297

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2004), 74, 297309 2004 The British Psychological Society www.bps.org.uk

Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism and self-efficacy in Greek primary school children
Eleni Andreou*
Department of Primary Education, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
Background. Previous research demonstrated that Machiavellian beliefs are linked with bully/victim problems at school. However, Machiavellianism was treated as a single construct and not as multidimensional. Childrens perceptions of self-efficacy in both social and academic domains have been related to conflictual peer interactions but not directly to bully/victim problems. This study extends previous work by examining the association of Machiavellianism and self-efficacy with bully/victim problems. Aims. The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between bully/ victim problems and (a) components of Machiavellian beliefs, (b) Self-efficacy for Assertion, (c) Self-efficacy for Aggression and (d) Self-efficacy for Learning and Performance, among school-age children. It was also examined whether children who bully others and are bullied themselves (bully/victims) are a distinct group in terms of Machiavellian beliefs and the above perceptions of self-efficacy. Sample. The sample consisted of 186 children drawn from the fourth to sixth grade classrooms of four primary schools in central Greece. Method. Peer victimization and bullying behaviour were assessed by two 6-item selfreport scales (Austin & Joseph, 1996), Machiavellian beliefs with a 20-item scale (Christie & Geis, 1970), Self-efficacy for Assertion and Self-efficacy for Aggression with two 6-item scales (Egan & Perry, 1998) and Self-efficacy for Learning and Performance with an 8-item scale (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Higher scores reflected greater victimization, bullying behaviour, Machiavellianism and domain specific self-efficacy. Data were analysed using both correlational and categorical approach. Results. Factor analysis of the Kiddie Mach scale revealed four main factors: Lack of Faith in Human Nature, Manipulation, Dishonesty and Distrust. The results of the correlational approach suggest that both bullying and victimization are associated with most of these factors, overall Machiavellianism and self-efficacy measures. Separate analyses for boys and girls provide a more precise picture of that association. The results of the categorical approach, regarding differences in the Kiddie Mach and Self* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr E. Andreou, Department of Primary Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton and Filellinon, Volos, 38221, Greece (e-mail: elandr@uth.gr).

298

Eleni Andreou efficacy scales between bullies, victims and bully/victims, suggest that bully/victims are a distinct group in terms of Lack of Faith in Human Nature and overall Machiavellianism. Moreover, bully/victims were found to be similar to victims with respect to Self-efficacy for Assertion but similar to bullies with respect to Self-efficacy for Aggression. Conclusions. Anti-bullying interventions might profit from a greater focus on mastery-oriented motivation and more emphasis on citizenship and interpersonal relationships in order to minimize childrens aggression-encouraging cognition and reduce Machiavellian attitudes. Further research is needed to explain satisfactorily the behaviour patterns of bully/victims.

