- Email: [email protected]
Exploring the relationship between personality and bullying; an investigation of parental perceptions
Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Exploring the relationship between personality and bullying; an investigation of parental perceptions Brenna Schroeder ⁎, Mary Morris, Malcolm Flack Charles Darwin University, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 January 2017 Received in revised form 26 February 2017 Accepted 27 February 2017 Keywords: Bullying Personality Entitlement Victim Anti-bullying interventions
a b s t r a c t Objectives: The current study explored if parents perception of bullying was influenced by the traits of narcissism, emotional intelligence, victim sensitivity and entitlement and also examined the relationship between reporting and perceptions of bullying. This study also examined if narcissism and entitlement differed between Gen Y and Gen X parents. Method: Parents of primary school aged children (N = 124) interpreted whether the behaviour in scenarios constituted bullying. Parents responded to questions assessing the four personality variables and reported if their child had experienced bullying. Results: Narcissism, victim sensitivity and entitlement were associated with the propensity of parents to perceive behaviour as bullying. Furthermore, entitlement was uniquely associated with this propensity. A positive relationship was established between broader perceptions of bullying and the reporting of incidents. As expected the level of entitlement increased over the two generations represented. Conclusion: Personality, particularly the trait entitlement, contributes to the differences in parents' perceptions relating to bullying. The current study suggest the need for future research on the implication of these differences. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Within the Australian context, due to the expanding numbers of children reporting incidences of bullying, bullying is considered to be at epidemic levels (Cross et al., 2009; Gillard, 2010). The increase of children identifying as victims is a major concern given the implications for their psycho-social development and wellbeing (Olweus, 2013). Taking a social-ecological systems perspective, where bullying behaviour is considered a complex social phenomena (Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006), an examination of key stakeholders (e.g. parents) is required to gain a better understanding of why bullying behaviour is increasing (Harcourt, Jasperse, & Green, 2014). Investigating parental attitudes is critical as the success of school-based anti-bullying programs is dependent upon the cooperation of parents as key stakeholders (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). When faced with their child's account of being bullied, parents have an opportunity to refine and define the child's understanding of what constitutes bullying. They can also encourage pro-social coping strategies and request suitable interventions when required (Rigby, 2002). The early development of balanced and socially appropriate responses towards bullying is important (Vaughan & Hogg, 2008), as the consequences of bullying may remain reasonably ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Schroeder), [email protected] (M. Morris).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.066 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
permanent in nature and persist throughout the lifetime (Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). A growing body of research indicates the number of reported cases of bullying can be challenged as behaviour recognised as bullying is quite varied in nature (Department of Education & Training, 2015). This is, in part, due to the different ways groups and individuals conceptualise and define bullying (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). Studies have explored the way in which culture (Koo, 2007), gender (Goossens, Camodeca, Schuengel, & Meerum Terwogt, 2002), and age (Newgent et al., 2009) influence the definition of bullying and result in a diversity of behaviours identified. A fundamental change in behaviours identified as bullying has been observed over the past two decades (Haslam, 2015). Previously, an incident required the criteria of repetition, intent and the presence of an imbalance of power to be present for a behaviour to be considered bullying (Olweus, 1993). Currently, broader behaviours are being recorded as bullying due to the “loosening” of the criteria thus increasing the numbers of incidents identified (Haslam, 2015). These changes are also reflected in the nature of parental complaints lodged with school authorities (Williams, 2016). Complaints of minor or isolated incidents of conflict between children are reported and, consequently, complaints from parents have increased (Williams, 2016). Due to the broadening perceptions of bullying, social situations, once believed to be part of everyday life, are now deemed unacceptable - thus producing more individuals who identify as victims and more
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
individuals labelled as bullies (Marano, 2004). Haslam (2015) defines these changes as a psychological conceptual creep with greater weight given to the subjective perceptions of the victim as to determine whether behaviour meets the criteria of bullying rather than a universal agreed definition. As such, individual differences may influence the interpretation of behaviour and, therefore, on the number of behaviours perceived as bullying. Personality and its influence on an individual's perception of the world is central to our understanding of human behaviour (Hicks, 2010). In relation to bullying, researchers have explored the relationship between personality variables and the roles of the bully (Book, Volk, & Hosker, 2012) and the victim (Bollmer, Harris, & Milich, 2006) and the manner in which personality influences interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution (Gerlach, Allemand, Agroskin, & Denissen, 2012). What is not widely reported, however, is the manner in which personality influences a person's propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying. While many personality traits could be explored, traits identified as influencing interpersonal relationships and conflict management have been selected for investigation. As the interpretation of perpetrators' motives and the ability to reduce the impact of conflict are influenced by the quality of the interpersonal relationship skills of the victim (Kowalski, 2004), narcissism, Emotional Intelligence (EI), entitlement and victim sensitivity were deemed appropriate to examine. 1.1. Narcissism Often described as arrogant with the need to establish and maintain a perfect “grandiose” self-image (Smith et al., 2016), narcissists are hypersensitive to threats to their self-esteem which consequently undermines their ability to establish social support and trust (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). Narcissists feel their behaviour is justified, often triggering conflicts in relationships (Moeller, Crocker, & Bushman, 2009). Interestingly, narcissists display a disproportionally high intolerance towards individuals willing to engage in behaviour similar to their own (Wallace, Scheiner, & Grotzinger, 2016) yet display an inability to empathise or prioritise the needs of others and are likely to report higher rates of interpersonal transgressions in their daily lives (McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, & Mooney, 2003). Narcissists may also identify as victims as a way of “sweetening their success, discounting their failures, or justifying their own mistreatment of others” (McCullough et al., 2003, p. 893). Rasmussen (2016) purports that certain facets of narcissism may have a significant role in an individual's perceptions of certain phenomena. For example, vulnerable narcissism, depicted by negative affect, depleted self-image and interpersonal hypersensitivity, influences on how an individual perceives and responds to social rejection, criticism or insults and uncooperative play which are often present in the context of bullying (Rasmussen, 2016). It is suggested the trait of narcissism may be increasing adding to the interest of examining this variable (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Keith Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). 1.2. Emotional Intelligence (EI) EI positively influences outcomes across various realms of life (Cote & Miners, 2006). Within the realm of bullying, Kokkinos and Kipritsi (2011) explored the relationship between EI and victimisation citing those high in EI are employ problem solving and social skills necessary to develop strong interpersonal relationships which should reduce the occurrences of victimisation (Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2011). In addition, those high in EI are able to reduce or avoid conflict altogether (Salami, 2010). By employing constructive coping skills during conflict, individuals high in EI have a greater chance of understanding another person's feelings and are able to shift quickly from negative feelings to positive, making them more able to deal with unfair treatment calmly and efficiently (Salami, 2010). Subsequently, a key
