زورگویی نوجوانان و شخصیت: رویکرد تطبیقی

Abstract From an evolutionary perspective, bullying behavior may be viewed as adaptive in nature. Moreover, as bullies may utilize both prosocial and aggressive means to achieve desired goals, they likely exhibit specific personality traits that allow for this bistrategic approach to survival. Therefore, after accounting for general aggression levels, bullying should be negatively associated with personality traits such as fairness and modesty (Honesty–Humility), but unrelated to traits such as forgiveness and tolerance (Agreeableness). Additionally, the intentional nature of the behavior suggests that bullying should be positively associated with instrumental, but not reactive, aggression. A sample of 310 adolescents completed measures of bullying, personality, and instrumental/reactive aggression. Results supported the hypotheses and are interpreted from an adaptive perspective.

Bullying behavior is defined as an imbalance of power between two individuals, where the stronger individual repeatedly causes harm to the weaker individual (Olweus, 1993). Adolescent bullying is a significant international problem (Pepler & Craig, 2008) with as many as 100–600 million adolescents directly involved with bullying worldwide, each year (Volk, Craig, Boyce, & King, 2006). Moreover, bullying has been document by anthropologists studying modern hunter-gatherers (e.g., Briggs, 1970 and Turnbull, 1972) as well as historians documenting past cultures (Cunningham, 2005 and Hsiung, 2005). Given its tremendous ubiquity across different times, cultures, and geographies, some researchers have suggested that bullying may be (in part) an evolved adaptation (Kolbert and Crothers, 2003 and Volk et al., in press).

3.1. Descriptive data We calculated the means for age, bullying, the HEXACO, and aggression for adolescent boys and girls. A one-way ANOVA revealed that boys had significantly higher bullying and instrumental aggression scores than girls, while girls had significantly higher scores on Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, and Openness (see Table 1). Table 1. Mean Scores and sex differences for adolescent participants (N = 310). Variable ♀ Mean ♀ SD ♂ Mesn ♂ SD F(1, 289) Age 14.45 1.84 14.05 1.47 3.78 Bullying Total bullying .99 1.69 2.1 2.93 16.81⁎⁎ HEXACO Honesty–Humility 3.41 .60 3.05 .53 28.10⁎⁎ Emotionality 3.49 .54 2.86 .49 98.10⁎⁎ Extraversion 3.52 .53 3.57 .49 .75 Agreeableness 3.04 .51 3.10 .53 1.12 Conscientiousness 3.27 .57 3.16 .56 2.68 Openness 3.18 .60 2.97 .53 8.14⁎⁎ Aggression Reactive 23.37 6.42 24.73 7.19 2.78 Instrumental 15.48 4.70 17.98 7.23 12.82⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options 3.2. Univariate correlations Next we calculated the zero-order correlations between the variables (see Table 2). Bullying was significantly negatively correlated with Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness traits. Bullying was significantly positively related to both instrumental and reactive aggression. Honesty–Humility had significant negative correlations with both dimensions of aggression, while Agreeableness appeared to be more strongly correlated with reactive aggression. Table 2. Correlations between bullying, aggression, and personality traits in adolescents (N ⩾ 287). H E X A C O Reactive Instrumental Bully −.36⁎ −.11⁎ −.05 −.24⁎ −.18⁎⁎ −.08 .39⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ H – .28⁎⁎ .02 .31⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .21⁎ −.43⁎⁎ −.46⁎⁎ E – −.06 −.04 .04 .15⁎⁎ −.07 −.11⁎ X – .21⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ −.09 −.04 A – .20⁎⁎ .10⁎ −.44⁎⁎ −.27⁎⁎ C – .25⁎⁎ −.25⁎⁎ −.19⁎⁎ O – −.18⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ Reactive – .63⁎⁎ ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options 3.3. Bullying hierarchical linear regression The relationships of the independent variables with bullying were analyzed using a 3-step hierarchical linear regression. The first step included age and sex, the second included the HEXACO, and the measures of aggression were entered on the third step to determine whether they altered any of the relationships between bullying and the HEXACO items. The results of the regression can be seen in Table 3. The regression model explained just over a quarter of the variance for bullying (26.0%). Being a boy and being older were both positive predictors of bullying. Honesty–Humility and Agreeableness were significant negative predictors in step two, but Honesty–Humility remained the only significant personality factor once the two measures of aggression were added. As predicted, instrumental aggression significantly predicted bullying, but reactive aggression did not (although its p = .06). Table 3. Hierarchical linear regression for adolescent personality, aggression, and bullying (N = 310). Variable B SE B B Δ r2 Model r2 Step 1 .107⁎⁎ .107⁎⁎ Age .31 .08 .23⁎⁎ Sex −1.24 .27 −.26⁎⁎ Step 2 .107⁎⁎ .214⁎⁎ Age .24 .08 .18⁎⁎ Sex −.98 .30 −.21⁎⁎ Honesty–Humility −.99 .24 −.25⁎⁎ Emotionality .17 .24 .05 Extraversion .01 .25 .00 Agreeableness −.56 .26 −.12⁎ Conscientiousness −.33 .23 −.08 Openness .07 .23 .02 Step 3 .046⁎⁎ .260⁎⁎ Age .19 .07 .14⁎⁎ Sex −.86 .30 −.18⁎⁎ Honesty–Humility −.60 .25 −.16⁎⁎ Emotionality .13 .23 .03 Extraversion −.01 .24 .00 Agreeableness −.29 .27 −.07 Conscientiousness −.23 .22 −.06 Openness .14 .22 .04 Reactive aggression .05 .03 .14 Instrumental aggression .06 .03 .16⁎ ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01.