In pioneering research, Olweus (1978) observed that a considerable number of students suffer from harassment by peers in their school classes. He called this phenomenon bullying and provided a definition that has guided much of the later research (for a review see Schuster, 1996, and Smith et al., 1999). Bullying is said to take place when an individual, unable to defend him- or herself, is exposed repeatedly and over a long period of time to intentional harm by one or several others, either directly (e.g., through physical assaults) or indirectly (e.g., through spreading rumours) (Olweus, 1978, 1993). Many studies (e.g., Austin & Joseph, 1996; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Slee & Rigby, 1993; Smith, Boulton, & Cowie, 1993) indicate that there are three groups of children involved in bullying situations: the bullies, the victims and those who bully others and are bullied themselves (the bully/victims). Accordingly, each group appears to have its own psychological characteristics. Highly aggressive bullies, for example, have been found to possess personality defects, having a positive attitude towards violence while lacking a positive concept of themselves (Olweus, 1978), victims to experience rejection by their peers (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988; Salmivalli et al., 1996) and not to be particularly assertive (Schuster, 1996) and extroverted (Slee & Rigby, 1993) and bully/victims to have high neuroticism and high psychotism (Mynard & Joseph, 1997) and be distinguished by their low level of social acceptance and problem-solving ability (Andreou, 2001). Regarding Machiavellianism (the degree a person feels that other people are untrustworthy and manipulable in interpersonal situations: see Christie & Geis, 1970), it has been found that bullies hold more Machiavellian attitudes than controls (Sutton & Keogh, 2000) and bully/victims are a distinct group from either bullies or victims in terms of Machiavellianism (Andreou, 2000). However, in both these studies, Machiavellianism was treated as a single construct and not as multidimensional, comprising tactics and views, as some authors have suggested (Hunter, Gerbing, & Boster, 1982; Paritz, 1989; Williams, Hazelton, & Renshaw, 1975). An exploratory investigation of the underlying factor structure of Machiavellianism in children (Sutton & Keogh, 2001), using the Kiddie Mach (Christie & Geis, 1970), revealed three main factors: Lack of Faith in Human Nature, Dishonesty and Distrust, suggesting that there are different types of Machiavellianism. The first aim of this study was to investigate whether this factor structure of Kiddie Mach is supported by assessment of Machiavellian beliefs in a sample of Greek primary school children and examine the association of different types of these beliefs with bully/victim problems. Investigation of attitudes towards interpersonal relationships and human nature at an early age may have implications for intervention programmes to reduce school bullying.

Bully/victim problems in Greek children

299

A second aim was to explore relations between bully/victim problems at school and perceptions of self-efficacy for specific behaviours (aggression, assertion and academic performance). Bandura (1977) refers to peoples beliefs about their abilities to execute and regulate the important actions in their lives as their perceptions of self-efficacy. Each individual is thought to possess a unique pattern of self-perceived competencies that influences which activities the individual undertakes or avoids. Childrens perceptions of selfefficacy, or their beliefs about their abilities to enact specific behaviours, are highly domain-specific (as opposed to global) components of self-evaluation and have been shown to predict a wide range of specific social, cognitive and motor competencies (Bandura, 1986, 1989; Perry, Perry, & Rasmussen, 1986). Children with low perceived self-efficacy for a behaviour tend to avoid the behaviour; if forced to attempt it, they become aroused, and their behaviour becomes disorganised. Children with high selfefficacy for a behaviour tend to be confident and accomplished in their performance of it. Perceptions of self-efficacy for both aggression and assertion were studied because these two behaviours are only moderately correlated (Perry et al., 1986; Egan & Perry, 1998) and yet both have been suggested to deter aggressors (Olweus, 1978; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993). Academic self-efficacy, although it has not yet been investigated in relation to bullying behaviour and victimization, is a psychological construct, which has been linked to adjustment problems as well as conflictual interactions with peers (Andreou, 1997; Bronson, 2000; Ford, 1982; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1998). It has also been associated with learning difficulties (Zimmerman, 2000), which recently have been connected to bully/victim problems (Kaukiainen et al., 2002). Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that academic self-efficacy may be connected to both bullying behaviour and victimization at school. Finally, this study aims at extending the investigation of bully/victims personality by examining whether they are a distinct group in terms of Machiavellian attitudes and perceptions of self-efficacy in the academic and social domain. Bijttebier and Vertommen (1998) believe that children who are categorized as bully/victims have more in common with bullies than with victims. However, it could be argued that empirical support for this assertion is lacking (Andreou, 2001). Therefore, it was expected that the children who are both bullies and victims will be distinguishable from either victims or bullies in how they score on the Kiddie Mach and the Self-efficacy measures used in this study.

Method
Sample The sample consisted of 186 children drawn from the fourth to sixth grade classrooms of four primary schools in central Greece. It included 90 girls and 96 boys, ranging in age from 9 to 12 years (mean = 10.4, SD = 0.9).