145
objective of strength based bullying intervention programs is the development of EI skills (Domino, 2013). 1.3. Entitlement Entitlement is described by Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman (2004) as stable in nature, a belief that one not only deserves the best but disproportionately more than others. An increase in entitlement has been observed in the current generation of parents, often referred to as Millennials (Bonner, Marbley, & Howard, 2011). They have been described as a generation of ‘entitled’ and appear to have little concern for the impact they have on others (Bonner et al., 2011). Parents, high in entitlement, are likely to defend their rights and the rights of their children to behave selfishly such as refusing to offer help to others, claiming larger portions of the pie (Zitek, Jordan, Monin, & Leach, 2010) or retaliating aggressively to unfavourable behaviour whether it be in the schoolyard, workplace or in personal relationships (Brummel & Parker, 2015). A deterrence strategy to avoid further suffering is the labelling of another's behaviour as bullying with no expectation of taking responsibility for their own role within conflict (McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2013). Although accepted as a component of the narcissistic trait, entitlement is gaining more support as a separate construct (Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, 2009) and worthy of individual consideration as it specifically relates to the maladaptive aspects of narcissism which lead to interpersonal conflict (Campbell et al., 2004). 1.4. Victim sensitivity Victim sensitivity does not reflect a genuine concern for justice for all but more a concern for self (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010). Anger and moral outrage are exhibited when individuals perceive that others have acted unfairly towards them (Bondü, Rothmund, & Gollwitzer, 2016) often seeking retribution to avoid future victimisation. Despite doing their best to avoid victimisation, victim sensitive individuals may find themselves dealing with increased hostility from those who may have been inappropriately labelled as bullies (Bondü et al., 2016). As such, reports that those high in victim sensitivity inevitably experience difficulties in developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships can be appreciated (Gerlach et al., 2012). Specifically, individuals high in victim sensitivity find it difficult to differentiate between cooperative and un-cooperative behaviour, producing issues in their ability to determine the true intentions of others (Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Alt, & Jekel, 2012). Victim sensitive individuals, who interpret more behaviour as negative are also more likely to report more incidences of bullying (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). This behaviour, alternatively referred to as “hostile attribution bias”, can appear as early as pre-school (Choe, Lane, Grabell, & Olson, 2013). 1.5. Gen X and Gen Y Parents of children of primary school age today generally fall into two generations that of Gen X (dob 1963–1980) and Gen Y (dob 1981–1994). Although limited research is available directly related to the differences of perceptions in relation to bullying, certain characteristics have been identified that would imply that differences are likely to exist. More specifically, Gen X adults were raised by workaholic parents, learning to be self-reliant and individualist, compared to Gen Y adults who were raised by highly structured and over-supervising parents who convinced their children that they are always winners (Bristow, Amyx, Castleberry, & Cochran, 2011). As such, it is likely that Gen Y parents, with their strong sense of entitlement, are more likely than Gen X parents to perceive behaviours as bullying if the behaviours do not afford their child what their child demands or that they perceive is entitled to independent of whether the behaviour meets any of the definitions of bullying.
146
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
1.6. The present study The present study was designed to explore the manner in which the personality variables of narcissism, EI, entitlement and victim sensitivity influence a parent's propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying. It is also expected that parents that have a higher propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying will be more likely to report their children have experienced bullying. Finally, it is predicted there will be a significant increase in both the levels of entitlement and narcissism across the two generations (Gen X and Gen Y) represented in this study.
2. Method 2.1. Participants & procedures A total of 124 parents of primary school children (103 female, 21 male), ranging in age from 20 to 41 +, with children aged between 5 and 12 years old, were recruited. A number of occupational industries were represented in the population including education, health, construction and child care. After obtaining ethical approval, participants (N = 124) were recruited through the social media outlet, Facebook. Each participant was directed to an online survey, provided a plain statement overview of the research project and were required to indicate consent prior to participating. Participants were unpaid volunteers and free to withdraw at any time.
2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Bullying behaviour The 25 item Bullying Survey created by Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, and Liefooghe (2002), was used to assess the propensity of parents to perceive behaviour as bullying. As the bullying survey was employed as an index of behaviours, no reliability or validity data is available. While norms are not available, the scale has been employed in a variety of countries including China, Europe, Norway, Thailand, Austria and Japan. Sample statements represented non bullying behaviour, repetition, intention or an imbalance of power. Ambiguous behaviours were also presented to further challenge perceptions of participants. The survey was modified to represent both genders in the scenarios. Participants were asked to rate their perception as to whether the behaviour is bullying by using a 4-point scale anchored between 1 (definitely not) and 4 (definitely is).
2.2.2. Narcissism A ten item scale was used to measure narcissism. Items were taken from the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS) (Hendin & Cheek, 1997) which was derived from Murray's (1938) Narcissism Scale. The scale was developed to consider participants within normal range of individual differences in covert narcissistic tendencies. The HSNS has demonstrated good reliability and validity, α = 0.71–0.72 across 2 samples (Fossati et al., 2009).
2.2.3. Emotional intelligence The ten item Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (BEIS-10) (Davies, Lane, Devonport, & Scott, 2010) was used to assess EI·BEIS-10 was based on items from each of the salient five factors from the 33-item Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS), Schutte et al. (1998). Davies et al. (2010) report that confirmatory factor analysis supports a five-factor solution but the factors were highly correlated providing support for the use of a total EI score. The BEIS-10 has demonstrated good test retest reliability (Davies et al., 2010) and internal consistency and factor structure, α = 0.91 (Balakrishnan & Saklofske, 2015).
2.2.4. Entitlement A nine item scale was used to measure entitlement. Items were taken from the 18 item Obligation and Entitlement Scale (OES) (Brummel & Parker, 2015). For the purposes of this study, only questions designed to capture entitlement were included. The entitlement sub-scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity, α = 0.89 (Brummel & Parker, 2015).
2.2.5. Victim sensitivity A ten item scale was used to measure victim sensitivity. Items were taken from the Justice Sensitivity Scale (Schmitt et al., 2010) that assesses four components of justice sensitivity: victim sensitivity, observer sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity and perpetrator sensitivity. Victim sensitivity has been identified as self-oriented whereas the remaining three components are related to other-oriented (Edele, Dziobek, & Keller, 2013). The Justice Sensitivity Scale has demonstrated excellent reliability and validity, α = 0.96 (Schmitt et al., 2010).
2.2.6. Reporting of bullying Participants were asked to report if their child/ren had experienced bullying either as a victim or a perpetrator. Participants were also asked to report their own experience of bullying.
