







































Education, Society and Human Studies 
ISSN 2690-3679 (Print) ISSN 2690-3687 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs 

55 

Original Paper 

Qualitative Study Models in Understanding of Aggression, 

Bullying, and Violence 
C. Girija Navaneedhan1* & T. J. Kamalanabhan1 

1 Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras 
* C. Girija Navaneedhan, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras 

 

Received: April 30, 2020          Accepted: May 11, 2020         Online Published: May 18, 2020 

doi:10.22158/eshs.v1n1p55                       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eshs.v1n1p55 

 

Abstract 

Aggression in humans is characterised under two categories a) physical and b) Mental aggression. 

Physical aggression is the Psychological as well as Social behaviour in which an individual literally 

causes physical harm leading to pain on another individual, whereas mental aggression is the one in 

which an individual causes emotional pain verbally on another individual. Both the types of aggression 

damages social well-being of the individuals involved in it. This scenario is similar to the outbreak of 

Tsunami followed by an Earth quake. In both the situation the consequence is damage. Bullying is a 

psychological act of provocation as the result of destress by the individuals exhibiting their power on 

others. Though bullying is very common in school environment, it also occurs in office environment etc. 

Bullying causes emotional damage to a greater extent compared to physical damage. Violence is the 

product of aggression and bullying resulting in physical injury as well as emotional break down. The 

present chapter discusses in detail a qualitative model in understanding of the acts of aggression and 

bullying resulting in violence as well as suggestions controlling the act of aggression and bullying. 

Keywords 

aggression, bullying, psychological act, provocation and damage 

 

1. Introduction 

Aggression is a negative feeling that occurs when an individual experiences rejection from whom they 

are closely associated with (Downey, Irwin, Ramsay, & Ayduk, 2004). It is also seen in individuals 

having a false feeling of threat from others (Crick & Dodge, 1994). People who tend to be aggressive in 

nature believe in adopting violence as a strategy to solve interpersonal conflicts (Anderson, 1997; Dill, 

Anderson, & Deuser, 1997). In general youth take shelter in adopting violence to solve social situations 

(Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Research studies have proven that people with low self-esteem 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
56 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

are more aggressive than people with high self-esteem. Individuals with low self-esteem have a feel of 

insecurity and prone to anger as their self -image is threatened (Kernis, Brockner, & Frankel, 1989; 

Baumeister et al., 1996). For example, students who tend to bully others are those who always want to 

be the centre of attention, selfish, and who cannot take criticism (Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). It 

appears that these people are highly motivated to protect their inflated self-concepts and react with 

anger and aggression when it is threatened. In a study conducted by Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpaa, and 

Peets (2005), on a group of fifth and sixth grade children asking them to fill a series of questions 

regarding describing themselves, their relationship with others, children whose concern about 

themselves are rated as aggressive and those who care for others are rated as altruistic. Several studies 

have shown that gender plays an important role in aggression (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Crick & Nelson, 

2002). Men are found to be more aggressive in comparison to women. Aggressive women and girls 

indulge in shouting, insulting, spreading rumours, abstaining others from activities. Whereas, men 

indulge in physical violence such as hitting, pushing, tripping and kicking (Österman et al., 1998). 

World-wide the data shows that 99% of rapes are committed by men, as are about 90% of robberies, 

assaults, and murders (Graham & Wells, 2001). Among children, boys show higher rates of physical 

aggression than girls do (Loeber & Hay, 1997), and even infants differ, such that infant boys tend to 

show more anger and poorer emotional regulation in comparison to infant girls. The reason probably is 

men desire to grab more attention among peers compared to women. This does not mean that women 

are not aggressive, both men and women become provocative as well as aggressive as they encounter 

insults. This gender difference in aggressiveness among men and women can also be related to their 

individual hormone levels. Testosterone, which exists at higher levels in boys and men, plays a 

significant role in aggression, and this is in part responsible for these differences. Another contributing 

factor to gender differences is evolutionary pattern. In olden days women used to do cooking and take 

care of children on contrary men do hunting, fighting etc which symbolically represented them to be 

more aggressive. In addition to this, men are generally competitive to each other in gaining status in 

turn is related to attract women (Buss & Shackelford, 1997).  

