UC Davis Study: Popular Kids Aren't The Bullies

A new study discredits the archetypical bully image as a letter jacket-wearing jock or a pack of vicious girls. It's actually the fence-sitters -- the kids who stand the most to gain -- who are the biggest aggressors.

The most popular students don't have to use bullying to work their way up, and less popular kids typically just aren't as aggressive, says study co-author Robert W. Faris, a sociology professor at the University of California, Davis.

And there's a logical explanation, Education Week reports:

"Our interpretation is, kids view this as a means to an end. Once they get to the top, they no longer need to be aggressive. Aggression could be counterproductive: It could signal insecurity," Mr. Faris said.

The research is due out February 8 in the American Sociological Review. Faris and co-author Diane Felmlee spent years surveying students in North Carolina.

Live Science points to the fact that the distinction in the study lies in the fact that much of the preceding bullying research focuses on student bullies' personal characteristics.

"Faris and Felmlee were interested not in individual traits, but in the social networks where bullying takes place."

The Washington Post points out that educators would be wise to take note of these nuances.

"The results, Davis said, have implications for bullying prevention efforts. Anti-bullying programs at schools should pay attention to more subtle and insidious forms of harassment, and appreciate how aggressive behaviors are rooted in status."

Comments

[Lisa Shields]

01:55 AM on 02/12/2011

Oh PLEASE.

A decade back, a young girl with a severely limited IQ was sexually abused by most of sports team in my state. Jocks who were popular...and had no need to torment, or prey upon an obviously disturbed young woman. Worse...when the news hit, the school and town did their level best to "shield" the young men form the consequences.

I do wonder if this "study" comes from the biased end of things...because when "bullying" hits the news, there always seems to be bored, spoiled kids behind it.

I went to a private girl's school...and no group was immune to being teased...except the ones who had parents who were well off. They were protected.

[Renee Kools]

06:49 PM on 02/11/2011

This is something I've noticed as well, and it's nice to see it black-and-white like this. The most popular people are usually quite nice, although more distant because of their social status. The "unpopular" crowd doesn't really care that much about social status, and are more confident within their own circle. It's the fence-sitters you have to watch out for. Worst part is that these people make up for most of the student body.

I disagree with the part about those people being insecure, though. I mean, we all have our insecurities, but the cause of bullying is not projection. I actually think it's much more vicious than that. Bullies aren't able or willing to relate to the victim. Usually he or she is hated for the way she acts, speaks or dresses, or some other form of "otherizing" that results in behaviour that's way out of line. The victim becomes a punching bag. And I guess the viciousness part is that punching a bag can be fun, especially if you do it in a group. It has less to do with "bullies have insecurities" and more with group mentality.
What further reinforces this belief for me is that bullies never bully when they're on their own, and might even be likeable.

[Spartan112]

03:20 PM on 02/10/2011

I would agree that fence sitters have a lot to gain, but I have seen jocks behave as bullies with my own eyes. The thing is they can come from any social strata.

[fem56]

01:46 PM on 02/10/2011

Based on my experience this is true.

[mojo filter]

08:46 PM on 02/10/2011

Me too. I was a huge misfit in high school and the so called popular types (athletes, rich kids, etc) generally just ignored me. The kids who gave me the worst time weren't much higher on the pecking order then I was.

[hagagaga]

10:01 AM on 02/10/2011

I'm in high school. I would say that my classmates who could be termed "popular" are generally among the nicer people I know. I was targeted years ago, and the aggressor was the only person lower on the social hierarchy than me.

[Shelley Gordon]

09:31 AM on 02/10/2011

Having been a target of bullies as a child and having observed it in action as a parent, I say BS!

[hagagaga]

09:58 AM on 02/10/2011

Having been a target of bullies a few years ago and currently in high school seeing less of it, I say NOT BS!

The private school I went to pretty much justified their inaction because I was an outcast. I was targeted by the only person more of an outcast than me in grades 6 and 7. In grades 4 and 5, I was targeted by somebody else who became one of my best friends at that school (well, they were the only two friends I had at the school) after I made him realize his irrationality, and he also wasn't high on the social ladder at all.

[jeremykasperson]

09:36 AM on 02/09/2011

You would be wrong to infer that teachers hold a large amount of control over bullying. The vast super-majority of bullying occurs online or through text messaging. Most face-to-face bullying occurs well before or after school outside of a teacher's control.

[sumsense]

08:22 AM on 02/09/2011

There is a very important element that is skewing this conclusion: it's not that "popular" kids bully less than the marginal kids, it's that reporting on the "popular" kids has more social consequences to the bullied than does reporting on the marginal kids. The "popular" kids are less likely to be called out as bullies by their peers and are less likely to be disciplined by school administrators when they are caught. That fact is a statistical distinction that renders these conclusions meaningless.

Also, the thought that bullying is significantly a conscious act of social mobility is on its face unsupportable. There are certainly social mechanics at work, but the true problem lies in the character and mental stability of the individual bully. Ultimately, nothing can be solved if we see bullying as a pack instinct to gain attention.

[Gonzo36]

11:56 AM on 02/09/2011

You should read about the Stanford Prison Experiment. It explains a lot about how 'normal' people in a social hierarchy can become 'bullies'. It pretty much proves the pack instinct is very powerful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[LittleRedHenSez]

12:28 AM on 02/09/2011

Is snobbery a form of bullying?

[Godheard SentU]

12:56 PM on 02/09/2011

Good question. Here are a couple links I found;

"Being snubbed socially provokes exactly the same brain response as being physically hurt, say US researchers." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3178242.stm

I found it at:
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm

There is a section dedicated to schoolbullying. I think you'll find some useful information.

[LittleRedHenSez]

03:20 PM on 02/09/2011

Thanks for your links. Fanned for being helpful above and beyond.

[Ayang801]

11:10 PM on 02/08/2011

Kinda slow there. Thought people knew that. They can blame it on movies and whatnot, most bullies are portrayed that way in movies and in most people's mind these days. I go to school and they can come in many forms, mostly the ones mentioned in his article. However, rich kids being often looked on as the bullies? Pretty doubtful on that.