3. Results 3.1. Preliminary analyses Descriptive statistics for each scale and inter-correlations and reliability data are presented in Table 1. The sample evidenced good psychological wellbeing with low levels of narcissism (M = 27.76, SD = 7.20) and reasonably high levels of EI (M = 48.12, SD = 5.58) reported. The potential confounding factor of age on the perception of bullying was examined. There was no significant effect of age on perception of bullying F(2188) = 3.03, p = 0.05. Further, potential gender differences on perceptions of bullying were assessed. Males (M = 61.18, SD = 1.39) and females (M = 66.47, SD = 11.24), evidenced no significant difference (t(119) = −1.63, p = 0.11). An independent sample t-test was used to determine if perceptions of bullying differed due to personal experiences of bullying. Those who had not (28.4%) experienced bullying (M = 63.60, SD = 9.79) and those who had (75.2%) experienced bullying (M = 66.42, SD = 12.43), evidenced an equitable propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying t(119) = 1.13 p = 0.26. A bivariate Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine if entitlement could be interpreted as a separate construct. As entitlement and narcissism were not related r (124) = 0.10, p = 0.26, entitlement is considered an independent construct. Table 1 Means and standard deviations midpoint of scales and Cronbach alpha for each scale in current study. Scale
1
1. Bullying 2. Entitlement 3. Victim sensitivity 4. Narcissism 5. Emotional Intelligence M SD Midpoint Cronbach alpha
– 0.25⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 0.19⁎
⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
0.07 66.01 11.99
2 – 0.30⁎⁎ 0.10 0.31⁎⁎ 45.31 7.31 31.50 0.91
3
4
5
– 0.54⁎⁎ 0.03 34.83 7.74 35.00 0.89
– −0.18⁎ 27.76 7.20 35.00 0.86
– 48.12 5.58 35.00 0.90
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
3.2. Personality and propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying The relationship between the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and the personality variables of entitlement, victim sensitivity, narcissism and EI was assessed. The propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and narcissism was positive (r(124) = 0.19, p = 0.04). Similarly, as predicted, victim sensitivity (r(124) = 0.25, p b 0.01, (r2) = 0.06) and entitlement (r(124) = 0.25, p b 0.05, (r2) = 0.06) were significant. However, the relationship between the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and EI was not significant r (124) = 0.07, p = 0.42. To further explore the individual contribution of these variables towards the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying, a standard multiple regression analysis (MRA) was conducted. As EI was not significant, it was not included in the MRA. In combination, entitlement, victim sensitivity and narcissism accounted for 10.7% of the variability in the behaviour perceived as bullying R2 = 0.107, F (3, 120) = 4.80, p b 0.01. The results are shown in Table 2. Analysis of the individual factors indicate the only significant predictor of the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying was entitlement. 3.3. Propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and reporting of bullying In line with the second hypothesis, parents reporting that their children had experienced bullying (n = 76, M = 68.39, SD = 11.81) (n = 81) had a greater propensity to perceive behaviours as bullying compared with those who had not (n = 45, M = 61.20, SD 10.61), t(119) = 3.36, p b 0.01, d = 0.63. 3.4. Generational increases of narcissism and entitlement The level of entitlement and narcissism reported by both Gen X parents (n = 81) and Gen Y parents (n = 40) was assessed to examine any increase over time. The results indicated higher levels of Entitlement within the Gen Y group (M = 47.65, SD = 6.50) relative to their older counter parts the Gen X group (M = 44.05, SD = 7.50), t(119) = 2.59, p = 0.01, d = 0.50. No generational differences for narcissism t(119) = 0.99, p = 0.32 was evident. 4. Discussion The present study was designed to explore the manner in which the personality variables of narcissism, EI, entitlement and victim sensitivity influence a parent's perception and expectations related to bullying. 4.1. Personality and propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying As anticipated, the traits of narcissism, entitlement and victim sensitivity predicted parent's perceptions. However, entitlement was the only trait to reach independent significance. The results support the current understanding of the way in which individuals who are high in entitlement respond to situations that are unfavourable or critical to themselves or their children. Someone who is ‘entitled’ is likely to behave selfishly (Brummel & Parker, 2015), placing the blame for conflict upon the shoulders of others (Campbell et al., 2004; McCullough et al., Table 2 Unstandardised (B) and standardised (β) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partial (or ‘part’) correlations (sr2) for each predictor variable of a multiple regression predicting the amount of behaviour that is perceived as bullying. Variable
B[95% CI]
β
sr2
Entitlement Victim Sensitivity Narcissism
0.34 [0.05–0.62]⁎
0.21 0.16 0.08
0.04 0.02 0.00
Note CI = confidence interval. ⁎ p b 0.05.
0.25 [−0.07–0.58] 0.13 [−0.21–0.47]
147
2013) resulting in an extension of the parameter of what constitutes bullying. A demonstration of the manner in which entitlement influences the perceptions of what behaviours constitutes bullying can be found in the workplace. It is reported, in some instances, disgruntled employees interpret fair performance management processes as criticism and choose to label the behaviour of their managers as bullying rather than accept responsibility and be accountable (Jenkins, Zapf, Winefield, & Sarris, 2012). This retaliative response to criticism is one of the key characteristics of entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004). Such characteristics appear to be inconsistent with traditional profiles of victims as being passive or unable to defend themselves (Koo, 2007). There does, however, appear to be parallels with an alternate category, that of the aggressive or provocative victim (Camodeca, Goossens, Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002). This alternate type of victim reacts aggressively by responding defensively to provocation or anticipated trouble. If the relationship between entitlement and the category of provocative victim is accurate and the influence of parents on their childrens' understanding of bullying is accurate (Rigby, 2002), these figures may rise in accord with the rate to which the trait of entitlement increases in our communities. Although the traits of narcissism and victim sensitivity were related to parental perceptions of bullying, the results did not support the independent predictability of these traits. While narcissism was expected to be an independent predictor, it is likely the concept of entitlement, which is similar in characteristics, is more closely linked to the concept of bullying. Further, EI was not related to the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying despite the sample reporting a reasonably high level of EI. This suggests the application of EI skills (e.g. decision making and conflict resolution) did not extend to altering the parent's initial assessment when relying on brief isolated scenarios. 4.2. Propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and reporting of bullying As predicted, parents with a greater propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying more frequently reported their children have experienced bullying. These findings are consistent with previous research conducted by Vaillancourt et al. (2008) who revealed that individuals that are free to expand their definitions of bullying are more likely to report incidents of bullying compared to individuals that are asked to only consider behaviour that meets the traditional criteria of intent, repetition and imbalance of power. In addition, participants utilising their own definitions gave limited reference to the three criteria (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). Although this study did not identify which specific behaviours were perceived as bullying, or the specific behaviour experienced by the children, the results support previous findings that parents with broader perceptions of what constitutes bullying report higher numbers of bullying incidents. As such, it may be useful for intervention programs to clarify and define what constitutes bullying behaviour. 4.3. Generational increases of narcissism and entitlement Finally, the levels of narcissism and entitlement across Gen X and Y were explored. Entitlement again displayed its unique influence with Gen Y evidencing higher levels of entitlement. Narcissism failed to do so. The increase in the sense of entitlement may be partly attributed to the child-centric focus of the recent generations' upbringing. This is evidenced with the advent of signs such as “baby on board” to herald the importance of children in the world (Bonner et al., 2011). A “trophies for all” mentality has evolved whether it be in the classroom, sporting events or even at birthday parties as outcomes are manipulated to ensure that every child wins a prize creating an era of entitlement (Pandel, 2015). Throughout this study, the trait of entitlement has evidenced influence on both parental perceptions and expectations towards bullying.
148
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
Overall, the results support Haslam's (2015) concerns that changes in perception of what behaviour constitutes bullying, in this case parents' perceptions, may ultimately result in more children identifying as both victims and bullies.
hoped, by highlighting the influential nature of personality, future researchers and developers of anti-bullying programs may address the inconsistencies in these perceptions and by doing so improve data collection, success of interventions and reduce the impact of inappropriate labelling of children.
