The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in thefol.docx

The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in the
following four groups of students: victims, bullies,
bully/victims and a
control group of adolescents not involved in bullying or
victimization
problems. Psychosocial adjustment was measured considering as
indicators: level of self-esteem, depressive symptomatology,
perceived
stress, feeling of loneliness, and a general measure of
satisfaction with
life. Participants (N=1319) were aged from 11 to 16 (47% male)
and
drawn from seven state secondary schools in Valencia (Spain).
ANOVAs revealed significant differences among groups,
reporting
adolescents not involved a general better psychosocial
adjustment; they
had higher levels of self-esteem and satisfaction with life, and
lower
levels of depressive symptomatology, perceived stress and
feeling of
loneliness. The scores for this group were equivalent to those of
bullies
with respect to self-esteem, depressive symptomatology and
loneliness.
However, bullies perceived more stress and expressed less
satisfaction
with life, as did the other two groups, namely victims and
bully/victims.
Victims reported the strongest feelings of loneliness.
Bully/victims
seemed to share characteristics with both bullies and victims,

though
showing more similarities with the latter and a general poor
psychosocial profile.
Within the last few decades, violent behaviours among
adolescents at school have
become an important concern for both educators and researches,
due probably to the negative
consequences this kind of behaviour exerts on students involved
(Estévez, Musitu, & Herrero,
2005; Houbre, Tarquinio, Thuillier, & Hergott, 2006). The first
studies on this topic were
European Journal of Psychology of Education
2009, Vol. XXIV, nº 4, 473-483
© 2009, I.S.P.A.
Psychological adjustment in bullies and victims of
school violence
Estefanía Estévez
Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Spain
Sergio Murgui
Universidad Católica San Vicente Mártir de Valencia, Spain
Gonzalo Musitu
Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla, Spain
This investigation was supported by the Ministry of Education

and Science of Spain Research Grant SEJ2004-
01742 and co-financed by the European Founds FEDER and the
Area of Investigation and Technological Transference
of the Valencian Government. The authors also would like to
thank the school principals, teachers and students for their
participation in this study, as well as Professor Nick Emler for
his invaluable assistance in preparing this paper for
publication.
carried out in Norway by Olweus at the end of the seventies,
and since then numerous
investigations have been developed on what has been named
bullying. According to Olweus
(1978) “a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she
is exposed, repeatedly and
over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more
students”, and considers as a negative
action a type of violence in which someone intentionally inflicts
or attempts to inflict injury or
discomfort to another. Therefore, bullying has four main
characteristics: (1) is a violent (2)
intentional behavior, (3) which occurs over time, and (4)
involves a power imbalance.
This kind of aggression is hostile and proactive and involves
both direct and indirect
behaviours (Elinoff, Chafouleas, & Sassu, 2004). Bullying may
imply, therefore, physical
attacks (hitting, pushing, kicking, shoving), verbal aggressions
(threatening, teasing, name
calling) and relational aggressions or behaviours that try to
harm social relations of the victim
(gossiping or spreading rumors, telling others to stop liking
someone, ignoring or stopping

talking to someone) (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000; Ladd
& Ladd, 2001; Newman,
Murray, & Lussier, 2001). Despite the fact that some researches
have been developed to
analyze the impact of these behaviours on psychosocial
adjustment of aggressors and victims,
there are still unresolved questions that need further
investigation. For instance, it is well
established that the fact of being victimized generates a great
deal of distress in the child;
however, findings on the psychosocial well-being of bullies are
not so clear-cut.
Thus, most of the research focused on bullying at school has
repeatedly shown how
victimized students exhibit serious psychosomatic symptoms
and poor psychological
adjustment (Alsaker & Olweus, 1992; Juvonen, Nishina, &
Graham, 2000; Kupersmidt, Coie,
& Dodge, 1990). Recent studies have documented that
depressive symptomatology and
psychological distress are common in adolescents experiencing
victimization (Estévez et al.,
2005; Guterman, Hahm, & Cameron, 2002; Kumpulainen,
Räsänen, & Puura, 2001);
moreover, it seems that the association between internalizing
symptoms and peer victimization
is bidirectional (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Sweeting, Young, West,
& Der, 2006). Likewise,
victimized students normally see themselves as socially
incompetent, are generally unpopular
among peers and display little self-confidence (Khatri,
Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 2000; Slee,
1995), as well as lower levels of self-esteem (Austin & Joseph,
1996; Estévez, Martínez, &
Musitu, 2006; Olweus, 1998) and greater feelings of loneliness

(Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996;
Storch & Masia-Warner, 2004).
Previous research analysing psychosocial adjustment in bullies,
however, indicates that
there is scarcely any correspondence between violent behaviour
and psychological problems in
the adolescent period (Angold & Costello, 1993). For example,
depressive symptoms and
violent behaviour have only been found to co-occur in about 5%
to 8% of adolescents
(Garnefski & Diekstra, 1997; Ge, Best, Conger, & Simons,
1996). Results regarding self-esteem
in bullies are even more controversial: some authors suggest
that these adolescents show lower
levels of self-esteem in comparison with those not involved in
such behavioural problems
(Mynard & Joseph, 1997; O’Moore, 1997), while others report
that violent adolescents often
obtain high scores on measures of this construct (Olweus, 1998;
Rigby & Slee, 1992).
According to O’Moore and Kirkman (2001), this apparent
contradiction seems to be
linked to two principal factors: the use of one-dimensional
versus multidimensional scales and
the criteria to classify students. On the one hand, when using
multidimensional scales, bullies
tend to present lower or higher levels of self-esteem depending
on the dimensions analysed:
recent studies have revealed that bullies normally get low scores
in school self-esteem but
high ones in the social and emotional domains (Andreou, 2000;
Estévez et al., 2006; O’Moore
& Kirkman, 2001). On the other hand, most of the research on
bullying has focused on “pure

bullies” and “pure victims”, overlooking those adolescents who
are at the same time
aggressors and victims. Along this line and following Austin
and Joseph (1996) classification,
the present study distinguishes among four different types of
students depending on their role
in bullying, namely victims, bullies, bully/victims, and “not
involved”.
Pure victims are generally characterized as being submissive
and passive, while
bully/victims are, in contrast, prone to hostile behaviour
(Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001).
However, although researchers have argued that bully/victims
are a theoretically distinct
474 E. ESTÉVEZ, S. MURGUI, & G. MUSITU
PSICHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT IN BULLIES AND VICTIMS
475
subgroup of students, relatively little is known about their
emotional adjustment and about
whether they present a different psychosocial profile in
comparison to pure victims and pure
bullies. Even though this group of students seems to be smaller
in number, as Schwartz and
colleagues (2001) and Olweus (2001) remark, they represent an
important target for empirical
study. Taking this assumption into consideration, as well as
contradictory findings in the
available scientific literature on this topic, the main objective of
the present study was to
examine psychosocial adjustment in the four groups considered

by Austin and Joseph (1996):
victims, bullies, bully/victims and adolescents not involved in
bullying at school. Psychosocial
adjustment was defined here by the following indicators: level
of self-esteem, depressive
symptomatology, perceived stress, feeling of loneliness, and a
general measure of satisfaction
with life.
Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 1319 adolescents attending
secondary education in seven
state schools in Valencia, a metropolitan area with a population
of one million in Spain. Ages
ranged from 11 to 16 (mean age 13.7; s.d. 1.6); 47% were boys
and 53% were girls. For the
research purposes, the sample was split into four categories:
bully (n=223), victim (n=212),
bully/victim (n=104), and not involved (n=780; adolescents who
displayed neither bullying
nor victimization problems at school). The category “bully” was
established on the basis of
scores above the 75th percentile on the School Violence Scale;
the category “victim” on the
basis of scores above the 75th percentile on the Peer
Victimization Scale; the category
“bully/victim” was defined in terms of the combination of these
scores.
Procedure
After pre-contacts were made with several state schools selected
at random in the city of