According to Eagly (1987) and her colleagues, social norms and expectations contribute to gender 

differences. According Eagly (1987) in many Nations women are expected to be humble, friendly and 

emotionally balanced. When they express anger and destress, they are considered aggressive. On the 

other hand, Men show independence, assertiveness, aggressiveness if it is related to their social or 

material rewards. The following model depicts the link between Aggression, Bullying, Violence and 

Victimization. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
57 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 1. Aggression Model: The Model Explains Aggressive Behaviour Arises due to the above 

Five Factors Leading to Bullying, Victimization and Violence 

 

2. Aggression and Violence 

There is strong evidence that aggression leads to violence. Research studies have shown that one of 

reasons for aggression is the socioeconomic status. Children with low socioeconomic status are found 

to be more aggressive compared to their peers with moderate and high socio-economic status, the 

reason being children with low socioeconomic status are vulnerable child abuse affecting their 

psychological well-being (Caspi et al., 2002). Though aggression mainly depends on biological factors, 

low socio-economic status acts as a trigger, Zigler, Taussig and Black (1992) suggested that aggressive 

behaviour leading to violence can be changed with improving cognition and emotion. Therefore, 

children in their formative years to be targeted to bring in effective change in behaviour having a check 

of their thoughts and feelings. Many attempts world-wide to check aggressive behaviour leading to 

violence through “boot camps,” individual and group therapy, and “scared straight” programs in 

rehabilitation centre proved to be unsuccessful unless it is addressed at grass root level by personal 

interventions by teachers and parents at a tender age. In order to prevent aggressive behaviour among 

children is to prevent them from exposure to violence in day to day life as well as discouraging them 

watching violent films, playing violent video games, having a close monitor on children’s activities. 

Children behaving aggressively are to be diverted with laughter which drastically brings change in their 

behaviour rather than encountering with aggression. It is necessary to have a check on emotions, 

otherwise leads to negative behaviour of arousal. Therefore, children are to be trained to think about 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
58 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

their feelings, learn the ways to respond negative emotions depending on the situations to find most 

effective solution to overcome frustration or anger (Berkowitz, 1993).  

In most of the cultures world-wide Parents send their children to schools at a very tender age thinking 

that the school is the best place for their children safety. Whereas, a few children aggressive in nature, 

have shown violent behaviour indulging themselves in shooting incidents due to the free availability of 

hand guns and other violent materials. Therefore, school systems must strictly enforce laws to prevent 

the students from teasing, threatening or any kind of mistreat on fellow students. Countries like Canada, 

New Zealand and United States have recently passed a legislation to stop cyberbullying. The following 

are a few suggestions to overcome aggressive behaviour leading to bullying among children and 

adolescents. 

 By reducing the gap in the socio- economic status between rich and poor sections of the society 

which in turn reduce upward comparison by the poverty-stricken society leading to frustration, 

aggression eventually to violence. 

 By educating Children and adolescents the causes of violence might result in less aggressiveness. 

 By giving support and rehabilitation of young adults under the influence of drugs and alcohol as 

well as making them understand that substance abuse lead to aggressive behaviour. 

 By counselling the children to reduce violence who grow up in abusive homes having the opinion 

aggressiveness is considered as normal behaviour. 

 By encouraging the children to think positively and develop concern about other from young age, 

might result in increase in positive feeling about themselves as well as with others helping them to 

communicate better, reducing violence and aggression. 

 

3. Some of the Qualitative Methods on Bullying, Aggression and Violence 

Several research studies have been published about Bullying, Aggression and violence for the past 

three decades in international journals (Bjorqvist, 1994; Hawker & Boulton 2000; Rigby, 2003; Salmon 

et al., 2000; Smith, 2004; Smith & Brain, 2000). World-wide out of 75 research studies conducted so far 

7 are found to be based on qualitative methods and the rest are either quantitative or mixed research. 