5. Limitations The present study must be interpreted in light of a number of limitations. The sample size (N N 100), while not large, is considered sufficient to allow generalisation to the population of interest. This is based on the rule of thumb that in multivariate research, the same size should be at least ten times larger than the number of variable being considered. As previously indicated, the scenarios presented to parents were reasonably brief in nature. In real life, when presented with their child's account of bullying, parents have the opportunity to establish more details relating to the incident. The roles of those involved in the incident and the interpersonal skills applied (or absent) may then be more readily identified and interpreted. The influence of the attitudes and skills of each trait may be more profound in these circumstances and would make for interesting future research. This study did not explore which particular behaviours were more likely to be identified as bullying. There may be value in exploring this further. Examining the behaviours identified as bullying in relation to personality types, may assist in clarifying what strategies are required to establish a definition of bullying. 6. Future research This study upholds the concerns expressed regarding the validity of the reported numbers of bullying. Further consideration may need to be given to the manner in which individuals, such as those high in entitlement, respond to using universal definitions, as they may continue to perceive their child as being ‘entitlement’. Due to the influential nature of entitlement and the likelihood that it may continue to increase, it is advised that anti-bullying interventions cater to the current characteristics of the ‘entitled’ parent. As discussed, children of entitled parents are likely to reflect the perceptions of their parents and, as such, respond in a similar manner when faced with conflict. Interventions that are currently focused on increasing individual's self-esteem and coping strategies (Ferguson, San Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007) may not be targeting a key presenting issue, that of the entitled individual's intolerance for unfavourable behaviour from others. Applying a combination of different interventions may be the most productive approach in reducing the frequency of bullying across a school community (Rigby, 2002). While the negative outcomes for victims are well documented (Olweus, 2013), the inappropriate identification and labelling of individuals as bullies can also result in severe mental illness (Jenkins et al., 2012). These outcomes are of particular concern when accusations and labelling may be a result of a person's discontent rather than an experience of actual bullying (Jenkins et al., 2012). Therefore, in addition to appreciating that there are serious impacts of repeated victimisation and bullying, further consideration should be given to the consequences of broadening the behaviours identified as bullying for all parties. 7. Conclusion Despite highly publicised campaigns to reduce bullying and consistent messages relating to what behaviour constitutes bullying (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), it appears that parents continue to have differing perceptions. This study attempted to address a gap in bullying research by identifying personality traits that significantly influence a parent's propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying. As the trait of entitlement appears to be increasing in prevalence, future interventions may be aided by addressing the need to build empathy for others, tolerance for unfavourable behaviour and ownership for one's own behaviour. It is
Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Declaration of conflicting interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Balakrishnan, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2015). Be mindful how you measure: A psychometric investigation of the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 293–297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.030. Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., & Milich, R. (2006). Reactions to bullying and peer victimization: Narratives, physiological arousal, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 803–828 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.003. Bondü, R., & Elsner, B. (2015). Justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 24, 420–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12098. Bondü, R., Rothmund, T., & Gollwitzer, M. (2016). Mutual long-term effects of school bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 62–72 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.007. Bonner, I. F. A., Marbley, A. F., & Howard, H. M. F. (2011). Diverse millennial students in college: Implications for faculty and student affairs. Sterling, VA, USA: Stylus Publishing. Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: An adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 218–223 http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2011.10.028. Bristow, D., Amyx, D., Castleberry, S. B., & Cochran, J. J. (2011). A cross-generational comparison of motivational factors in a sales career among gen-X and gen-Y college students. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(1), 77–85. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2753/PSS0885-3134310105. Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning and measure of narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 951–964. Brummel, B. J., & Parker, K. N. (2015). Obligation and entitlement in society and the workplace. Applied Psychology, 64, 127–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apps.12023. Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Terwogt, M. M., & Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507. 00203. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45. Choe, D. E., Lane, J. D., Grabell, A. S., & Olson, S. L. (2013). Developmental precursors of young school-age children's hostile attribution bias. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2245–2256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032293. Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1–28. Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 555. Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas, L. (2009). Australian covert bullying prevalence study (ACBPS). Perth: Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University. Davies, K. A., Lane, A. M., Devonport, T. J., & Scott, J. A. (2010). Validity and reliability of a Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (BEIS-10). Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 198–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000028. Department of Education and Training (2015). A review of literature (2010–2014) on student bullying by Australia's safe and Supportive School Communities Working Group. Retrieved from http://news.bullyingnoway.gov.au/the-facts/Snapshots/Literature% 20Review%20Bullying%20by%20SSSC.pdf Domino, M. (2013). Measuring the impact of an alternative approach to school bullying. Journal of School Health, 83, 430–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12047. Edele, A., Dziobek, I., & Keller, M. (2013). Explaining altruistic sharing in the dictator game: The role of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and justice sensitivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 96–102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2012.12.020. Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs a meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 401–414. Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Grazioli, F., Dornetti, L., Marcassoli, I., Maffei, C., & Cheek, J. (2009). Tracking the hypersensitive dimension in narcissism: Reliability and validity of the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale. Personality and Mental Health, 3, 235–247. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmh.92.
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149 Gerlach, T. M., Allemand, M., Agroskin, D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2012). Justice sensitivity and forgiveness in close interpersonal relationships: The mediating role of mistrustful, legitimizing, and pro-relationship cognitions. Journal of Personality, 80, 1373–1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00762.x. Gillard, J. (2010). Media Release. 17th Jan, 2010. http://www.appa.asn.au/images/ news2010/bullyingresearch20100117.pdf Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Alt, B., & Jekel, M. (2012). Victim sensitivity and the accuracy of social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 975–984. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212440887. Goossens, F. A., Camodeca, M., Schuengel, C., & Meerum Terwogt, M. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507. 00203. Harcourt, S., Jasperse, M., & Green, V. A. (2014). “We were sad and we were angry”: A systematic review of parents' perspectives on bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43, 373–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-9243-4. Haslam, N. (2015). Concept creep: Psychology's expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry (in press). Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray's Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599. Hicks, R. (2010). Personality and individual differences: Current directions, Vol. 1. Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2012). Bullying allegations from the accused bully's perspective. British Journal of Management, 23, 489–501. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00778.x. Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2011). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9. Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8, 107–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf03025837. Kowalski, R. M. (2004). Proneness to, perceptions of, and responses to teasing: The influence of both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. European Journal of Personality, 18, 331–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.522. Marano, H. E. (2004). A nation of wimps. Psychology Today, 37, 58–70. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Mooney, C. N. (2003). Narcissists as “victims”: The role of narcissism in the perception of transgressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 885–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167203029007007. McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1–15. Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims & Offenders, 1, 255–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880600626163. Moeller, S. J., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Creating hostility and conflict: Effects of entitlement and self-image goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 448–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.005. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Newgent, R. A., Lounsbery, K. L., Keller, E. A., Baker, C. R., Cavell, T. A., & Boughfman, E. M. (2009). Differential perceptions of bullying in the schools: A comparison of student, parent, teacher, school counselor, and principal reports. Journal of School Counseling, 7, n38. Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315–341).