Valencia, seven schools finally participated in the study based
primarily on their availability and
the willingness of staff to collaborate in the investigation.
Following initial contact with head
teachers, all teaching staff were informed of the objectives of
the study during a two-hour
presentation. In parallel, a letter describing the study was sent
to the parents requesting that
they indicate in writing if they did not wish their child to
participate (1% of parents exercised
this option). The questionnaires were administered collectively
under the supervision of a single
researcher. Participants voluntarily and anonymously filled out
the scales during a regular class
period, lasting approximately one hour. All measures were
translated using English-Spanish
bidirectional translation and were administered within each
classroom on the same day.
Instruments
Participants filled out the following questionnaires:
School Violence Scale (adapted from Little, Henrich, Jones, &
Hawley, 2003). On this
scale, adolescents indicated the frequency with which they had
engaged in 24 aggressive acts
at school over the last 12 months, on a five-point scale (0=I
don’t want to share this
information, 1=never, 4=many times). All items were referred to
aggression towards other
peers in the school context. Approximately 7% of respondents
chose the “0” response for
some items; these were excluded from the analyses. Principal
component analysis indicated a
three factor structure underlying responses on this scale: the

first factor (31.72% of variance)
was defined by ten items referring to overt aggression (e.g., “I
hit, kick, or punch others”), the
second factor (22.67% of variance) was defined by seven items
referring to relational
aggression (e.g., “If other have hurt me, I try to keep them from
being in my group of
friends”), and the third factor (19,64% variance) was defined by
seven items referring to
instrumental aggression (e.g., “I start fights to get what I
want”). Cronbach alphas for these
subscales in the current sample were .82, .73, and .78
respectively. A general measure of
aggressiveness at school was used in the present study.
Peer Victimization Scale (adapted from Mynard and Joseph,
2000). This scale consisted
of 20 items, each rated on four-point scales (1=never, 4=many
times). Principal component
analysis revealed a three-factor structure: the first factor
(35.74% of variance) was defined by
seven items referring to physical victimization (e.g., “Some
classmates have hit me”), the
referring to verbal
victimization (e.g., “Some classmates have insulted me”), and
the third factor (18,54%
variance) was defined by six items referring to relational
victimization (e.g., “Some
classmates have spread rumours about me so that nobody
associates with me”). Cronbach
alphas for these subscales in the current sample were .89, .71,
and .70 respectively. A global

measure of victimization was calculated and used in the current
study.
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965, 1989). This
scale is composed of 10
items answered on a four point scale (1=I strongly agree, 4=I
strongly disagree) that provides
a general measure of global self-esteem (e.g., “I feel that I’m a
person of worth, at least on an
equal basis with others”, “I take a positive attitude towards
myself”). Internal consistency for
this scale in the present study was .78.
Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985). This instrument
consists of 5 items rated in a seven-point scale (1=I strongly
disagree, 7=I strongly agree) that
provide a global measure of subjective well-being and life
satisfaction (e.g., “I am satisfied
with life”, “If I could live my life over, I would change almost
nothing”). Cronbach alpha for
this scale in the current sample was .81.
Center of Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff,
1977). The CESD is a
20-item scale which evaluates the presence of depressive
symptomatology including the
following dimensions: depressed mood, positive affect, somatic
and retarded activity, and
interpersonal distress. It also provides a general measure of
depressive mood, which was used
in this study (e.g., “I felt depressed”, “I was bothered by things
that usually don’t bother me”).
Responses are rated on a four-point scale (1=never, 4=always).
Cronbach’s reliability for this
scale in the present study was .90.

Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein,
1983). The PSS is a 10-item
scale which measures the degree to which respondents appraise
situations as stressful within
the last month (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you
found that you could not cope
with all the things that you have to do?”, “how often have you
been upset because of
something that happened unexpectedly?”) on a five-point scale
(1=never, 5=very often).
Coefficient alpha a in the current sample for this scale was .82.
UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996). The UCLA is a 20-item
scale that was developed to
assess subjective feelings of loneliness and social isolation
(e.g., “How often do you feel
completely alone?”, “How often do you feel as if nobody really
understands you?”). Items are
rated on a four-point scale (1=never, 4=often). Alpha
coefficient for this scale was .90.
Results
Prior to comparisons between groups, several analyses were
carried out to obtain a better
understanding of the distribution by gender and age of the
victims and bullies in the sample.
477

