To view the analyses, please visit this report.
This repository supports the follow up analyses of the submitted manuscript, "Defensive Egotism and Bullying: Gender Differences Yield Qualified Support for the Compensation Model of Aggression" published in the Journal of School Violence. This was written by Paul R. Nail, Joan B. Simon*, and Elson Bihm (University of Central Arkansas, Psychology and Counseling) and William Howard Beasley (Howard Live Oak, LLC).
According to the compensation model of aggression (Staub, 1989), some people bully to defend against their own feelings of weakness and vulnerability. Classmates and teachers rated a sample of American 6th graders in terms of trait: defensiveness (i.e., defensive egotism), self-esteem, bullying, and related behaviors. Consistent with the compensation model, peer- and teacher-rated defensive egotism was positively associated with bullying and with physical and social aggression, respectively. Low peer-rated self-esteem was linked with bully victimization, whereas high peer-rated self-esteem was associated with defending victims. Findings were generally qualified, however, by regression analyses that examined personality, gender, and their interaction as predictors of the focal behaviors. For example, the positive association between defensive egotism and bullying held only for boys. Overall, these findings suggest that bullying-reduction programs in schools should place greater emphasis on the personality and motivational dynamics of the key players—bullies, victims, and victim defenders.
Keywords: defensive egotism, bullying, compensation model, defensive compensation, bullying-related behaviors
To view the entire analyses, please visit this report.
Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R15HD075229. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
The article can be retreived at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15388220.2014.938270#.VB2jQPldWYI. The DOI of the code repository (not of the article itself) is doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.439605.
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Joan Simon, Ph.D., Associate Professor, 253 Mashburn Hall, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 72035, USA, [email protected]