Measures
Bully/victim problems

Taking into account that: (i) the use of anonymous self-report questionnaires is one of the best methods to assess bully/victim problems among middle school age children

300

Eleni Andreou

(Ahmad & Smith, 1990) and (ii) many children are reluctant to admit to bullying others or being bullied when are directly asked (Rigby & Slee, 1990; Tattum, 1988), we used two self-report scales, the Peer-victimization Scale and the Bullying Behaviour Scale (Austin & Joseph, 1996), to assess bully/victim problems. The Peer-victimization Scale consists of six forced items, three of which refer to being the victim of negative physical actions (i.e., hit and pushed, picked on, bullied) and three of which refer to being the victim of negative verbal actions (i.e., teased, horrible names, laughed at). For each item, participants were presented with descriptions of two kinds of children, ones with high victim behaviour and ones with low victim behaviour; participants indicated which of the two kinds of children they resembled more and then indicated whether this choice was really true or sort of true for them. Responses were scored on a scale of 1 to 4, with higher scores reflecting greater victimization. The item pool of the Bullying Behaviour Scale was based on the Peer-victimization Scale and involved changing the tense of the item from passive to active. Therefore, the Bullying Behaviour Scale consists of six forced items, three of which refer to being the perpetrator of negative physical actions (i.e., hit and pushed, picked on, bullied) and three of which refer to being the perpetrator of negative verbal actions (i.e., teased, horrible names, laughed at). For each item, participants were presented with descriptions of two kinds of children, ones with high bullying behaviour and ones with low bullying behaviour; participants indicated which of the two kinds of children they resembled more and then indicated whether this choice was really true or sort of true for them. Responses were scored on a scale of 1 to 4, with higher scores reflecting greater bully behaviour. As both the Bullying Behaviour Scale and the Peer-victimization Scale employ the same forced choice format as the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC, Harter, 1985), both were scored according to the instructions provided by Harter (1985) for scoring the SPPC subscales (i.e., sum of six items/6). Internal reliability for both scales was found to be satisfactory. Cronbach alpha for the Bullying Behaviour Scale was .71 and for the Peer-victimization Scale .80.
Machiavellian beliefs

The 20-item Kiddie Mach scale (Christie & Geis, 1970) was used to assess child attitudes towards human nature and trust in interpersonal relationships. Items included The best way to get along with people is to tell them things that make them happy and Sometimes you have to cheat a little to get what you want. Agreement with the statements was indicated on the following scale: agree very much (5), agree a little (4), disagree a little (2) and disagree very much (1). Non-Machiavellian items (2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 19) were reverse scored for consistency with the Machiavellianism construct, so that high scores indicated disagreement and therefore Machiavellianism. Internal reliability was found to be satisfactory (Cronbach alpha = .79).
Self-efficacy

Perceptions of Self-efficacy for Assertion and Self-efficacy for Aggression were measured by two 8-item scales developed by Egan and Perry (1998). Items of the two scales were interspersed. The 16-item questionnaire was labelled What I Can Do. Items were structured and scored similarly to those on the Bullying Behaviour Scale and the Peervictimization Scale, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived self-efficacy. Descriptions on the perceived self-efficacy for assertion items included Someone is sitting in your seat; some kids would not be able to ask the other kid to move but other

Bully/victim problems in Greek children

301

kids are able to ask the other kid to move and A kid takes your cookies during lunch; it would be hard for some kids to ask for their cookies back, but other kids would find it easy to ask for their cookies back. Descriptions on the perceived self-efficacy for aggression items included A kid wont let you play with a game you want to. Pushing the kid and grabbing the game is easy for some kids, but other kids would find it difficult to push the kid and grab the game and A kid makes you mad. Some kids are really good at yelling at the kid, but other kids are not really good at yelling at the kid. Children were instructed to respond in terms of their ability to perform the response, not in terms of whether they would be likely to perform it. Participants academic self-efficacy was assessed by the 8-item Self-efficacy for Learning and Performance subscale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al., 1991). The items comprising this scale assess judgments about ones ability to accomplish a task (e.g., I expect to do well in this class) as well as ones confidence in ones skills to perform that task (e.g., Im confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the teacher in this class). Responses were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores reflecting greater academic self-efficacy. Reliability of the three self-efficacy measures was satisfactory. Cronbachs alphas of perceived Self-efficacy for Assertion, Self-efficacy for Aggression and Self-efficacy for Learning and Performance were .70, .83 and .81 respectively.