There were more bullies boys than girls (χ2=44.70; d.f.=1; p<
.001), but the percentage of
victimized boys and girls was not statistically different
(χ2=2.72; d.f.=1; p=.125). Regarding
age groups, the percentage of bullies (χ2=1.77; d.f.=1; p=.183)
and victims (χ2=3.22; d.f.=1;
p=.071) were equally distributed in the two age groups studied
(11-13, early adolescence; and
14-16 years old, middle adolescence). For the sample as a
whole, 41% of the students were
involved in bullying, of whom 17% were bullies, 16% were
victims and 8% were bully/victims.
Following this preliminary analyses, an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to
examine differences among bullies, victims, bully/victims, and
adolescents not involved, with
respect to the dependent variables: level of self-esteem,
satisfaction with life, depressive
symptomatology, perceived stress, and feeling of loneliness.
Due to the existence of sharply
unequal cell sizes, the Brown and Forsythe (1974) robust
estimator to account for the violation
of homogeneity of variances was used for the calculation of the
F in the ANOVAs. When
significant differences among groups were observed, the post
hoc Tamhane test was applied to
differences between particular groups with respect to the
dependent variables considered. This

test is suitable for pairwise contrasts when unequal variances
are assumed, which was the case
in the present study. Table 1 shows the means, standard
deviations, ANOVA results and
Tamhane test for the four groups analysed.
Table 1
Means, standard deviations (in parenthesis), ANOVA results
and Tamhane Test
Bullies Victims Bully/ Victims Not involved F3,1319
Global Self-esteem 29.81 (4.50)a 28.00 (5.21)b0 28.11 (5.19)b0
30.46 (4.55)a 16.81***
Satisfaction with Life 39.20 (8.33)b 38.73 (7.89)b0 38.41
(8.07)b0 43.13 (6.89)a 18.80***
Depressive Symptoms 38.03 (7.87)b 43.18 (10.60)a 42.17
(10.15)a 38.18 (7.05)b 16.76***
Perceived Stress 24.02 (4.02)a 24.06 (4.45)a0 24.18 (4.14)a0
21.33 (4.22)b 11.38***
Loneliness 37.82 (7.96)c 42.56 (10.39)a 40.68 (8.18)b0 37.11
(7.93)c 22.04***
Note. Tamhane Test: α=0.05; a>b>c; ***p<.001.
Results obtained confirmed the existence of significant
differences among groups with
regard to the five variables examined. Regarding global self-

esteem (F3,1319=16.81, p<.001)
bullies and those not involved in bullying or victimization
problems showed higher levels in
this measure when compared to the groups of victims and
bully/victims. With reference to
satisfaction with life (F3,1319=18.80, p<.001) adolescents not
involved scored significantly
higher than any other group: there were no significant
differences among bullies, victims, and
bully/victims, all reporting being less satisfied with their lives
in general.
As far as depressive symptomatology is concerned
(F3,1319=16.76, p<.001), the highest
scores were observed in the groups of victims and bully/victims,
compared to bullies and
adolescents not involved; the difference between the latter two
groups was not significant. As
regards perceived stress (F3,1319=11.38, p<.001) the three
groups of adolescents involved in
bullying and victimization problems reported higher levels;
those not involved perceived less
stress in their daily life. Finally, the group of victims expressed,
overall, the greatest feeling of
loneliness (F3,1319=22.04, p<.001), followed by the group of
bully/victims. Bullies and
adolescents not involved had similarly lower levels with respect
to this variable.

