Can Psychopathic Traits Predict Different Roles in Bullying: Perpetration or Victimization

(1)

PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS IN BULLYING

1

Can Psychopathic Traits Predict Different Roles in Bullying: Perpetration or Victimization1 Daniel Backe & Johan Dankvardt

Örebro University

Abstract

Bullying and being a victim of bullying have serious consequences for adolescents. Why do adolescents bully others and why do some become victims, could it be because of their personalities or maybe even problematic personality traits. In the current study, we will investigate if psychopathy or if any of the dimensions of psychopathy separately, can predict engagement in bullying or being a victim of bullying. The data that is used in this study is taken from a community sample from 7th_{through 8}th_{grade. The results in this study show that} psychopathy as an entirety and the interpersonal and behavioral dimension of psychopathy do in fact predict some levels of engagement in bullying, while the affective dimension did not. Psychopathy and the different dimensions did not significantly predict becoming a victim of bullying. In conclusion, traits like impulsivity and grandiosity can to some extent predict engagement in bullying, however psychopathy nor the dimension do not predict being a victim of bullying.

Keywords: Adolescence, bullying, psychopathy, antisocial personality

(2)

2

Can Psychopathic Traits Predict Different Roles in Bullying: Perpetration or Victimization Daniel Backe & Johan Dankvardt

Örebro Universitet

Sammanfattning

Att mobba andra eller att falla offer för mobbning har allvarliga konsekvenser. Hur kommer det sig att vissa tonåringar mobbar andra och att andra blir offer; kan det möjligtvis vara på grund av personlighetsdrag eller mer problematiska personlighetsdrag. I denna studie kommer vi undersöka om psykopati i sin helhet eller någon av psykopatins dimensioner separat kan förutse att man mobbar andra eller att bli mobbad. De data som har använts i denna studie är från en stor datainsamling med ett urval bestående av ungdomar i sjunde och åttonde klass. Resultaten från denna studie visar att de två dimensionerna interpersonella och beteende till viss del kunde förutse att mobba andra. Psykopati eller någon av dess dimensioner kunde dock inte signifikant predicera att man blev mobbad. Sammanfattningsvis så visar studien att psykopatiska personlighetsdrag som att vara impulsiv och grandios till viss del kan predicera att mobba andra men inte predicera att man blir ett offer för mobbning.

Nyckelord: Ungdomar, psykopati, mobbning, personlighetsstörning

Handledare: Selma Salihovic Psykologi III

(3)

3

Can Psychopathic Traits Predict Different Roles in Bullying: Perpetration or Victimization School is a vital part of youth’s development, but is also a place where some youths are

subjected to harassment, violence, and threats (Olweus, 1998). Some feel entitled to perform these acts upon their peers, forcing us to ask ourselves Why? It seems some of the answers could be found in our personality traits, since they can predict both victimization and engagement in bullying behavior (Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015). In the current study, we are especially interested in investigating the link between different bullying behaviors and certain more severe personality traits, most commonly found in the psychopathic personality profile. Since

psychopathic traits are correlated with bullying (Geel, Toprak, Goemans, Zwaanswijk & Vedder, 2017), we will investigate if adolescents with psychopathic personality profile could predict engagement or victimization in bullying.

What is bullying? Bullying is not by any means a new occurrence, but can be traced back to earlier generations (Olweus, 1998). The term bullying is typically used when the victim is targeted without having caused any provocations in terms of verbal or physical aggression. The bully intends to cause the victim harm or fear and targets the victim repeatedly. Bullying occur between people that are somewhat familiar with each other and the bully either are or perceives him- or herself to be more powerful than the victim (Griffin & Gross, 2004). We are going to use Olweus’ (1998) definition,that bullying is when a person is repeatedly subject to negative

actions and attacks by one or more people under a longer period of time. Negative actions are when someone intentionally inflicts harm or nuisance on another person verbally, physically or relationally. Verbal and physical bullying can be seen as direct aggression and are easier to detect than relational aggression (Hernandez Rodriguez, Gregus, Craig, Pastrana, & Cavell,

(4)

4

2014). Verbal bullying includes name-calling, insults, intimidation etc. Physical bullying is any bullying aimed to hurt someone physically or damage their possessions. Relational bullying is where the bully hurts others relationships through manipulation or spreading rumors(Hernandez Rodriguez et al., 2014). There is a wide range of what can be considered as bullying, but most importantly it has to be repeated violations over a period of time and not isolated events in order to be considered bullying.