According to Torrance (2000), qualitative research on Bullying gives implicit understanding as the 

participants victimized by bullying narrates their personal experiences. This is also supported by Stewin 

and Mah (2001). According to Yauch and Steudel (2003) quantitative and qualitative methods differ in 

their approach based on the fact that the quantitative research method involves the collection of the data 

by survey or other measurement techniques. Whereas the qualitative research involves the collection of 

the data through interviews, focus groups and participants observation. Smircich (1980) suggested that 

the researcher has to decide to choose the appropriate method based on the assumptions and nature of the 

social phenomenon under investigation. Therefore, it is suggested that a combination of quantitative and 

qualitative research methods is recommended to understand the assumptions thoroughly. However, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
59 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) confirmed that there are three main reasons for combining the 

quantitative and qualitative methods. 

1) Triangulation for supporting data and obtaining the convergent validity. 

2) Complementarity for fully explaining the results of data analysis. 

3) Guiding for further data collection, sampling or analysis. 

Yauch and Steudel (2003) Mentioned that on overall basis, mixed methods have the potential to enhance 

the understanding of the problem. Nearly 25 mixed research studies published in academic journals on 

Bullying, Aggression, Violence as the main area of focus revealed new insights, complimentary and 

divergent findings. DeLara (2000) findings based on a research study involving High School students on 

sense of safety and the variables contributing to bullying. The research study involved mixed methods 

that is exploratory case study, quantitatively examining the student’s perception about safety of their 

school through survey and qualitatively through focus groups as well as individual interviews with 

students, teachers and school administrators regarding methodologies adopted to prevent bullying. The 

findings of her study from qualitative data revealed that the girls believe in seeking conflict resolution 

among their peers compared to boys. The findings from the focus groups and interviews revealed that the 

students expressed the need for adult supervision and intervention in bullying incidents. Though DeLara 

(2000) findings are contradicting to earlier research findings on bullying where students hesitate to report 

the incidents of bullying to adults. The qualitative research findings are found to be in agreement with the 

survey findings. The findings of the study added much depth in understanding the student’s perception 

about the school environment. Another research study based on mixed methods was conducted by Kulig, 

Hall and Kalischunk (2008) on student’s perceptions and experiences in bullying, victimization, the 

study involved a self rep-report questionnaire administered to a total of 180 students and in-depth 

interviews with 52students. The results of both the qualitative and quantitate were complimentary 

revealing the validity of the research report. Similarly, researches conducted by journal entries, 

participatory field observations which are qualitative in nature are fond to increase the validity of the 

study as the results were trustworthy with survey. Another study conducted by Pelligirini, Long (2002) 

and Varjas et al. (2006) on students transiting from elementary to middle school on bullying. In this study 

the researchers used multi-informant mixed methods to provide acceptable definition on bullying 

behaviour of both accused as well as victims. The study involved 421 participants moving from fifth 

grade to seventh grade. The participants are instructed to make dairy entries regarding experiences and 

observation on bullying recollecting the incidents within 24 hours once in a month through the academic 

year followed by peer nominations and self-reports. The results revealed increase in the validity of the 

constructs of bullying using mixed methods reducing the type I error. Vajras et al. (2006) studied the 

bullying victimization on urban students to evaluate an intervention strategy using mixed methods 

approach by means of group interviews, curriculum worksheets, acceptability measures namely: 

evaluation of participant’s feeling about the session by listening to audiotapes. Quantitative measurement 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
60 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

involved assessment of a questionnaire from Behaviour Assessment system for Children and Revised 

Child Self-Report Post Traumatic Stress Reaction Index. Findings from qualitative data revealed that the 

some of the indicators of bullying are racial minority status based on skin colour, Physical differences, 

perceived sexual differences that is labelled as gay or lesbian by peers and a new student in the school. 