To sum up, our results indicated that the group of not involved
adolescents had better
psychosocial adjustment: higher self-esteem and greater
satisfaction with life, together with
lower levels of depressive symptomatology, perceived stress
and feeling of loneliness. The
scores for self-esteem, depressive symptomatology and
loneliness of these adolescents were
similar to those of bullies. However, bullies expressed less
satisfaction with life and more
perceived stress, as did the other two groups, namely victims
and bully/victims. Pure victims
reported the greatest feelings of loneliness.
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate psychosocial adjustment
in bullies, victims,
bully/victims, and students who do not participate in violent
acts at school and who are not
victimized by their peers. Findings showed significant
differences among these groups with
regard to the five indicators considered. Firstly, our results
suggested that not involved
adolescents have a better general psychological adjustment; in
this study they had the highest
scores for global self-esteem and satisfaction with life, and the
lowest scores on the negative

indicators of adjustment. Considering the other three groups of
students in conjunction, both
groups of victims – pure and bully/victims – displayed more
serious psychological adjustment
problems than bullies. Although all three groups perceived a
higher level of stress in their
daily life than students not involved, bullies had a more positive
attitude towards themselves,
fewer symptoms of depression and lower scores for loneliness
in comparison to both groups of
victims of bullying. The findings obtained in the present
research with Spanish adolescents are
in line with those found in other countries documenting that
bullies are normally characterised
by medium or even high self-esteem (Olweus, 1998; Rigby &
Slee, 1992), and that depression
is not common among such adolescents (Ge et al., 1996).
Involvement in aggressive behaviours in adolescence can on
many occasions be the
expression of a strong desire to be socially recognize as
popular, powerful and rebellious
(Rodríguez, 2004). These adolescents are more likely to develop
friendships with others that
are similar to them in values, attitudes and behaviours, in their
search for this social
recognition (Vitaro, Brengen, & Tremblay, 2000). Bullies
usually have, therefore, a set of
friends who admire and support them, and are even often the
central figures in their peer
group, thereby enjoying benefits of social inclusion with the
consequent positive influence on
their self-perception and emotional adjustment (Hawley &
Vaugin, 2003). As our results also
indicated in this sense, being a bully was not correlated with
depression or feelings of

loneliness; on the contrary, with respect to these variables,
these adolescents did not
consistently differ from students not involved. The case of both
groups of victims was
completely different. They reported greater feeling of
loneliness, particularly the pure victims.
Our findings are consistent with those obtained by Eslea,
Menesini, Morita, O’Moore, Mora-
Merchán, Pereira, and Smith (2003), who found that victims,
and especially pure victims,
reported having fewer friends and feeling more isolated in the
school context.
It is worth noting that the three groups of students involved in
bullying or victimization
problems expressed less satisfaction with their lives than
adolescents not involved. Some
recent studies have documented this association with respect to
victims (Flouri & Buchanan,
2002; Sun & Tao, 2005) and bullies (MacDonald, Piquero,
Valois, & Zullig, 2005). In the
present research we also confirmed this pattern for
bully/victims. In the case of victims and
bully/victims, their low satisfaction with life is consistent with
their negative self-perception,
their social isolation, and the depressive symptoms that many of
them develop. In the case of
bullies, and taking into consideration results from the current
and previous studies, the
findings suggest that others factors -apart from the individual
factors considered here: self-
esteem, depression and loneliness- may be affecting their
psychological adjustment, since they
regard their lives as unsatisfactory. Other variables related to
the main socialization contexts
in adolescence, namely family and school, should be taken into

account in future research to
shed a clearer light on this issue.
Along this line and according to authors like Rigby (1994) and
Bowers, Smith, and
Binney (1994), bullies usually inform of low parental support
and lack of warmth and
cohesiveness in their families. Also, in prior studies we found
that bullies and bully/victims
reported high levels of social and emotional self-esteem but low
levels of family and school
self-esteem (Estévez et al., 2006), and that bullies do not
necessarily display negative
emotional symptoms unless their behaviour worsens their social
interactions at home and at
school (Estévez et al., 2005). In this sense, it seems that quality
of relationships with parents
and teachers could also play a relevant role in the explanation
of low levels of satisfaction
with life in bullies obtained in the current study.
479
In conclusion, we consider that this paper contributes to our
understanding of differences
between groups of adolescents involved in bullying in
educational settings and also enhances
our knowledge about the psychosocial profile of bully/victims.
This group of adolescents
seems to share characteristics with both pure bullies and pure
victims, though presenting more