How common is bullying in adolescence? According to Friends (2017a), 60 000 youths experience being bullied every year in Sweden. 20 percent of pupils in grades 6th through 9th stated that other pupils have offended or insulted them at least once during the past year (Friends, 2017b). Seven percent of the girls and five percent of the boys of Swedish 6th through 9th graders reported that they had experienced being bullied during the past year (Friends, 2017b). Further, when reporting if they had been offended or insulted the last year, 16 percent of boys reported being offended or insulted the last year in comparison to 27 percent of girls (Friends, 2017b). Bullying in Sweden is to be considered fairly common. Roughly two in every 30 pupils report being bullied annually, and girls report feeling unsafe to a higher extent than boys.

What are the consequences of bullying? Olweus (1998) found that both being the victim of bullying and being the bully had long lasting effects and was stable over time. Hill, Mellick, Temple, and Sharp (2017) found that bully victims (i.e., adolescents exposed to bullying)

reported a significantly greater baseline for depressive symptoms compared to bully perpetrators. Bully victims also have an increased risk for developing depressive symptoms through

adolescence and early adulthood, whereas bully perpetrators do not (Hill et al., 2017). Johansson and Flygare (2013) found that being the victim of bullying in addition to depression also

(5)

5

predicted increased anxiety as well as worsening relationships over time. Olweus (1998) conducted a study on Norwegian youths and found that pupils who were both aggressive and engaged in bullying ran an increased risk to develop later delinquency problems as well as alcohol and drug abuse. For example, over half of the pupils who were described as bullies in early adolescence were sentenced for at least one crime by the age of 24. This compares to roughly ten percent of the control group that were sentenced for a crime by the age of 24 (Olweus, 1998). Bullying behaviors also have been linked to concurrent and later problem behaviors such as conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and antisocial behavior (Griffin & Gross, 2004). Thus, being the victim or perpetrator of bullying is primarily linked to

internalizing problems and being a bully to externalizing problems in adolescence and later on. What characterizes the typical victim of bullying is that they are anxious, quiet, sensitive and insecure, this type of victim is most commonly referred to as a passive victim (Olweus, 1998). However, it is not only timid and quiet students who get victimized. Some victims are characterized by having a hard time to concentrate, being easily irritated, provocative, and are in general worried and impulsive (Olweus, 1998). This could trigger their peers to respond with hostility, these types of victims are referred to as provocative victims (Olweus, 1998; Hernandez Rodriguez et al., 2014). However, neither of these two types of passive and provocative bully victims have anything to do with appearance or other deviant traits (Olweus, 1998). One physical attribute that was of significance when explaining victimization was less physical strength and weakness, especially in boys (Olweus, 1998). The victims were usually weaker than their peers whilst the bullies usually were stronger than their peers and especially stronger than their victim (Olweus, 1998). But also factors such as prior victimization, social problems,

(6)

6

internalizing problems and conduct problems all increase the risk of being victimized, according to Kliakovic and Hunt (2016), and being victimized could increase the risk of engaging in bullying (Griffin & Gross, 2004).

What characterizes bullies is that they are often aggressive towards their peers, teachers, parents and other adults (Lee, Liu, & Watson, 2016). This aggression normally peaks in early to middle adolescence and could be explained by the teens seeking autonomy from their parents. This leads them to rely more heavily on peer social support, social status and popularity, which increase the pressure to obtain peer acknowledgement and superiority over other students (Lee, Liu, & Watson, 2016). In addition to aggression, bullies also have an impulsive and dominant temperament (Griffin & Gross, 2004). Furthermore, they have a positive attitude towards using violence and consider it to be a helpful tool in getting what they want (Olweus, 1998). Their need to feel powerful leads them to identifying victims who either will not retaliate or are

ineffective when doing so, which they are quite proficient at (Griffin & Gross, 2004). Further, in a study conducted on college students in USA they found that students who engaged in bullying expressed more aggression and had higher scores of psychopathic traits when compared to victims of bullying (Ragatz, Anderson, Fremouw & Schwartz, 2011). What characterizes bullies in adolescence is mainly their aggressive behavior, using fear and violence to get what they want.

Psychopathy is a multidimensional personality disorder with problematic traits. Psychopathy is seen as a more severe personality disorder than antisocial personality disorder (Orue & Andershed, 2015), and can be divided into three dimensions: the interpersonal, affective and behavioral dimensions (Andershed, Gustafson, Kerr & Stattin, 2002; Poythress & Hall,

(7)

7

2011). The interpersonal dimension includes narcissistic traits such as grandiosity and manipulation. The affective dimension includes callous-unemotional traits such as lack of empathy and shallow emotions. The behavioral dimension is characterized by irresponsibility and impulsivity (Andershed et al., 2002; Poythress & Hall, 2011). This study will use these definitions of the dimensions of psychopathy. Adolescents cannot be diagnosed with

psychopathy, only adults get the diagnosis (Andershed et al., 2002). However, research have shown that psychopathic traits can be found among adolescents (Andershed et al., 2002).If an adolescent has a psychopathic personality, he or she need to score high on all three dimensions. However, it is possible to not have a psychopathic personality and score high on one or two of the three personality dimensions (Geel et al., 2017).