149
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. Pandel, H. (2015). Healthy competition is good for children [online]. Institute of Public Affairs review: A quarterly review of politics and public affairs, Vol. 67, Feb 2015 (pp. 30–33) Availability http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/ documentSummary;dn=008370334510663;res=IELAPA ISSN: 1329-8100. [cited 01 May 16] Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/1128973. Rasmussen, K. (2016). Entitled vengeance: A meta-analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression: Narcissism and revenge. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 362–379. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21632. Rigby, K. (2002). A meta-evaluation of methods and approaches to reducing bullying in preschools and early primary school in Australia: Attorney-General's Department. Salami, S. O. (2010). Conflict resolution strategies and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of trait emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38, 75+. Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The justice sensitivity inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23, 211–238. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0191-8869(98)00001-4. Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen–country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133. Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Chen, S., Saklofske, D. H., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2016). Perfectionism and narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 90–101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.07.012. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494. 2008.00507.x. Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486–495. Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (2008). Introduction to social psychology (5th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Wallace, H. M., Scheiner, B. R. M., & Grotzinger, A. (2016). Grandiose narcissism predicts willingness to behave badly, without proportional tolerance for others' bad behavior. Current Psychology, 35, 234–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9410-x. Williams, T. (2016, August 26). Parents make stand on bullies. The Advertiser, 31. Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 245–255. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0017168.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Exploring the relationship between personality and bullying; an investigation of parental perceptions Brenna Schroeder ⁎, Mary Morris, Malcolm Flack Charles Darwin University, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 January 2017 Received in revised form 26 February 2017 Accepted 27 February 2017 Keywords: Bullying Personality Entitlement Victim Anti-bullying interventions
a b s t r a c t Objectives: The current study explored if parents perception of bullying was influenced by the traits of narcissism, emotional intelligence, victim sensitivity and entitlement and also examined the relationship between reporting and perceptions of bullying. This study also examined if narcissism and entitlement differed between Gen Y and Gen X parents. Method: Parents of primary school aged children (N = 124) interpreted whether the behaviour in scenarios constituted bullying. Parents responded to questions assessing the four personality variables and reported if their child had experienced bullying. Results: Narcissism, victim sensitivity and entitlement were associated with the propensity of parents to perceive behaviour as bullying. Furthermore, entitlement was uniquely associated with this propensity. A positive relationship was established between broader perceptions of bullying and the reporting of incidents. As expected the level of entitlement increased over the two generations represented. Conclusion: Personality, particularly the trait entitlement, contributes to the differences in parents' perceptions relating to bullying. The current study suggest the need for future research on the implication of these differences. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Within the Australian context, due to the expanding numbers of children reporting incidences of bullying, bullying is considered to be at epidemic levels (Cross et al., 2009; Gillard, 2010). The increase of children identifying as victims is a major concern given the implications for their psycho-social development and wellbeing (Olweus, 2013). Taking a social-ecological systems perspective, where bullying behaviour is considered a complex social phenomena (Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006), an examination of key stakeholders (e.g. parents) is required to gain a better understanding of why bullying behaviour is increasing (Harcourt, Jasperse, & Green, 2014). Investigating parental attitudes is critical as the success of school-based anti-bullying programs is dependent upon the cooperation of parents as key stakeholders (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). When faced with their child's account of being bullied, parents have an opportunity to refine and define the child's understanding of what constitutes bullying. They can also encourage pro-social coping strategies and request suitable interventions when required (Rigby, 2002). The early development of balanced and socially appropriate responses towards bullying is important (Vaughan & Hogg, 2008), as the consequences of bullying may remain reasonably ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Schroeder), [email protected] (M. Morris).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.066 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
permanent in nature and persist throughout the lifetime (Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). A growing body of research indicates the number of reported cases of bullying can be challenged as behaviour recognised as bullying is quite varied in nature (Department of Education & Training, 2015). This is, in part, due to the different ways groups and individuals conceptualise and define bullying (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). Studies have explored the way in which culture (Koo, 2007), gender (Goossens, Camodeca, Schuengel, & Meerum Terwogt, 2002), and age (Newgent et al., 2009) influence the definition of bullying and result in a diversity of behaviours identified. A fundamental change in behaviours identified as bullying has been observed over the past two decades (Haslam, 2015). Previously, an incident required the criteria of repetition, intent and the presence of an imbalance of power to be present for a behaviour to be considered bullying (Olweus, 1993). Currently, broader behaviours are being recorded as bullying due to the “loosening” of the criteria thus increasing the numbers of incidents identified (Haslam, 2015). These changes are also reflected in the nature of parental complaints lodged with school authorities (Williams, 2016). Complaints of minor or isolated incidents of conflict between children are reported and, consequently, complaints from parents have increased (Williams, 2016). Due to the broadening perceptions of bullying, social situations, once believed to be part of everyday life, are now deemed unacceptable - thus producing more individuals who identify as victims and more
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
individuals labelled as bullies (Marano, 2004). Haslam (2015) defines these changes as a psychological conceptual creep with greater weight given to the subjective perceptions of the victim as to determine whether behaviour meets the criteria of bullying rather than a universal agreed definition. As such, individual differences may influence the interpretation of behaviour and, therefore, on the number of behaviours perceived as bullying. Personality and its influence on an individual's perception of the world is central to our understanding of human behaviour (Hicks, 2010). In relation to bullying, researchers have explored the relationship between personality variables and the roles of the bully (Book, Volk, & Hosker, 2012) and the victim (Bollmer, Harris, & Milich, 2006) and the manner in which personality influences interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution (Gerlach, Allemand, Agroskin, & Denissen, 2012). What is not widely reported, however, is the manner in which personality influences a person's propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying. While many personality traits could be explored, traits identified as influencing interpersonal relationships and conflict management have been selected for investigation. As the interpretation of perpetrators' motives and the ability to reduce the impact of conflict are influenced by the quality of the interpersonal relationship skills of the victim (Kowalski, 2004), narcissism, Emotional Intelligence (EI), entitlement and victim sensitivity were deemed appropriate to examine. 1.1. Narcissism Often described as arrogant with the need to establish and maintain a perfect “grandiose” self-image (Smith et al., 2016), narcissists are hypersensitive to threats to their self-esteem which consequently undermines their ability to establish social support and trust (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). Narcissists feel their behaviour is justified, often triggering conflicts in relationships (Moeller, Crocker, & Bushman, 2009). Interestingly, narcissists display a disproportionally high intolerance towards individuals willing to engage in behaviour similar to their own (Wallace, Scheiner, & Grotzinger, 2016) yet display an inability to empathise or prioritise the needs of others and are likely to report higher rates of interpersonal transgressions in their daily lives (McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, & Mooney, 2003). Narcissists may also identify as victims as a way of “sweetening their success, discounting their failures, or justifying their own mistreatment of others” (McCullough et al., 2003, p. 893). Rasmussen (2016) purports that certain facets of narcissism may have a significant role in an individual's perceptions of certain phenomena. For example, vulnerable narcissism, depicted by negative affect, depleted self-image and interpersonal hypersensitivity, influences on how an individual perceives and responds to social rejection, criticism or insults and uncooperative play which are often present in the context of bullying (Rasmussen, 2016). It is suggested the trait of narcissism may be increasing adding to the interest of examining this variable (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Keith Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). 1.2. Emotional Intelligence (EI) EI positively influences outcomes across various realms of life (Cote & Miners, 2006). Within the realm of bullying, Kokkinos and Kipritsi (2011) explored the relationship between EI and victimisation citing those high in EI are employ problem solving and social skills necessary to develop strong interpersonal relationships which should reduce the occurrences of victimisation (Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2011). In addition, those high in EI are able to reduce or avoid conflict altogether (Salami, 2010). By employing constructive coping skills during conflict, individuals high in EI have a greater chance of understanding another person's feelings and are able to shift quickly from negative feelings to positive, making them more able to deal with unfair treatment calmly and efficiently (Salami, 2010). Subsequently, a key
145
objective of strength based bullying intervention programs is the development of EI skills (Domino, 2013). 1.3. Entitlement Entitlement is described by Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman (2004) as stable in nature, a belief that one not only deserves the best but disproportionately more than others. An increase in entitlement has been observed in the current generation of parents, often referred to as Millennials (Bonner, Marbley, & Howard, 2011). They have been described as a generation of ‘entitled’ and appear to have little concern for the impact they have on others (Bonner et al., 2011). Parents, high in entitlement, are likely to defend their rights and the rights of their children to behave selfishly such as refusing to offer help to others, claiming larger portions of the pie (Zitek, Jordan, Monin, & Leach, 2010) or retaliating aggressively to unfavourable behaviour whether it be in the schoolyard, workplace or in personal relationships (Brummel & Parker, 2015). A deterrence strategy to avoid further suffering is the labelling of another's behaviour as bullying with no expectation of taking responsibility for their own role within conflict (McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2013). Although accepted as a component of the narcissistic trait, entitlement is gaining more support as a separate construct (Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, 2009) and worthy of individual consideration as it specifically relates to the maladaptive aspects of narcissism which lead to interpersonal conflict (Campbell et al., 2004). 1.4. Victim sensitivity Victim sensitivity does not reflect a genuine concern for justice for all but more a concern for self (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010). Anger and moral outrage are exhibited when individuals perceive that others have acted unfairly towards them (Bondü, Rothmund, & Gollwitzer, 2016) often seeking retribution to avoid future victimisation. Despite doing their best to avoid victimisation, victim sensitive individuals may find themselves dealing with increased hostility from those who may have been inappropriately labelled as bullies (Bondü et al., 2016). As such, reports that those high in victim sensitivity inevitably experience difficulties in developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships can be appreciated (Gerlach et al., 2012). Specifically, individuals high in victim sensitivity find it difficult to differentiate between cooperative and un-cooperative behaviour, producing issues in their ability to determine the true intentions of others (Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Alt, & Jekel, 2012). Victim sensitive individuals, who interpret more behaviour as negative are also more likely to report more incidences of bullying (Bondü & Elsner, 2015). This behaviour, alternatively referred to as “hostile attribution bias”, can appear as early as pre-school (Choe, Lane, Grabell, & Olson, 2013). 1.5. Gen X and Gen Y Parents of children of primary school age today generally fall into two generations that of Gen X (dob 1963–1980) and Gen Y (dob 1981–1994). Although limited research is available directly related to the differences of perceptions in relation to bullying, certain characteristics have been identified that would imply that differences are likely to exist. More specifically, Gen X adults were raised by workaholic parents, learning to be self-reliant and individualist, compared to Gen Y adults who were raised by highly structured and over-supervising parents who convinced their children that they are always winners (Bristow, Amyx, Castleberry, & Cochran, 2011). As such, it is likely that Gen Y parents, with their strong sense of entitlement, are more likely than Gen X parents to perceive behaviours as bullying if the behaviours do not afford their child what their child demands or that they perceive is entitled to independent of whether the behaviour meets any of the definitions of bullying.