Results
Factor analysis of the Kiddie Mach A factor analysis was carried out on participants responses to the 20-item Kiddie Mach scale (Christie & Geis, 1970) to determine the key components of childrens Machiavellian beliefs. Varimax rotation of the principal components solution yielded four factors with eigenvalues greater than one (see Table 1). These factors accounted for 38.44 % of the variance. A loading of .40 or greater was considered necessary for an item to be considered to load on a particular factor. The first factor consisted of items predominantly relating to beliefs about positive aspects of human nature (e.g., Successful people are mostly honest and good, Most people are brave etc.) and included most of the items relating to the first factor in Sutton & Keoghs (2001) analysis. For this reason we kept the same label for this factor (Lack of faith in human nature). High scores indicate disagreement with the items and therefore Machiavellian responding. The second factor consisted of items relating to the acceptance of manipulation of other people in order to achieve desired goals (e.g., Sometimes you have to hurt other people to get what you want, Most people wont work unless you make them do it etc.). High scores on this factor indicate Machiavellian responding and thus, it was labelled Manipulation. Markers of the third factor consisted of items relating to attitudes towards honesty in general (e.g., It is better to be ordinary and honest than famous and dishonest), and once again high scores on this factor indicate Machiavellian responding. The third factor was, therefore, labelled Dishonesty. The fourth factor consisted of three items predominately relating to trust (e.g., It is smartest to believe that all people will be mean if they have a chance). As these are

302

Eleni Andreou

Table 1. Varimax-rotated factor loadings of the Kiddie Mach questionnaire items Item No. Item Successful people are mostly honest and good. 14 Most people are brave. 2 Most people are good and kind. 16 It is possible to be good in every way. 15 It is smart to be nice to important people even if you dont really like them. 7 Sometimes you have to hurt other people to get what you want. 8 Most people wont work hard unless you make them do it. 18 Sometimes you have to cheat a little to get what you want. 20 It hurts more to lose money than to lose a friend. 17 Most people cannot be easily fooled. 4 You should do something only when you are sure it is right. 9 It is better to be ordinary and honest than famous and dishonest. 10 Its better to tell someone why you want him to help you than to make up a good story to get him to do it. 3 The best way to get along with people is to tell them things that make them happy. 6 You should always be honest, no matter what. 19 It is never right to tell a lie. 13 A criminal is just like other people except he is stupid enough to get caught. 12 Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. 5 It is smartest to believe that all people will be mean if they have a chance. 1 Never tell anyone why you did something unless it will help you. eigenvalues All loadings over .40 shown in bold 11 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 .752 .732 .702 .615 .535 .210 .232 .187 .113 .222 .304 .067 .053 .115 .006 .208 .124 .273 .641 .611 .573 .434 .419 .011 .332 .042 .012 .111 .247 .042 .171 .340 .042 .331 .007 .115 .579 .565 .538 .435 .404 .331 .107 .298 .243 .212 1.583 .005 291 .167 .004 .301 .113 .352 .002 .280 .046 .242 .032 .097 .158 .322 .077 .599 .520 .519 .132 1.358

.148 .109 .291 .008 .032 .137 .192 2.759

.250 .115 .026 .303 .212 .003 .081 1.988

Machiavellian items, high scores indicate agreement. The final factor was, therefore, labelled Distrust, as in the study by Sutton and Keogh (2001). No significant difference was found between boys and girls on any of these factors, although boys scored significantly higher than girls on overall Machiavellianism (t=2.52, p<.05). Boys also scored significantly higher than girls on Self-efficacy for Aggression scale (t=2.18, p<.05), but not on the other two Self-efficacy scales. Although higher scores on overall Machiavellianism were associated with higher scores on Self-efficacy for Aggression scale (r=.26, p<.01), when correlations were conducted for the whole sample, no significant associations were found between overall Machiavellianism or

Bully/victim problems in Greek children

303

Mach factors and self-efficacy measures, when correlations were conducted separately for boys and girls.