The qualitative research findings were complementary to quantitative analyses. Therefore, both 

quantitative and qualitative research methods to understand in depth about aggression, bullying and 

violence are proved to be effective in data collection, analysis and interpretation. They are several 

research studies carried out by mixed methods reported divergent findings posing certain limitations, 

Linkroums (2006) examined the coping mechanism of coping bullying among 213 African American 

middle school students who were randomly selected by administering a questionnaire to find out their 

experiences in bullying, semi structured interviews were conducted on 80 students qualitatively to know 

about their coping strategies. The findings showed 15 coping strategies, 13 strategies out of 15 were 

found to form a social cluster. However, the regression model derived from quantitative data was found 

to be not in agreement with the responses obtained from interview qualitatively. Divergence in findings 

reported from Self-report and interview considered as the limitations of the mixed methods. Another 

research study by Cowie and Olafsson (2000) reported divergence in qualitative and quantitative data 

findings. They examined the impact peer support services program adopted by a high school with high 

rate of bullying to reduce the aggressive behaviour. The program consisted of students serving as peer 

supporters meeting the other students during lunch and instructing them to be vigilant on incidences of 

bullying and to intervene appropriately. The researchers conducted evaluation administering the 

questionnaire quantitatively twice to collect pre-test and post-test data. The result of the analysis showed 

insignificant differences between pre-test and post-test showing that the peer support service program did 

not reduce bullying. Whereas, qualitative research conducted by taking interviews with peer supporters, 

students and the students who received interventions (victims). The results showed that the incidents of 

bullying reduced by adopting peer support services and the students who are victims felt that peer 

supporters were helpful with timely intervention. Therefore, the rich qualitative data proved the strength 

of peer student support service program in reducing the incidents of bullying, otherwise merely going by 

the results of quantitative data one would infer that peer student support service program as ineffective in 

reducing bullying. Pool et al. (2010) suggested that mixed methods often lead to inconsistency involving 

both quantitative and qualitative analysis, no attempt has been made to find out the reasons for such 

inconsistencies in research findings. Though there is lots of scope for research on bullying the methods 

adopted, mixed methods are widely used in the research on bullying. Another study by Swearer and 

Esplelage (2011) focused to find how technology is used in bullying and violence by students used mixed 

methods. This type of bullying is referred as cyber bullying, digital harassment. Therefore, more mixed 

method research is necessary to find the loop holes in networking sites, blogging communities, virtual 

communities. There is strong evidence to show why mixed methods are recommended in the studies 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
61 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

involving aggression , bullying, violence considering the inconsistent results shown by 16 quantitative 

studies involving meta-analysis on 15,000 students (from kindergarten to twelfth grades) in Europe, 

Canada, and United States revealed positive effects in bullying for about 1/3rd of the studies, while no 

changes were found in rest of the studies. Swedish council for crime prevention evaluated 44 research 

studies on effectiveness preventing bullying by adopting Olweus Program in schools were found to 

effective in Europe compared to USA when the same was adopted. Therefore, the inconsistency in the 

findings could had been refined had the studies involved the collection of the data by interviews, 

observations and focus groups. It can be concluded that mixed methods of research on bullying provides 

new insights to researchers to re-conceptualize the research questions as well as hypothesis based on the 

problem to investigate. The lives of children and adolescents are influenced by the updated technologies 

which are changing to new dimensions. Henceforth, a researcher involved in studies on bullying to 

understand it root causes, prevention has to use mixed methods of research. 

Lesson Plan: Aggression, Bullying, Violence and Victimization 

Learning objectives 

 To understand the explicit meaning of Aggression, Bullying, Violence and victimization. 

 To reason out the causes of Aggression. 

 To interpret why people involve themselves Bullying others. 

 To analyse the consequences of Bullying. 

 To list out different types of violence noticed as the result of Bullying. 