Psychopathic traits, such as callousness, grandiosity, narcissism, impulsivity and

sensation-seeking, is linked to problematic behaviors and antisocial behavior in both adolescence and adulthood (Andersheed et al., 2002). Research has shown that adolescents with psychopathy-like personality engage in both violent and nonviolent crime earlier than other adolescents (Andershed et al., 2002; Cooke & Michie, 2001). An important conclusion from a study by Geel et al (2017) is that psychopathic traits can anticipate adolescents behavioral problems.

Adolescents with a psychopathy-like personality show problematic behavior against others and starts with criminal behavior earlier than adolescents who do not show signs of psychopathic traits.

Is there any evidence suggesting that adolescents with psychopathic traits are more likely to engage in bullying or become a victim of bullying? Adolescents who bully share similar traits with psychopathy, such as lack of empathy, manipulative behavior, aggressive behavior, positive

(8)

8

towards violence, social dominance over others, lack of remorse and guilt (Fanti & Kimonis, 2012). In a recent meta-analysis, it was found that there was a link between high scores on psychopathic traits and engagement in bullying (Geel et al., 2017). Moreover, adolescents who score high within the interpersonal dimension and have narcissistic traits violates others in their pursuit to feel powerful and to be admired to further inflate their grandiose self-image (Reijntjes, Vermande, Thomaes, Goossens, Olthof, Aleva, & Meulen, 2016). Further, adolescents scoring high in the affective dimension of psychopathy, i.e., have traits like callous and unemotional do not care about other feelings, and are more likely to have a positive view on aggression,

something which may be an explanation why they engage in bullying (Geel et al., 2017). Scoring high on the behavioral dimension, for example on impulsivity, may be a reason to why

adolescents bully others, because they get provoked and react in the moment without thinking of the consequences (Geel et al., 2017). Impulsivity could also have an opposite effect where the impulsivity behavior could make them a target for bullies and then become victim of bullying (Fanti & Kimonis, 2012). There is evidence that psychopathy and bullying have a connection, however the link between psychopathy and being a victim of bullying is not as well proven.

Conclusions from previous research regarding psychopathy and bullying are that there are associations between the personality traits within the affective dimension and engagement in bullying (Thornberg & Jungert, 2017; Golmaryami, Hemphill, Kahn, Grapanzano and

Terranova, 2016; Geel et al., 2017) and also between the interpersonal and the behavioral dimensions and engagement in bullying (Geel et al., 2017; Fanti & Kimonis, 2012; Fanti & Kimonis, 2013). A study by Fanti and Kimonis (2012) explored the interpersonal and behavioral dimensions on engagement in bullying, focusing especially on narcissism and impulsivity. They

(9)

9

found that narcissism and impulsivity predicted engagement in bullying. These findings combined with previous research suggests that all three dimensions of psychopathy

independently contribute to an increased risk of engagement in bullying (Fanti & Kimonis, 2012; Fanti & Kimonis, 2013). When examining being a victim of bullying and the affective

dimension, Golmaryami et al (2017) found no significant correlations between traits within the affective dimension and being a victim of bullying. Fanti and Kimonis (2012), by contrast, found that both narcissism and impulsivity were related to being a victim of bullying. However,

impulsivity was more strongly related and was also related to change over time in being a victim of bullying (Fanti & Kimonis, 2012). According to previous research, all three dimensions of psychopathy significantly predict engagement in bullying, however mainly the behavioral dimension of psychopathy have a connection to being a victim of bullying.

In the study conducted by Fanti and Kimonis (2012) they used The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) by Frick (2004) as well as the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD) by Frick and Hare (2001). The ICU measure was specifically created to highlight CU traits on adults, but has since then been adapted to also examine adolescents’ callousness, lack of emotions, lack of guilt and lack of empathy. The measure has received criticism that it is lacking diversity in its questions regarding emotionality, not assessing the major emotions, but rather focusing on negative emotionality (Berg et al., 2013). This could result in adolescents being labeled with high CU-traits without displaying unemotionality. This imbalance has resulted in that some suggest a separation of CU-traits into “C and U” instead to more globally assess both Callousness and Unemotionality (Berg et al., 2013). Beyond the Fanti and Kimonis (2012) and Fanti and Kimonis (2013) studies, there are no other studies that have examined if psychopathic

(10)

10

traits can predict both victimization and engagement in bullying. Most studies often just looked at one of the dimensions or one specific trait within the dimension of psychopathy when

predicting engagement in bullying, which is problematic since psychopathic personality is a multidimensional personality profile.