Associations with components of Machiavellianism and Self-efficacy scales No significant difference was found between boys and girls (means of 2.11 and 2.26 respectively, t=1.32, ns) on the Peer-Victimization Scale although boys scored higher than girls (means of 2.01 and 1.69 respectively, t=2.83, p<.01) on the BullyingBehaviour Scale. For this reason, correlations between scores on these scales and the Kiddie Mac and Self-efficacy scales were conducted separately for boys and girls (see Table 2).
Table 2. Correlations between peer victimization, bullying behaviour and scores on the Kiddie Mach and Self-efficacy scales Peer victimization Boys Girls Lack of Faith in Human Nature Manipulation Dishonesty Distrust Total Kiddie Mach score Self-efficacy for assertion Self-efficacy for aggression Self-efficacy for learning and performance *p<.05 **p<.01 .285** .180 .013 .373** .335** .185 .217* .344** .081 .049 .090 .289** .024 .218* .266* .316** Bullying behaviour Boys Girls .366** .028 .065 .117 .393** .160 .325** .289** .125 .291** .057 .006 .138 .211* .068 .325**

For both boys and girls higher scores on Distrust were associated with higher scores on Victimization. For boys but not for girls, higher scores on Lack of Faith in Human Nature and overall Machiavellianism were associated with higher scores on both Victimization and Bullying Behaviour scales. For girls but not for boys, higher scores on Manipulation were associated with higher scores on Bullying Behaviour scale. Regarding perceptions of self-efficacy, higher scores on Victimization scale were associated with lower scores on Self-efficacy for Assertion scale for girls but not for boys, and with higher scores on Self-efficacy for Aggression and lower scores on Selfefficacy for Learning and Performance scales for both boys and girls. Higher scores on Bullying Behaviour scale were associated with lower scores on Self-efficacy for Assertion for girls but not for boys, higher scores on Self-efficacy for Aggression for boys but not for girls and lower scores on Self-efficacy for Learning and Performance for both boys and girls.

Differentiation of bully and victim groupings In order to investigate the Machiavellian beliefs and perceptions of self-efficacy of those grouped as both bullies and victims, children were classified, following the procedure used by Austin and Joseph (1996), into four groups: (1) high bully & low victim bully only group (21/18611.3 %); (2) low bully & high victim victim only group (35/186

304

Eleni Andreou

18.8 %); (3) high bully & high victim bully/victim group (27/18614.5 %); (4) low bully & low victim not involved group 103/18655.4 %). This procedure chooses a cut-off score of 2.50 on both the Peer-Victimization Scale and the Bullying-Behaviour Scale to classify children into the above four groups. Analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences between these groups. The results of these ANOVAs and mean scores on each of the Kiddie Mac and Self-efficacy scales are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean (SD) score on the Kiddie Mach and Self-efficacy scales for each of the four bully/victim groups Bully/victim (N=27) Lack of Faith in Human Nature Manipulation Dishonesty Distrust Total Kiddie Mach score Self-efficacy for assertion Self-efficacy for aggression Self-efficacy for learning and performance 17.23bcd (4.12) 13.99cd (3.91) 10.07cd (2.80) 7.59cd (3.32) 56.17bcd (8.32) 21.12bd (3.83) 17.71c (4.58) 28.04 (6.22) Bully only (N=21) 16.96a (4.26) 14.33d (3.68) 10.52d (2.99) 7.90cd (3.23) 55.62a (7.82) 22.00a (4.60) 17.93c (4.53) 27.72c (6.48) Victim only (N=35) 6.65a (4.28) 14.61ad (3.10) 11.02ad (3.00) 8.31abd (2.99) 54.88a (8.00) 21.37d (3.98) 16.44abd (4.29) 28.83bd (7.21) Not involved (N=103) 15.81a (3.96) 12.04abc (3.72) 9.83abc (3.03) 6.75abc (3.06) 52.62a (7.24) 24.05ac (4.82) 17.00c (5.01) 30.45c 7(5.29) F (3, 182) 3.98 2.70 4.01 4.69 4.41 5.68 3.10 4.27 p .009 .047 .008 .004 .005 .001 .028 .006