 To find out the strategies to reform aggressive behaviour. 

 To feel the pain of victimization. 

 

Table 1. To Explain What Is Meant by Aggression, Bullying Leading to Violence and 

Victimization 

Objectives Content Learning 

Experiences 

Evaluation 

Understand  The definition 

of Aggression, 

Bullying 

Violence and 

Victimization 

Is Aggression 

an animal 

behaviour? 

How do you 

compare the 

Aggressive 

behaviour 

animals and 

Humans? 

Is Bullying 

Present a case 

study on each 

of the 

following: 

Aggression, 

Bullying, 

Violence, 

Victimization. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
62 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

wright or 

wrong? 

Can you give 

one example of 

Bullying 

leading to 

disaster? 

What are the 

consequences 

of violence due 

to bullying? 

Can you 

measure the 

pain of 

victimization? 

Reasoning Biological, 

Social, 

Economic, 

Parenting 

reasons of 

Aggression 

How to control 

Aggression at 

family level, 

school level 

and societal 

level. 

Is there a link 

between 

Physiology of 

human body 

with the 

exhibition of 

Aggression? 

Is the 

Aggressive 

behaviour is the 

parent of 

bullying, 

violence and 

victimization? 

List out the 

facts showing 

the Biological 

link between 

Human 

Physiology and 

Aggression. 

List out a few 

incidents of 

Aggressive 

behaviour 

leading to 

bullying, 

violence and 

victimization. 

Analysis Carrying out 

research studies 

focusing on 

main objective 

either 

understanding 

What are the 

factors 

responsible for 

exhibiting 

Aggression? 

What is the 

Finding the 

root causes for 

showing 

Aggressive 

behaviour and 

its relationship 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
63 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the root causes 

of Aggression 

and to propose 

strategies to 

identify the 

incidents as 

well as 

prevention of 

bullying, 

violence and 

victimization as 

the result of 

aggression. 

Drafting a 

research design 

based on the 

objective of the 

study. 

relationship 

between 

Aggression 

with bullying 

and violence? 

Does gender 

play a role in 

exhibiting 

Aggression? 

Does age, socio 

economic 

status play a 

role in 

exhibition of 

Aggressive 

behaviour? 

 

gender, age, 

socio economic 

status etc. 

Interpretation Collecting data 

from various 

resources by 

suitable 

protocol to 

understand 

thoroughly 

about 

Aggression, 

Bullying, 

Violence and 

Victimization.  

Applying 

suitable 

methods for 

analysing the 

data collected 

from various 

resources. 

Discussing as 

well as 

validating the 

research 

findings. 

Interpretation 

of the research 

findings with 

suitable 

examples. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
64 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive 

thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23(3), 161-178. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:3%3C161::AID-AB2%3E3.0.CO;2-P 

Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. 

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212-230. 

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2 

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and 

aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5-33. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5 

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 

Bettencourt, B., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A 

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422-447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.422 

Bjorqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent 

research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01420988 

Brown, R. P., Osterman, L. L., & Barnes, C. D. (2009). School violence and the culture of honor. 

Psychological Science, 20(11), 1400-1405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02456.x 

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective. 

Clinical Psychology Review, 17(6), 605-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00037-8 

Campbell, A., Muncer, S., & Gorman, B. (1993). Sex and social representations of aggression: A 

communal-agentic analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 19(2), 125-135. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1993)19:2%3C125::AID-AB2480190205%3E3.0.CO;2-1 

Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of 

genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851-854. 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072290 

Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1997). Field experiments examining the culture of honor: The role of 

institutions in perpetuating norms about violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 

23(11), 1188-1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972311006 

Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bosdle, B., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture 

of honor: An “experimental ethnography”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 

945-960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945 

Cowie, H., & Olafsson, R. (2000). The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying in a school 

with high levels of aggression. School Psychology International, 21, 79-95. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300211006 

Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods 

research design. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
65 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

behavioural research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing 

mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74-101. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74 

Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody 

told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 599-607. 