In the present study, we will examine two questions. The first question is whether

psychopathy (and the dimensions of psychopathy uniquely predicts engagement in bullying. The second question is whether psychopathy and the dimension of psychopathy uniquely predicts being a victim of bullying. To answer these two questions, delinquency will be included as a control variable, because it correlates highly with psychopathy and bullying (Andershed et al., 2002; Cooke & Michie, 2001). Based on previous research (Fanti & Kimonis 2012; Fanti & Kimonis 2013), we believe that psychopathy and its dimensions separately, will predict

engagement in bullying. However, we do not believe that psychopathy or any of the dimensions of psychopathy will predict becoming a victim of bullying. If there is a significant prediction between any of the dimensions of psychopathy and becoming a victim of bullying, we believe it would be the behavioral dimension, based on previous findings by Fanti and Kimonis (2012).

Method

Participants

The participants in our study were collected from a community-based data collection called the “10-to-18” project. Participants were recruited from a middle-sized town in Sweden. Data collection started in 2001 and the adolescents were assessed annually for five consecutive years. However, for our cross-sectional study we are only looking at adolescents who were in

(11)

11

grades 7th through 8th. Our sample consisted of 693 (N=366 boys, N=327 girls) students. During the data collection, 585 (84.4%) of the 693 participants answered all questions.

Measures

Psychopathic traits. Adolescents’ psychopathic traits were measured using the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI: Andershed, Kerr, Stattin, & Levander, 2002). This is a self-report scale consisting of 50 items, representing 10 different subscales. The 10 subscales fall into the three main dimensions of psychopathic traits: (i.e., Interpersonal, Affective and Behavioral dimensions) and consist of 5 items for each of the subscales. Furthermore, this instrukent has been validated on different samples throughout the world (Andershed, Kerr, Stattin, & Levander, 2002). This reliability and construct validity of the instrument has been reported elsewhere (see Chauhan, Ragbeer, Burnette, Oudekerk, Reppucci, & Moretti, 2014; Hillege, Das, & de Ruiter, 2010; Neumann & Pardini, 2014). The participants responded on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (Does not apply at all) to 4 (Applies very well).

Interpersonal dimension: Examples of items are,“It's easy for me to charm and seduce others to get what I want from them” (dishonest charm); “I have talents that go far beyond other people” (grandiosity); “Sometimes I find myself lying without any particular reason” (pathological lying); “It’s easy for me to manipulate people” (manipulation). The alpha reliability for the interpersonal dimensions measure was .81.

Affective dimension: Examples of items are, “To feel guilt and regret when you have done something wrong is a waste of time” (remorselessness); “I don’t understand how people can be touched enough to cry by looking at things on TV or movies” (unemotionality); “I think that crying is a sign of weakness, even if no one sees you” (callousness). The alpha reliability for the

(12)

12

affective dimensions measure was .69.

Behavioral dimension: Examples of items are, “I like to be where exciting things happen” (thrill seeking); “If I get the chance to do something fun I do it, no matter what I had been doing before” (impulsiveness); “I have probably skipped school or work more than most other people” (irresponsibility). The alpha reliability for the behavioral dimensions measure was .87.

Bullying. The bullying and being bullied measures used in “10-to-18” were adapted from Alsaker and Brunners (1999). Each item for both bullying and being bullied was rated on a 4-point scale. 1 = No, it has not happened this spring semester, 2 = Yes, it has happened 1 or 2 times this spring semester, 3 = Yes, it has happened about once a week, 4 = Yes it has happened several times a week. Bullying and being bullied was measured using three main items

concerning teasing, exclusion and physical assault. The items were modified to include bullying and being bullied in general, bullying boys/being bullied by boys and bullying girls/being bullied by girls. The following items were used concerning bullying: “Have you mocked, teased, or said nasty things to any boy/girl/anybody in school or on the way to or from school?”; “Have you hit, kicked or attacked any boy/girl/anybody in school or on the way to or from school?”. The following items were used concerning being bullied: “Has any boy/girl/anybody mocked you, teased you, or said mean things to you in school or on the way to or from school?”; “Have you been hit, kicked, or attacked by any boy/girl/anybody in school or on the way to or from

school?”. The alpha reliability for the bullying measure was .73 and the alpha reliability for the being bullied measure was .70.