a indicates a significant difference (p<.05) from bully/victim group; b indicates a significant difference (p<.05) from bully only group; c indicates a significant difference (p<.05) from victim only group; and d indicates a significant difference (p<.05) from the not involved group (2-tailed tests). Note. Classification using a cut-off point of 2.50 on the Peer Victimization and Bullying Behaviour Scales (see Austin & Joseph, 1996).

Scheffe post-hoc tests were applied to determine where the difference lay. Bully/ victims had the highest score on Lack of Faith in Human Nature and overall Machiavellianism and scored significantly lower than victims, but not significantly lower than bullies on the other Kiddie Mach subscales. Although no significant difference was found between the bully/victim group and the remaining groups for Selfefficacy for Learning and Performance, bully/victims were similar to victims only with respect to Self-efficacy for Assertion but similar to bullies only with respect to Selfefficacy for Aggression.

Bully/victim problems in Greek children

305

Discussion
This study aimed to conduct an exploratory investigation of the association between components of childhood Machiavellianism, self-efficacy in specific domains and bully/ victim problems at school. Factor analysis of the Kiddie Mach scale revealed four main factors: Lack of Faith in Human Nature, Manipulation, Dishonesty and Distrust. Thus, it seems that different types of Machiavellianism are evident in childhood. As Sutton and Keogh (2001) point out, future research needs to distinguish between tactics and views or between behaviours and dispositions. Investigation of attitudes towards interpersonal relationships and human nature at an early age may have implications for parenting and school practice. Gender differences on overall Machiavellianism are consonant with other findings, which suggest that boys hold more Machiavellian beliefs than girls (Allsopp, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1991; Andreou, 1997; Sutton & Keogh, 2000). Boys were also found to be more actively involved in the bullying process as bullies. As Salmivalli et al. (1996) argue this finding can be interpreted by the fact that for boys, physically aggressive ways of being together are more common and more approved. To be accepted in their peer group, boys are expected to join, at least to some extent, in rough-and-tumble play, mutual testing and bullying behaviour. The idealization of aggression among boys, but not among girls, has been found in several studies (e.g., Bjorkvist, Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1992; Rauste-von-Wright, 1989; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 1998) and can also explain the greater self-efficacy for aggressive acts that boys have been found to have in this study. Correlations between scores on the Peer Victimization and Bullying Behaviour Scales and Kiddie Mach and Self-efficacy scales, which were conducted separately for boys and girls, revealed some interesting differences. Both bullying and victimization were associated with Lack of Faith in Human Nature and total Kiddie Mach score for boys but not for girls. These results highlight the role that components of Machiavellian beliefs play in male bullying and victimization. Male bullying and victimization can be viewed as part of negative attitudes towards both human nature in general and interpersonal relationships in particular. For girls but not for boys bullying behaviour was associated with approval of manipulation in interpersonal situations, while both bullying and victimization were associated with low self-efficacy for assertion. If we take into account that the form bullying takes differs between boys and girls (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992; Schuster, 1996; Whitney & Smith, 1993), it seems more reasonable for girls, who use more indirect forms of aggression, to accept the use of manipulation in interpersonal relationships. As Bjorkqvist et al. (1992) have put it, girls manipulate and boys fight. Thus, it would beneficial for future research to distinguish between anxious and manipulative styles of childhood Machiavellianism, as Sutton and Keogh (2001) argue. In their study boys were found to be more dillusioned and anxious about the harsh nature of the world than girls. Such tendencies could be investigated in relation to childhood coping strategies, which have been linked to bully/victim problems (Andreou, 2001). There is some evidence that highMach males tend to suppress and avoid their problems, whereas highMach females tend to seek support (Rim, 1992). That tendency may be linked to differences between male and female bullying. The association of both bullying behaviour and victimization with girls low ability to assert themselves during conflicts mirrors the findings of Egan and Perry (1998) and