146
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
1.6. The present study The present study was designed to explore the manner in which the personality variables of narcissism, EI, entitlement and victim sensitivity influence a parent's propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying. It is also expected that parents that have a higher propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying will be more likely to report their children have experienced bullying. Finally, it is predicted there will be a significant increase in both the levels of entitlement and narcissism across the two generations (Gen X and Gen Y) represented in this study.
2. Method 2.1. Participants & procedures A total of 124 parents of primary school children (103 female, 21 male), ranging in age from 20 to 41 +, with children aged between 5 and 12 years old, were recruited. A number of occupational industries were represented in the population including education, health, construction and child care. After obtaining ethical approval, participants (N = 124) were recruited through the social media outlet, Facebook. Each participant was directed to an online survey, provided a plain statement overview of the research project and were required to indicate consent prior to participating. Participants were unpaid volunteers and free to withdraw at any time.
2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Bullying behaviour The 25 item Bullying Survey created by Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, and Liefooghe (2002), was used to assess the propensity of parents to perceive behaviour as bullying. As the bullying survey was employed as an index of behaviours, no reliability or validity data is available. While norms are not available, the scale has been employed in a variety of countries including China, Europe, Norway, Thailand, Austria and Japan. Sample statements represented non bullying behaviour, repetition, intention or an imbalance of power. Ambiguous behaviours were also presented to further challenge perceptions of participants. The survey was modified to represent both genders in the scenarios. Participants were asked to rate their perception as to whether the behaviour is bullying by using a 4-point scale anchored between 1 (definitely not) and 4 (definitely is).
2.2.2. Narcissism A ten item scale was used to measure narcissism. Items were taken from the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS) (Hendin & Cheek, 1997) which was derived from Murray's (1938) Narcissism Scale. The scale was developed to consider participants within normal range of individual differences in covert narcissistic tendencies. The HSNS has demonstrated good reliability and validity, α = 0.71–0.72 across 2 samples (Fossati et al., 2009).
2.2.3. Emotional intelligence The ten item Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (BEIS-10) (Davies, Lane, Devonport, & Scott, 2010) was used to assess EI·BEIS-10 was based on items from each of the salient five factors from the 33-item Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS), Schutte et al. (1998). Davies et al. (2010) report that confirmatory factor analysis supports a five-factor solution but the factors were highly correlated providing support for the use of a total EI score. The BEIS-10 has demonstrated good test retest reliability (Davies et al., 2010) and internal consistency and factor structure, α = 0.91 (Balakrishnan & Saklofske, 2015).
2.2.4. Entitlement A nine item scale was used to measure entitlement. Items were taken from the 18 item Obligation and Entitlement Scale (OES) (Brummel & Parker, 2015). For the purposes of this study, only questions designed to capture entitlement were included. The entitlement sub-scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity, α = 0.89 (Brummel & Parker, 2015).
2.2.5. Victim sensitivity A ten item scale was used to measure victim sensitivity. Items were taken from the Justice Sensitivity Scale (Schmitt et al., 2010) that assesses four components of justice sensitivity: victim sensitivity, observer sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity and perpetrator sensitivity. Victim sensitivity has been identified as self-oriented whereas the remaining three components are related to other-oriented (Edele, Dziobek, & Keller, 2013). The Justice Sensitivity Scale has demonstrated excellent reliability and validity, α = 0.96 (Schmitt et al., 2010).
2.2.6. Reporting of bullying Participants were asked to report if their child/ren had experienced bullying either as a victim or a perpetrator. Participants were also asked to report their own experience of bullying.