Delinquency. The delinquency measure consisted of 31 items, 15 items concerning if they had engaged in certain delinquent behaviors during the past year and seven items

(13)

13

concerning engagement in delinquent behaviors before 6th grade. six items concerning violence and three items concerning substance use. Some examples of items used were: “Have you taken things from a store, stand, or shop without paying – during the last year?” and “Have you taken a bicycle without permission during the last year?”. The response scale for delinquent behaviors during the past year ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (more than 10 times). Some examples of questions concerning delinquent behaviors before 6th grade was: “Gotten drunk” and “Shoplifted” to which they responded either 1= Yes or 2 = No. The alpha reliability for the delinquency measure was .84.

Procedure

During the data collection only a research assistant were present and the data collection were conducted in classrooms during school time. Before the data collection, parents were informed about what kind of questions it would be in the study, and what the study would be about. Both the students and parents who also were included in the data collection were informed about the confidentiality and that they could withdraw their participation at any time. Neither the students nor the parents received any compensation for their participation.

Analyses

To answer the research questions in this study, we used hierarchical linear regression to analyze if psychopathy predicts either engagement in bullying or victimization of bullying, and also to see the unique effects of the three dimensions of psychopathy. The predictor variables were put in the blocks, hierarchically, and controlled for delinquency. The delinquency measure was entered in the first block. In block two, we first put the psychopathy as an entirety and had

(14)

14

bullying as an outcome variable. Then we did the same thing but with the three psychopathic dimensions in block two to see the unique effects of the different psychopathic dimensions. For being bullied the same procedure was used.

Results

Descriptive statistics

We first examined the correlations among the study variables. The dependent variable engagement in bullying (i.e., bully) correlated with psychopathy as an entirety, its three dimensions and delinquency (see Table 1). Being the victim of bullying also correlated with psychopathy as an entirety and delinquency. However, when examining the correlations between each of the YPI dimensions separately and victim of bullying, only one correlation was

significant, namely the interpersonal dimension (see Table 1). Of the 653 adolescents who answered the questions regarding being bullied, 359 (55%) answered that they had never experienced being bullied in any form. Further, the mean for victimization (being bullied) was low, and 90.4% of our sample reported a mean lower than 2 which indicate that they never or very rarely had been subject to any form of bullying during the past semester. Of the adolescents who answered the questions regarding engagement in bullying, 59.8% answered that they had never bullied others. Further, the mean for bullying was also low (see Table 1), and 90.8% of our sample reported a mean lower than 2, which indicate that they had never or very rarely engaged in bullying others the past semester.

(15)

15

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation for Main Study Variables

M(SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Affective 2.05(.39) - .69** .56** .82** .25** .05 .25** 2. Interpersonal 1.82(.43) - .65** .93** .32** .08* .35** 3. Behavioral 2.21(.50) - .84** .35** .08 .41** 4. YPI total 2.00(.42) - .36** .08* .40** 5. Bully 1.27(.45) - .22** .52** 6. Victim 1.30(.45) - .13** 7. Delinquency 1.14(.31) -

Note: Affective Affective dimension; Interpersonal Interpersonal dimension; Behavioral Behavioral dimension.

Can psychopathy predict engagement in bullying?

To answer our first research question, we conducted two hierarchical linear regressions in order to determine if psychopathy as an entirety could predict engagement in bullying, as well as looking at the different dimensions predictions separately. To obtain the unique variation

explained by psychopathy and its separate dimensions in bullying we included delinquency in the first block and psychopathy in the second. Our results showed that delinquency explained 21.8% of the variance in bullying behavior (F(1,586) = 163.16, p < .001) (see Table 2) and

(16)

16

psychopathy explained additional 4.1% of the variation in bullying behavior (F(1,585) = 32.38, p < .001). Psychopathy was a significant unique predictor of bullying behavior, β = .22, p < .001 (see Table 2). The results indicate that adolescents who score high on the different dimensions of psychopathy combined are more likely to also engage in bullying.

Table 2

Hierarchical Linear Regression YPI Total

Bullying

Predictors  p R2 R2

Delinquency .47 .000

YPI Total .22 .000

.259 .041

Note: YPI Total Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory

Concerning if the different dimensions of psychopathy independently predicted engagement in bullying, we conducted a second hierarchical linear regression, and this time including the separate dimensions of YPI (i.e., interpersonal, affective and behavioral

dimensions) instead of psychopathy as an entirety while still controlling for delinquency. Our results showed that the three YPI dimensions explained 4.3% of bullying behavior, which is an increase of 0.2% more than the variation explained by psychopathy as a whole (F(3,583) = 11.43, p < .001) (see Table 3). When looking at the separate dimensions unique predictions on bullying behavior, we found that the affective dimension did not significantly predict bullying behavior, whereas the interpersonal and behavioral dimensions significantly predicted bullying behavior. The interpersonal dimension had a unique significant predictor effect of β = .13, p <

(17)

17

.05 and the behavioral dimensions had a unique significant predictor effect of β = .12, p < .05 (see Table 3). Adolescents who score highly on the behavioral dimension, also engage in bullying to a larger extent than others. However, as our results indicate, it seems that scoring high in the affective dimension, does not predict engagement in bullying.