306

Eleni Andreou

suggest that providing assertiveness training to them may be one important way to reduce bullying in school. The association between victimization and self-efficacy for aggression suggests that victimization experiences may serve to energize cognition, which encourages aggression for both boys and girls. This finding contradicts Egan, Monson, and Perrys (1998) hypothesis that the experience of victimization by peers has opposite effects on aggressive cognitions for boys and girls (nullifying them for boys and activating them for girls) and suggests that harsh treatment by peers might have the effect of promoting self-efficacy for aggression in both sexes, something which may incite rather than inhibit aggression and thus lead to further victimization. This is a good reason for parents, teachers and clinicians to instruct children in assertive rather than in aggressive retaliation when attempting to teach them behaviours designed to prevent or to reduce victimization. Moreover, anti-bullying interventions should include more emphasis on citizenship and interpersonal relationships in order to minimize childrens aggressionencouraging cognition and reduce Machiavellian attitudes. Regarding the association between self-efficacy for learning and performance not only with boys and girls victimization but also with their bullying behaviour, it seems that children who feel confidence in their ability to accomplish academic tasks are less likely to get involved in bullying situations. This is in line with recent research, which reveals connections between bully-victim problems and learning difficulties (Kaukiainen et al., 2002) linked with academic self-efficacy (Zimmerman, 2000). Moreover, our data are interesting because it is known that certain types of school programmes and teaching techniques which promote academic self-efficacy can also support prosocial dispositions and behaviours (Bronson, 2000; Ford, 1982). For example, cooperative learning techniques that reduce the negative aspects of competition not only help children to regulate their cognitive abilities independently in order to reach selfselected goals and internal performance standards but also promote cooperation, reduce conflict and increase prosocial behaviour (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Sharan, 1984). Thus, anti-bullying interventions might profit from a greater focus on promoting mastery-oriented motivation and greater self-efficacy for learning and performance. The results of the categorical approach regarding differences in the Kiddie Mach and Self-efficacy scales between bullies, victims and bully/victims suggest that bully/victims is a distinct group in terms of Lack of Faith in Human Nature and overall Machiavellianism. What seems to set bully/victims apart most of all is their low faith in human nature and their high level of Machiavellianism. If we take into account that Lack of Faith in Human Nature is associated with high neuroticism (Sutton & Keogh, 2001), which is evident in bully/victim group (Mynard & Joseph, 1997), our data suggest that bully/victims are characterized by anxious rather than manipulative styles of Machiavellianism. Regarding overall Machiavellianism, our finding is in line with previous research (Andreou, 2000). Children who both bully others and are bullied themselves not only have a distinctly negative view of themselves (Andreou, 2001) but also of other people. They seem to believe that they live in a world in which they can be either bullies or victims and they choose to be both, in order to be consistent with their distinct negative evaluative attitudes toward self and their Machiavellian strategy for dealing with people in interpersonal situations. Bully/victims are similar to victims with respect to Self-efficacy for Assertion but similar to bullies with respect to Self-efficacy for Aggression. Thus, our data contradict Bijttebier and Vertommens (1998) hypothesis that bully/victims have more in common with bullies than with victims. Further research is clearly needed in this area in order to

Bully/victim problems in Greek children

307

explain the behaviour patterns of bully/victims. Since self-report questionnaires are susceptible to answers tinged with social desirability, our results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, due to the cross-sectional and correlational nature of this study, it cannot be assumed that getting involved in bullying situations either as a bully, victim or bully/victim depends on components of Machiavellianism or perceptions of social and academic Self-efficacy. Being the victim of school bullying, for example, may influence Machiavellian attitudes or Self-efficacy for Assertion. Future research could strive to examine causal relationships in this direction and account for other possible variables, which may relate to the personality of groups involved into school bullying.