3. Results 3.1. Preliminary analyses Descriptive statistics for each scale and inter-correlations and reliability data are presented in Table 1. The sample evidenced good psychological wellbeing with low levels of narcissism (M = 27.76, SD = 7.20) and reasonably high levels of EI (M = 48.12, SD = 5.58) reported. The potential confounding factor of age on the perception of bullying was examined. There was no significant effect of age on perception of bullying F(2188) = 3.03, p = 0.05. Further, potential gender differences on perceptions of bullying were assessed. Males (M = 61.18, SD = 1.39) and females (M = 66.47, SD = 11.24), evidenced no significant difference (t(119) = −1.63, p = 0.11). An independent sample t-test was used to determine if perceptions of bullying differed due to personal experiences of bullying. Those who had not (28.4%) experienced bullying (M = 63.60, SD = 9.79) and those who had (75.2%) experienced bullying (M = 66.42, SD = 12.43), evidenced an equitable propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying t(119) = 1.13 p = 0.26. A bivariate Pearson's correlation was calculated to determine if entitlement could be interpreted as a separate construct. As entitlement and narcissism were not related r (124) = 0.10, p = 0.26, entitlement is considered an independent construct. Table 1 Means and standard deviations midpoint of scales and Cronbach alpha for each scale in current study. Scale
1
1. Bullying 2. Entitlement 3. Victim sensitivity 4. Narcissism 5. Emotional Intelligence M SD Midpoint Cronbach alpha
– 0.25⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 0.19⁎
⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
0.07 66.01 11.99
2 – 0.30⁎⁎ 0.10 0.31⁎⁎ 45.31 7.31 31.50 0.91
3
4
5
– 0.54⁎⁎ 0.03 34.83 7.74 35.00 0.89
– −0.18⁎ 27.76 7.20 35.00 0.86
– 48.12 5.58 35.00 0.90
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
3.2. Personality and propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying The relationship between the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and the personality variables of entitlement, victim sensitivity, narcissism and EI was assessed. The propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and narcissism was positive (r(124) = 0.19, p = 0.04). Similarly, as predicted, victim sensitivity (r(124) = 0.25, p b 0.01, (r2) = 0.06) and entitlement (r(124) = 0.25, p b 0.05, (r2) = 0.06) were significant. However, the relationship between the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and EI was not significant r (124) = 0.07, p = 0.42. To further explore the individual contribution of these variables towards the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying, a standard multiple regression analysis (MRA) was conducted. As EI was not significant, it was not included in the MRA. In combination, entitlement, victim sensitivity and narcissism accounted for 10.7% of the variability in the behaviour perceived as bullying R2 = 0.107, F (3, 120) = 4.80, p b 0.01. The results are shown in Table 2. Analysis of the individual factors indicate the only significant predictor of the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying was entitlement. 3.3. Propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and reporting of bullying In line with the second hypothesis, parents reporting that their children had experienced bullying (n = 76, M = 68.39, SD = 11.81) (n = 81) had a greater propensity to perceive behaviours as bullying compared with those who had not (n = 45, M = 61.20, SD 10.61), t(119) = 3.36, p b 0.01, d = 0.63. 3.4. Generational increases of narcissism and entitlement The level of entitlement and narcissism reported by both Gen X parents (n = 81) and Gen Y parents (n = 40) was assessed to examine any increase over time. The results indicated higher levels of Entitlement within the Gen Y group (M = 47.65, SD = 6.50) relative to their older counter parts the Gen X group (M = 44.05, SD = 7.50), t(119) = 2.59, p = 0.01, d = 0.50. No generational differences for narcissism t(119) = 0.99, p = 0.32 was evident. 4. Discussion The present study was designed to explore the manner in which the personality variables of narcissism, EI, entitlement and victim sensitivity influence a parent's perception and expectations related to bullying. 4.1. Personality and propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying As anticipated, the traits of narcissism, entitlement and victim sensitivity predicted parent's perceptions. However, entitlement was the only trait to reach independent significance. The results support the current understanding of the way in which individuals who are high in entitlement respond to situations that are unfavourable or critical to themselves or their children. Someone who is ‘entitled’ is likely to behave selfishly (Brummel & Parker, 2015), placing the blame for conflict upon the shoulders of others (Campbell et al., 2004; McCullough et al., Table 2 Unstandardised (B) and standardised (β) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partial (or ‘part’) correlations (sr2) for each predictor variable of a multiple regression predicting the amount of behaviour that is perceived as bullying. Variable
B[95% CI]
β
sr2
Entitlement Victim Sensitivity Narcissism
0.34 [0.05–0.62]⁎
0.21 0.16 0.08
0.04 0.02 0.00
Note CI = confidence interval. ⁎ p b 0.05.
0.25 [−0.07–0.58] 0.13 [−0.21–0.47]
147
2013) resulting in an extension of the parameter of what constitutes bullying. A demonstration of the manner in which entitlement influences the perceptions of what behaviours constitutes bullying can be found in the workplace. It is reported, in some instances, disgruntled employees interpret fair performance management processes as criticism and choose to label the behaviour of their managers as bullying rather than accept responsibility and be accountable (Jenkins, Zapf, Winefield, & Sarris, 2012). This retaliative response to criticism is one of the key characteristics of entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004). Such characteristics appear to be inconsistent with traditional profiles of victims as being passive or unable to defend themselves (Koo, 2007). There does, however, appear to be parallels with an alternate category, that of the aggressive or provocative victim (Camodeca, Goossens, Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002). This alternate type of victim reacts aggressively by responding defensively to provocation or anticipated trouble. If the relationship between entitlement and the category of provocative victim is accurate and the influence of parents on their childrens' understanding of bullying is accurate (Rigby, 2002), these figures may rise in accord with the rate to which the trait of entitlement increases in our communities. Although the traits of narcissism and victim sensitivity were related to parental perceptions of bullying, the results did not support the independent predictability of these traits. While narcissism was expected to be an independent predictor, it is likely the concept of entitlement, which is similar in characteristics, is more closely linked to the concept of bullying. Further, EI was not related to the propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying despite the sample reporting a reasonably high level of EI. This suggests the application of EI skills (e.g. decision making and conflict resolution) did not extend to altering the parent's initial assessment when relying on brief isolated scenarios. 4.2. Propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying and reporting of bullying As predicted, parents with a greater propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying more frequently reported their children have experienced bullying. These findings are consistent with previous research conducted by Vaillancourt et al. (2008) who revealed that individuals that are free to expand their definitions of bullying are more likely to report incidents of bullying compared to individuals that are asked to only consider behaviour that meets the traditional criteria of intent, repetition and imbalance of power. In addition, participants utilising their own definitions gave limited reference to the three criteria (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). Although this study did not identify which specific behaviours were perceived as bullying, or the specific behaviour experienced by the children, the results support previous findings that parents with broader perceptions of what constitutes bullying report higher numbers of bullying incidents. As such, it may be useful for intervention programs to clarify and define what constitutes bullying behaviour. 4.3. Generational increases of narcissism and entitlement Finally, the levels of narcissism and entitlement across Gen X and Y were explored. Entitlement again displayed its unique influence with Gen Y evidencing higher levels of entitlement. Narcissism failed to do so. The increase in the sense of entitlement may be partly attributed to the child-centric focus of the recent generations' upbringing. This is evidenced with the advent of signs such as “baby on board” to herald the importance of children in the world (Bonner et al., 2011). A “trophies for all” mentality has evolved whether it be in the classroom, sporting events or even at birthday parties as outcomes are manipulated to ensure that every child wins a prize creating an era of entitlement (Pandel, 2015). Throughout this study, the trait of entitlement has evidenced influence on both parental perceptions and expectations towards bullying.
148
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149
Overall, the results support Haslam's (2015) concerns that changes in perception of what behaviour constitutes bullying, in this case parents' perceptions, may ultimately result in more children identifying as both victims and bullies.
hoped, by highlighting the influential nature of personality, future researchers and developers of anti-bullying programs may address the inconsistencies in these perceptions and by doing so improve data collection, success of interventions and reduce the impact of inappropriate labelling of children.