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020811714064 

Dabbs, J. M., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, social class, and antisocial behaviour in a sample of 

4,462 men. Psychological Science, 1(3), 209-211. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00200.x 

deLara, E.W. (2000). Adolescents’ perceptions of safety at school and their solutions for enhancing safety 

and decreasing school violence: A rural case study (Doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, 

Ithaca, NY. 

Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., & Deuser, W. E. (1997). Effects of aggressive personality on social 

expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 272-292. 

https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2183 

Downey, G., Irwin, L., Ramsay, M., & Ayduk, O. (Eds.). (2004). Rejection sensitivity and girls’ 

aggression. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8985-7_2 

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the 

social psychology literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.309 

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic 

perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306-315. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291173011 

Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2001). The two worlds of aggression for men and women. Sex Roles, 45(9-10), 

595-622. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014811624944 

Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Zelli, A. (1993). Attributions for social failure and adolescent 

aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 19(6), 421-434. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1993)19:6%3C421::AID-AB2480190603%3E3.0.CO;2-N 

Henry, P. J. (2009). Low-status compensation: A theory for understanding the role of status in cultures of 

honor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 451-466. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015476 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
66 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Horowitz, R., & Schwartz, G. (1974). Honor, normative ambiguity and gang violence. American 

Sociological Review, 39(2), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094235 

Huesmann, L. R., & Skoric, M. M. (Eds.). (2003). Regulating media violence: Why, how and by whom? 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Kernis, M. H., Brockner, J., & Frankel, B. S. (1989). Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating 

role of overgeneralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 707-714. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.707 

Kulig, J. C., Hall, B. L., & Kalischuk, R. G. (2008). Bullying perspectives among rural youth: A mixed 

methods approach. Rural and Remote Health, 8, 1-11. 

Linkroum, S. C. (2006). Understanding how African-American middle school students cope with peer 

victimization: A mixed methods approach (Master’s thesis). Virginia Common wealth University, 

Richmond. 

Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood 

to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 371-410. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.371 

Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Boulder, 

CO: Westview Press. 

Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F., Fraczek, A., & 

Caprara, G. V. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 

24(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:1%3C1::AID-AB1%3E3.0.CO;2-R 

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization 

during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of 

Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002166442 

Pool, R., Montgomery, C. M., Morar, N. S., Mweemba, O., Ssali, A., Gafos, M., … Lees, S. et al. (2010). 

A mixed methods and triangulation model for increasing the accuracy of adherence and sexual 

behaviour data: The Microbicides Development Programme. PLoS ONE 5.: e11600. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011600 

Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. E. (2008). Mixed methods research 

in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of trends in the literature. Psychology in the 

Schools, 45, 291-308. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20296 

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: 

Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 14-24. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.14 

Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, 

and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.90004 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

 
67 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpaa, J., & Peets, K. (2005). “I’m OK but you’re not” and other 

peer-relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children’s social goals. 

Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.363 

Smith, P. K. (2004). Bullying: Recent developments. Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 98-103. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2004.00089.x 

Souweidane, V., & Huesmann, L. R. (1999). The influence of American urban culture on the 

development of normative beliefs about aggression in Middle-Eastern immigrants. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 239-254. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022887702034 

Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Expanding the social-ecological framework of bullying among 

youth: Lessons learned from the past and directions for the future. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. 

Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North American schools (pp. 3-10). New York: Routledge. 

Varjas, K. J., Meyers, C. C., Henrich, E. C., Graybill, B. J., Dew, M. L., Marshall, Z., … Avant, M. (2006). 

Using a participatory culture-specific intervention model to develop a peer victimization 

intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22, 35-57. 

https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v22n02_03 

Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural 

assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 465-81. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103257362 

Zigler, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention: A promising preventative for 

juvenile delinquency. American Psychologist, 47(8), 997-1006. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.997 