References
Ahmad, Y., & Smith, P.K. (1990). Behavioural measures: Bullying in schools. Newsletter of Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, July. Allsopp, J., Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Machiavellianism as a component in psychotism and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences 12, 2941. Andreou, E. (1997). Personality factors of childrens problem behaviour in Greek public primary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Athens, Greece. Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological constructs in 8 to 12 year-old Greek school children. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 4956. Andreou, E. (2001). Bully/victim problems and their association with coping behaviour in conflictual peer interactions among school-age children. Educational Psychology, 21, 5966. Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447456. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729735. Bijttebier, P., & Vertommen, H. (1998). Coping with peer arguments in school-age children with bully/victim problems. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 387394. Bjorkqvist, K. Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1992). Bullies and victims: Their ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 307313. Boulton, M.J., & Smith, P.K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315329. Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New York: Guilford Press. Christie, R., & Geis, F.L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Egan, S.K., & Perry, D.G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299309. Egan, S.K., Monson, T.C., & Perry, D.G. (1998). Social-cognitive influences on change in aggression over time. Developmental Psychology, 34, 9961006. Ford, M.E. (1982). Motivating humans. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Harter, S. (1985). The Self-Perception Profile for Children: Revision of the Competence Perceived Scale for Children Manual. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Sharan, S. (1984). Enhancing prosocial behavior through cooperative learning in the classroom. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski & J. Reykowski (Eds.), The development and maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspectives on positive morality (pp.423443). New York: Plenum. Hodges, E.V., & Perry, D.G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of

308

Eleni Andreou

victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (4), 677675. Hoover, J.H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R.J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 516. Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W., & Boster, F.J. (1982). Machiavellian beliefs and personality: Construct validity of the Machiavellianism dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 12931305. Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tammie, M., Vauras, M., Maki, H., & Poskiparta, E. (2002). Learning difficulties, social intelligence and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 3, 269278. Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully victim problems and their association with Eysencks personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 5154. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell. Pakaslahti, L., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (1998). Types of aggressive behavior among aggressivepreferred, aggressive non-preferred, non-aggressive preferred and non-aggressive nonpreferred 14-year-old adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 821828. Paritz, E. (1989). Psychometric investigation of the Mach IV scale measuring Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 60, 10411042. Perry, D.G., Kusel, S.J., & Perry, L.C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807814. Perry, D.G., Perry, L.C., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive social learning mediators of aggression. Child Development, 57, 700711. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Michigan: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Rauste-von-Wright, M. (1989). Physical and verbal aggression in peer groups among Finnish adolescent boys and girls. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 473484. Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1990). Victims and bullies in school communities. Journal of the Australasian Society of Victimology, 1, 2328. Rim, Y. (1992). Machiavellianism and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 487489. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K. Bjorkqvist, K., Osterrman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relation to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 115. Schuster, B. (1996). Rejection, exclusion, and harassment at work and in schools: An integration of results from research on mobbing, bullying and peer rejection. European Psychologist, 1, 293317. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., & Coie, J.D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys play groups. Child Development, 64, 17551772. Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysencks personality factors and self-esteem to bully/victim behaviour in Australian school boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371373. Smith, P.K., Boulton, M.J., & Cowie, H. (1993). The impact of cooperative group work on ethnic relations in middle school. School Psychology International, 14, 2142. Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (Eds.) (1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London: Routledge. Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, Machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 443456. Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2001). Components of Machiavellian beliefs in children: Relationships with personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 137148.

Bully/victim problems in Greek children

309

Tattum, D.P. (1988) Violence and aggression in schools. In D.P. Tattum & D.A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp.720). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1998). Friendships, peer acceptance and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 11981209. Whitney, I., & Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 325. Williams, M.C., Hazelton, V., & Renshaw, S. (1975). The measurement of Machiavellianism: A factor-analytic and correlational study of Mach IV and Mach V. Speech Monographs, 42, 151 159. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 8291. Received 18 July, 2002; revised version received 13 January, 2003