5. Limitations The present study must be interpreted in light of a number of limitations. The sample size (N N 100), while not large, is considered sufficient to allow generalisation to the population of interest. This is based on the rule of thumb that in multivariate research, the same size should be at least ten times larger than the number of variable being considered. As previously indicated, the scenarios presented to parents were reasonably brief in nature. In real life, when presented with their child's account of bullying, parents have the opportunity to establish more details relating to the incident. The roles of those involved in the incident and the interpersonal skills applied (or absent) may then be more readily identified and interpreted. The influence of the attitudes and skills of each trait may be more profound in these circumstances and would make for interesting future research. This study did not explore which particular behaviours were more likely to be identified as bullying. There may be value in exploring this further. Examining the behaviours identified as bullying in relation to personality types, may assist in clarifying what strategies are required to establish a definition of bullying. 6. Future research This study upholds the concerns expressed regarding the validity of the reported numbers of bullying. Further consideration may need to be given to the manner in which individuals, such as those high in entitlement, respond to using universal definitions, as they may continue to perceive their child as being ‘entitlement’. Due to the influential nature of entitlement and the likelihood that it may continue to increase, it is advised that anti-bullying interventions cater to the current characteristics of the ‘entitled’ parent. As discussed, children of entitled parents are likely to reflect the perceptions of their parents and, as such, respond in a similar manner when faced with conflict. Interventions that are currently focused on increasing individual's self-esteem and coping strategies (Ferguson, San Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007) may not be targeting a key presenting issue, that of the entitled individual's intolerance for unfavourable behaviour from others. Applying a combination of different interventions may be the most productive approach in reducing the frequency of bullying across a school community (Rigby, 2002). While the negative outcomes for victims are well documented (Olweus, 2013), the inappropriate identification and labelling of individuals as bullies can also result in severe mental illness (Jenkins et al., 2012). These outcomes are of particular concern when accusations and labelling may be a result of a person's discontent rather than an experience of actual bullying (Jenkins et al., 2012). Therefore, in addition to appreciating that there are serious impacts of repeated victimisation and bullying, further consideration should be given to the consequences of broadening the behaviours identified as bullying for all parties. 7. Conclusion Despite highly publicised campaigns to reduce bullying and consistent messages relating to what behaviour constitutes bullying (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), it appears that parents continue to have differing perceptions. This study attempted to address a gap in bullying research by identifying personality traits that significantly influence a parent's propensity to perceive behaviour as bullying. As the trait of entitlement appears to be increasing in prevalence, future interventions may be aided by addressing the need to build empathy for others, tolerance for unfavourable behaviour and ownership for one's own behaviour. It is
Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Declaration of conflicting interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Balakrishnan, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2015). Be mindful how you measure: A psychometric investigation of the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 293–297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.030. Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., & Milich, R. (2006). Reactions to bullying and peer victimization: Narratives, physiological arousal, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 803–828 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.003. Bondü, R., & Elsner, B. (2015). Justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 24, 420–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12098. Bondü, R., Rothmund, T., & Gollwitzer, M. (2016). Mutual long-term effects of school bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 62–72 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.007. Bonner, I. F. A., Marbley, A. F., & Howard, H. M. F. (2011). Diverse millennial students in college: Implications for faculty and student affairs. Sterling, VA, USA: Stylus Publishing. Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: An adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 218–223 http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2011.10.028. Bristow, D., Amyx, D., Castleberry, S. B., & Cochran, J. J. (2011). A cross-generational comparison of motivational factors in a sales career among gen-X and gen-Y college students. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(1), 77–85. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2753/PSS0885-3134310105. Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning and measure of narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 951–964. Brummel, B. J., & Parker, K. N. (2015). Obligation and entitlement in society and the workplace. Applied Psychology, 64, 127–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apps.12023. Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Terwogt, M. M., & Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507. 00203. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45. Choe, D. E., Lane, J. D., Grabell, A. S., & Olson, S. L. (2013). Developmental precursors of young school-age children's hostile attribution bias. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2245–2256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032293. Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1–28. Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 555. Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas, L. (2009). Australian covert bullying prevalence study (ACBPS). Perth: Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University. Davies, K. A., Lane, A. M., Devonport, T. J., & Scott, J. A. (2010). Validity and reliability of a Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (BEIS-10). Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 198–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000028. Department of Education and Training (2015). A review of literature (2010–2014) on student bullying by Australia's safe and Supportive School Communities Working Group. Retrieved from http://news.bullyingnoway.gov.au/the-facts/Snapshots/Literature% 20Review%20Bullying%20by%20SSSC.pdf Domino, M. (2013). Measuring the impact of an alternative approach to school bullying. Journal of School Health, 83, 430–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12047. Edele, A., Dziobek, I., & Keller, M. (2013). Explaining altruistic sharing in the dictator game: The role of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and justice sensitivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 96–102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2012.12.020. Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs a meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 401–414. Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Grazioli, F., Dornetti, L., Marcassoli, I., Maffei, C., & Cheek, J. (2009). Tracking the hypersensitive dimension in narcissism: Reliability and validity of the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale. Personality and Mental Health, 3, 235–247. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmh.92.
B. Schroeder et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 112 (2017) 144–149 Gerlach, T. M., Allemand, M., Agroskin, D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2012). Justice sensitivity and forgiveness in close interpersonal relationships: The mediating role of mistrustful, legitimizing, and pro-relationship cognitions. Journal of Personality, 80, 1373–1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00762.x. Gillard, J. (2010). Media Release. 17th Jan, 2010. http://www.appa.asn.au/images/ news2010/bullyingresearch20100117.pdf Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Alt, B., & Jekel, M. (2012). Victim sensitivity and the accuracy of social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 975–984. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212440887. Goossens, F. A., Camodeca, M., Schuengel, C., & Meerum Terwogt, M. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507. 00203. Harcourt, S., Jasperse, M., & Green, V. A. (2014). “We were sad and we were angry”: A systematic review of parents' perspectives on bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43, 373–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-9243-4. Haslam, N. (2015). Concept creep: Psychology's expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry (in press). Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray's Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599. Hicks, R. (2010). Personality and individual differences: Current directions, Vol. 1. Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2012). Bullying allegations from the accused bully's perspective. British Journal of Management, 23, 489–501. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00778.x. Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2011). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9. Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8, 107–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf03025837. Kowalski, R. M. (2004). Proneness to, perceptions of, and responses to teasing: The influence of both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. European Journal of Personality, 18, 331–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.522. Marano, H. E. (2004). A nation of wimps. Psychology Today, 37, 58–70. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Mooney, C. N. (2003). Narcissists as “victims”: The role of narcissism in the perception of transgressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 885–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167203029007007. McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1–15. Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims & Offenders, 1, 255–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880600626163. Moeller, S. J., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Creating hostility and conflict: Effects of entitlement and self-image goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 448–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.005. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Newgent, R. A., Lounsbery, K. L., Keller, E. A., Baker, C. R., Cavell, T. A., & Boughfman, E. M. (2009). Differential perceptions of bullying in the schools: A comparison of student, parent, teacher, school counselor, and principal reports. Journal of School Counseling, 7, n38. Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315–341).
149
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. Pandel, H. (2015). Healthy competition is good for children [online]. Institute of Public Affairs review: A quarterly review of politics and public affairs, Vol. 67, Feb 2015 (pp. 30–33) Availability http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/ documentSummary;dn=008370334510663;res=IELAPA ISSN: 1329-8100. [cited 01 May 16] Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/1128973. Rasmussen, K. (2016). Entitled vengeance: A meta-analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression: Narcissism and revenge. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 362–379. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21632. Rigby, K. (2002). A meta-evaluation of methods and approaches to reducing bullying in preschools and early primary school in Australia: Attorney-General's Department. Salami, S. O. (2010). Conflict resolution strategies and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of trait emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38, 75+. Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The justice sensitivity inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23, 211–238. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0191-8869(98)00001-4. Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen–country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133. Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Chen, S., Saklofske, D. H., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2016). Perfectionism and narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 90–101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.07.012. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494. 2008.00507.x. Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486–495. Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (2008). Introduction to social psychology (5th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Wallace, H. M., Scheiner, B. R. M., & Grotzinger, A. (2016). Grandiose narcissism predicts willingness to behave badly, without proportional tolerance for others' bad behavior. Current Psychology, 35, 234–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9410-x. Williams, T. (2016, August 26). Parents make stand on bullies. The Advertiser, 31. Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 245–255. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0017168.