Table 3

Hierarchical Linear Regression YPI Dimensions

Bullying Predictors  p R2 R2 Delinquency .47 .000 Affective .001 .978 Interpersonal .10 .018 Behavioral .10 .012 .261 .043

Note: Affective Affective dimension; Interpersonal Interpersonal dimension; Behavioral Behavioral dimension.

Can psychopathy predict victimization in bullying?

To answer our second question, we conducted another two hierarchical linear regressions. This in order to determine if psychopathy as a whole could predict being a victim of bullying, and also to see if any of the three YPI dimensions uniquely could predict being a victim of bullying. To ensure that we got the unique effect of psychopathy and its dimensions we

controlled for delinquency. In both of our analyses, delinquency significantly explained 1.4% of the variation of being a victim of bullying, (F(1,584) = 8.38, p < .01). However, neither

(18)

18

0.61, p = .606), significantly explained being a victim of bullying, also resulting in the unique predictor effects being insignificant. We conclude that psychopathy does not predict being a victim of bullying in the current sample.

Discussion

In the current study, we investigated if psychopathy can explain engagement in bullying or being the victim of bullying. Our results show that psychopathy in adolescents can to some extent predict engagement in bullying. Another finding was that adolescents within certain dimensions of psychopathy, were more likely to violate others. Specifically, adolescents that have personality traits within the interpersonal and behavioral dimensions of the YPI were more likely to engage in bullying behavior. We can also draw some conclusions from the insignificant predictions in our results regarding the affective dimension, as it seems that adolescents who scored high within this dimension did not predict engagement in bullying. It is also fair to conclude that scoring high on the YPI or any of its dimensions does not explain becoming a victim of bullying. In conclusion, it seems that scoring high on psychopathy and especially the interpersonal and behavioral dimension can explain bullying engagement to some extent. However, regarding victimization of bullying it seems that scoring high on psychopathy or the different dimensions of psychopathy do not predict becoming a victim of bullying.

While many other studies often only investigate if a certain dimension of psychopathy either predict or have a connection to engagement in bullying. The current study focuses on both psychopathy as a whole as and the different dimensions of psychopathy separately, on both engagement in bullying and being a victim of bullying. The data used in our study was collected using valid measure, specifically developed to measure youth psychopathy and further providing

(19)

19

insight to what dimensions of the psychopathy that predict bullying. The results of the current study have contributed with findings to a field that has not been fully explored. Further providing insight to what dimensions of the YPI that can or cannot predict engagement in bullying and being a victim of bullying.

The current study had similar results as Fanti and Kimonis (2012) regarding the interpersonal and behavioral dimensions of psychopathy when predicting engagement in

bullying. A somewhat surprising result we found was the insignificant prediction of the affective dimension on engagement in bullying. This result departs from previous research where they found the affective dimension to be a predictor of engagement in bullying (Fanti & Kimonis, 2012). A possible explanation for the different results could be that we used other measures on psychopathy and bullying than Fanti and Kimonis (2012). Another possible explanation for the different results could be that our study and Fanti and Kimonis (2012) study were conducted in different countries. Research has shown that there are differences between countries in

prevalence of bullying (Due & Holstein, 2008). Factors such as the country’s wealth also had an impact on the prevalence of youth violence, the less wealthy countries had a higher prevalence of youth violence compared to wealthier countries (Elgar, McKinnon, Walsh, Freeman, Donnelly, Matos & Currie, 2015). When comparing Greece and Cyprus to Sweden and the years of data collection, Greece was dealing with one of the worst financial crises in the country’s history. Which we have to take into consideration, since this could have impacted Fanti and Kimonis (2012) results. These cultural and financial differences combined with different school

environments may explain the observed discrepancies. When explaining our results, one has to recognize the potential impact of the physical and psychological changes during early to middle

(20)

20

adolescence. These changes are mainly due to the onset of puberty where many explore power balances, are highly self-centered, egoistic and even narcissistic, thrill-seeking, irresponsible and impulsive (Steinberg, 2005). Which could make it difficult to distinguish whether our results reflect the behavior of normal pubescent teens or teens with psychopathic tendencies. Victimization in our study has results that partly go against previous research, which would suggest that this field of research need to be explored further. The results found in Fanti and Kimonis (2012) study, suggest that impulsivity is able to predict victimization to some extent. However, when looking at the entire behavioral dimension rather than one specific trait within the dimension, we found this prediction to be insignificant. Based on previous research and literature, we expected that if any of the dimensions would significantly predict victimization it would be the behavioral dimension. Since being highly impulsive may provoke their peers to respond with hostility, exposing them to unwanted hostile situations due to their erratic behavior (Olweus, 1998; Hernandez Rodriguez et al., 2014). But as previously mentioned, we found no significant predictions suggesting this to be the case. However, these discrepancies in the results could also be credited by previously mentioned explanations (i.e., cultural/country differences, environment and different measures).

