Savolainen, H. (2019). Behavioural and emotional strengths of sociometrically popular, rejected, controversial, neglected, and average children. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 34, 557–571. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2018.1560607
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., and Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress. Behav. 22, 1–15. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1%3C1::AID-AB1%3E3.0.CO;2-T
Sánchez, V., Ortega, R., and Menesini, E. (2012). La competencia emocional de agresores y víctimas de bullying [Emotional competence and bullying]. An. Psicol. 28, 71–82. doi: 10.6018/analesps
Sekol, I., and Farrington, D. P. (2013). The reliability and validity of self, peer and staff reports of bullying and victimization in correctional and care institutions. Psychol. Crime Law 19, 329–344. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.631541
Sentse, M., Dijkstra, J. K., Salmivalli, C., and Cillessen, A. H. (2013). The dynamics of friendships and victimization in adolescence: a longitudinal social network perspective. Aggressive Behav. 39, 229–238. doi: 10.1002/ab.21469
Sentse, M., Kretschmer, T., and Salmivalli, C. (2015). The longitudinal interplay between bullying, victimization, and social status: age-related and gender differences. Soc. Dev. 24, 659–677. doi: 10.1111/sode.12115
Sentse, M., Scholte, R., Salmivalli, C., and Voeten, M. (2007). Person-group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 35, 1009–1019. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9150-3
Shi, B., and Xie, H. (2012). Popular and nonpopular subtypes of physically aggressive preadolescents: continuity of aggression and peer mechanisms during the transition to middle school. Merrill Palmer Q. J. Dev. Psychol. 4, 530–553. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2012.0025
Shin, H. (2017). Friendship dynamics of adolescent aggression, prosocial behavior, and social status: the moderating role of gender. J. Youth Adoles. 46, 2305–2320. doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0702-8
Stotsky, M. T., and Bowker, J. C. (2018). An examination of reciprocal associations between social preference, popularity, and friendship during early adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 47, 1830–1841. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0846-1
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., and McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: implications for school-based intervention strategies. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 19, 157–176. doi: 10.1300/J008v19n02_10
Van den Berg, Y. H., Lansu, T. A., and Cillessen, A. H. (2015). Measuring social status and social behavior with peer and teacher nomination methods. Soc. Dev. 24, 815–832. doi: 10.1111/sode.12120
Veenstra, R., and Laninga-Wijnen, L. (2022). “The prominence of peer interactions, relationships, and networksinadolescenceand early adulthood,” in Handbook of Adolescent and Young Adult Development, eds L. J. Crockett, G. Carlo, and J. E. Schulenberg (American Psychological Association).
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., and Dijkstra, J. K. (2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences. Child Dev. 81, 480–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01411.x
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., and Ormel, J. (2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Dev. 78, 1843–1854. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x
Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., and Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behav. 38, 222–238. doi: 10.1002/ab.21418
Waasdorp, T. E., Baker, C. N., Paskewich, B. S., and Leff, S. S. (2013). The association between forms of aggression, leadership, and social status among urban youth. J. Youth Adolesc. 42, 263–274. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9837-9
Warden, D., and Mackinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: an investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 21, 367–385. doi: 10.1348/026151003322277757
Williams, A. J., Banks, C. S., and Blake, J. J. (2018). High school bystanders motivation and response during bias-based bullying. Psychol. Sch. 55, 1259–1273. doi: 10.1002/pits.22186
Wright, M. F., and Wachs, S. (2021). Does empathy and toxic online disinhibition moderate the longitudinal association between witnessing and perpetrating homophobic cyberbullying? Int. J. Bull. Prevent. 3, 66–74. doi: 10.1007/s42380-019-00042-6
Keywords: sociometry, social status, bullying, bully role, systematic review
Citation: Cañas E, Estevez E and Estevez JF (2022) Sociometric Status in Bullying Perpetrators: A Systematic Review. Front. Commun. 7:841424. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.841424
Received: 22 December 2021; Accepted: 14 March 2022;
Published: 05 April 2022.
Edited by:
Leslie Ramos Salazar, West Texas A&M University, United StatesReviewed by:
Francesca Giovanna Maria Gastaldi, University of Turin, ItalySiân E. Jones, Queen Margaret University, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2022 Cañas, Estevez and Estevez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Estefania Estevez, e.estevez@umh.es