Like other studies, our study has limitations and questions that has not been answered. One limitation is that the sample-data we used was collected in the early 2000s. Therefore, some of the measures could have been updated to get a more precise measure. It would have been interesting to collect data ourselves, but replicating this study with a sample from today would not have been possible for us, with the time and resources that we had available. There are always some dangers with using self-report that has to be recognized, one of which is the

(21)

21

honesty and image management of the participants, which is especially sensitive when asking non-benign questions. Another limitation to the current study is that we only include two distinguished groups, adolescents who were either victims of bullying or engaged in bullying. We did however not include one interesting group when looking at engagement and

victimization, namely the bully-victim group. This group consist of people who are both victim and perpetrator simultaneously. Further, another limitation to the study is that we do not compare gender differences while investigating psychopathy and bullying.

Future research should take into account to control for delinquency to get the unique effect of psychopathy on bullying and victimization like the current study do. It would also be interesting to include a teacher report in addition to the pupils self-reports, in order to determine if these behaviors are detectable from an outside perspective in school environment. We also suggest future research to include cyberbullying as an additional variable, which was not

included in our study. Our sample-data was collected in the early 2000s, when cyberbullying was still a new phenomenon that started to surface and only a handful of studies had been conducted (Zych, Ortega-Ruiz, & Del Rey, 2015). However, since then interest regarding the topic has grown exponentially, combined with the ever increasing access and availability of the internet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see if previous findings regarding psychopathy and bullying also applies to cyberbullying.

While the study has limitations we also have strengths in our study. A strength in our study is that we controlled for delinquency to examine the unique effect of psychopathy. Another strength is that to our knowledge there are only two studies that have previously investigated if psychopathy can both predict being a victim of bullying and engagement in bullying at the same

(22)

22

time. This makes our study an addition to the few studies that exist in this area. Previous studies often look at one dimension and engagement in bullying. while we examined all the dimensions of psychopathy and both being victim of bullying and engagement in bullying. Our study also had a well-validated measure for psychopathy.

There are many explanations for why adolescents bully others and why some become victims of bullying. This study has focused on if psychopathy and the different dimensions of psychopathy predict engagement in bullying and becoming a victim of bullying. The results of this study show that adolescents that bully others can partly be explained by psychopathy and its dimensions. However, psychopathy cannot predict being a victim of bullying from the results in this study. These results show that having more severe personality traits can be an explanation for why certain adolescents engage in bullying others. More research is needed in this area to make more comparison between psychopathy and bullying, so that interventions can be made to reduce bullying behaviors and therefore also reduce becoming a victim of bullying.

(23)

23

References

Alsaker FD, Brunner A (1999). Switzerland. In Smith PK, Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, Olweus D, Catalano R, Slee PT (Eds.) The Nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective. London: Routledge 250-63

Andershed, H., Gustafson, S.B., Kerr, M., Stattin, H. (2002). The usefulness of self-reported psychopathy-like traits in the study of antisocial behavior among non-referred adolescents, European Journal of Personality, 16, 383-402. doi: 10.1002/per.455 Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred

youths: A new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw, & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current International Perspectives (pp. 131-158). The Hague: Elsevier.

Berg, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O., Reddy, S. D., Latzman, R. D., Roose, A., Craighead, L. W., Pace, T. W., Raison, C. L. (2013). The Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits: A Construct-Validational Analysis in an At-Risk Sample. Assessment. 20(5), 532-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112474338

Chauhan, P., Ragbeer, S. N., Burnette, M. L., Oudekerk, B., Reppucci, N. D., & Moretti, M. M. (2014). Comparing the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) and the Psychopathy Checklist–Youth Version (PCL-YV) among offending girls. Assessment, 21(2), 181–194. Doi: 10.1177/1073191112460271

Cooke, D. J., Mitchie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: towards a hierarchical model, Psychological assessment, 13, 171-188. doi: 10.1037/10403590.13.2.171

(24)

24

Due, P., & Holstein, B. E. (2008). Bullying victimization among 13 to 15 year old school

children: Results from two comparative studies in 66 countries and regions. International Journal Of Adolescent Medicine And Health, 20(2), 209-221.

doi:10.1515/IJAMH.2008.20.2.209

Elgar, F. J., McKinnon, B., Walsh, S. D., Freeman, J., Donnelly, P. D., de Matos, M. G., & ... Currie, C. (2015). Structural determinants of youth bullying and fighting in 79 countries. Journal Of Adolescent Health, 57(6), 643-650. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.007

Fanti, K. A., & Kimonis, E. R. (2012). Bullying and victimization: The role of conduct problems and psychopathic traits. Journal Of Research On Adolescence, 22(4), 617-631.

doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00809.x

Fanti, K. A., & Kimonis, E. R. (2013). Dimensions of juvenile psychopathy distinguish 'bullies,' 'bully-victims,' and 'victims'. Psychology Of Violence, 3(4), 396-409.

doi:10.1037/a0033951

Frick, P. J. (2004). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Unpublished rating scale. New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans.

Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The antisocial process screening device. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems

Friends. (2017a). Fakta och forskning. Collected 2017-11-13, from https://friends.se/fakta- _ forskning/om-mobbning/

(25)

25

Geel, M., Toprak, F., Goemans, A., Zwaanswijk, W., & Vedder, P. (2017). Are youth

psychopathic traits related to bullying? Meta-analyses on callous-unemotional traits, narcissism, and impulsivity. Child Psychiatry And Human Development, 48(5), 768-777. doi:10.1007/s10578-016-0701-0

Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression And Violent Behavior, 9(4), 379-400.

doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8

Golmaryami, F. N., Frick, P. J., Hemphill, S. A., Kahn, R. E., Crapanzano, A. M., & Terranova, A. M. (2016). The social, behavioral, and emotional correlates of bullying and

victimization in a school-based sample. Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(2), 381-391. doi:10.1007/s10802-015-9994-x

Hernandez Rodriguez, J., Gregus, S. J., Craig, J. T., Pastrana, F. A., & Cavell, T. A. (2014). Bullied children. In C. A. Alfano, D. C. Beidel (Eds.), Comprehensive evidence based interventions for children and adolescents (pp. 301-316). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Hill, R. M., Mellick, W., Temple, J. R., & Sharp, C. (2017). The role of bullying in depressive symptoms from adolescence to emerging adulthood: A growth mixture model. Journal Of Affective Disorders, 2071-8. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.007

Hillege, S., Das, J., & de Ruiter, C. (2010). The youth psychopathic traits inventory:

psychometric properties and its relation to substance use and interpersonal style in a Dutch sample of non-referred adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 83–91. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.006

(26)

26

Johansson, B., & Flygare, E. (2013). Långvarig utsatthet drabbar hårt. In Skolverket,

Kränkningar i skolan: analyser av problem och lösningar (pp. 68-90). Stockholm: Skolverket.

Kliakovic, M., & Hunt, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of predictors of bullying and victimization in adolescence. Journal Of Adolescence, 49 134-145. doi:

10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.03.002

Lee, Y., Liu, X., & Watson, M. W. (2016). The timing effect of bullying in childhood and adolescence on developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviors. Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 31(17), 2775-2800. doi:10.1177/0886260515581908

Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression And Violent Behavior, 2161-72.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007

Neumann, C. S., & Pardini, D. (2014). Factor structure and construct validity of the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) Scale and the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) in young men. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 419–433. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2012_26_063

Olweus, D. (1998). Mobbning i skolan: Vad vi vet och vad vi kan göra. Stockholm: Liber Orue, I., & Andershed, H. (2015). The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory-Short Version in

Spanish adolescents—Factor structure, reliability, and relation with aggression, bullying, and cyber bullying. Journal Of Psychopathology And Behavioral Assessment, 37(4), 563-575. doi:10.1007/s10862-015-9489-7

(27)

27

Poythress, N. G., & Hall, J. R. (2011). Psychopathy and impulsivity reconsidered. Aggression And Violent Behavior, 16(2), 120-134. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.003

Ragatz, L. L., Anderson, R. J., Fremouw, W., & Schwartz, R. (2011). Criminal thinking patterns, aggression styles, and the psychopathic traits of late high school bullies and

bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 145-160. doi:10.1002/ab.20377

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Thomaes, S., Goossens, F., Olthof, T., Aleva, L., & Meulen, M. (2016). Narcissism, bullying, and social dominance in youth: A longitudinal analysis. Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(1), 63-74. doi:10.1007/s10802-015-9974-1

Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends In Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69-74. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005

Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2017). Callous-unemotional traits, harm-effect moral reasoning, and bullying among Swedish children. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(4), 559-575. doi:10.1007/s10566-017-9395-0

Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and

cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression And Violent Behavior, 24188-198. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.015