similarities with the latter and a general poor psychosocial
adjustment. Delimiting these
particular characteristics and differences among groups has
relevant and practical implications
that should be considered in the designed of policies the
purpose of which is to prevent or
reduce levels of violence within schools. We agree with Rigby’s
(2001) recommendation of
creating group-specific intervention and prevention programs.
Thus, our results, as well as
those recently reported by Houbre et al. (2006) and Unnever
(2005) suggest that both future
research and school interventions should acknowledge that there
are different groups with
different roles and different profiles involved in bullying.
On the one hand, effective programs should pay attention to
specific characteristics found
in each group. Interventions aimed at developing self-esteem
and reducing feelings of
loneliness and depressive symptoms, for example, would
probably be more effective when
working with victims than with bullies; all, however, could
profit from programs focused on
improving general satisfaction with their lives. On the other
hand, prevention programs should
take into consideration results from longitudinal studies
examining both antecedents and
consequences of peer victimization. Recent studies suggest for
instance a bidirectional
association between victimization and some internalizing
problems such as withdrawal,
anxiety and depression (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Sweeting et al.,
2006). These findings raise
thus the possibility that psychological distress may also be a
risk factor and not only a

consequence of bullying, a fact that has in turn important
implications for school-based
prevention programs and suggests that educators and
professionals should be aware that more
vulnerable children are more likely to be the targets of
victimization (Sweeting et al., 2006).
Finally, despite the contributions of this paper, we acknowledge
as a limitation of the
study that reliance on self-report data creates vulnerability to
response bias, which could have
an impact upon the validity and generalizability of the study
findings. It should additionally be
noted that the present study is somewhat limited by the
correlational nature of the data and by
the cross-sectional design, which means we must be cautious
about making categorical
conclusions on the basis of the data available. Moreover, since
some of the variables included
in the present study seem to possess considerable stability over
time in those involved in
bullying, such as depressive symptomatology (Guterman et al.,
2002), evidence from
longitudinal research would be desirable in order to examine in
more depth relationships
considered here.
References
Alsaker, F.D., & Olweus, D. (1992). Parental relationships, peer
relationships, and the development of depressive
tendencies in adolescence. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence,
Washington, DC.

Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/Victim problems and their
association with psychological constructs in 8-to 12-year old
Greek schoolchildren. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 49-56.
Angold, A., & Costello, E.J. (1993). Depressive comorbidity in
children and adolescentes: Empirical, theoretical and
methodological sigues. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150,
1779-1791.
Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim
problems in 8 to 11 years old. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456.
Bowers, L., Smith, P.K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family
relationships of bullies, victims, and bully/victims in
middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
11, 215-232.
Brown, M.B., & Forsythe, A.B. (1974). The small sample
behavior of some statistics which test the equality of several
means. Technometrics, 16, 129-132.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global
measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Craig, W.M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J.G. (2000).
Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and
victimization.

School Psychology International, 21, 5-21.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Elinoff, M.J., Chafouleas, S.M., & Sassu, K.A. (2004).
Bullying: Considerations for defining and intervining in school
settings. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 887-897.
Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O’Moore, M., Mora-
Merchán, J., Pereira, B., & Smith, P. (2003). Friendship and
loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven
countries. Aggressive Behaviour, 30, 71-83.
Estévez, E., Martínez, B., & Musitu, G. (2006). La autoestima
en adolescentes agresores y víctimas en la escuela: La
perspectiva multidimensional. Intervención Psicosocial, 12, 32-
41.
Estévez, E., Musitu, G., & Herrero, J. (2005). The influence of
violent behavior and victimization at school on
psychological distress: The role of parents and teachers.
Adolescence, 40, 183-195.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage
boys: The moderating Role of father involvement and
bullying. Aggressive Behaviour, 28, 126-133.
Garnefski, N., & Diekstra, R.F.W. (1997). Comorbidity of

behavioral, emocional, and congnitive problems in
adolescente. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 321-338.
Ge, X., Best, K.M., Conger, R.M., & Simons, R.L. (1996).
Parenting behaviors and the occurrence and co-occurrence of
adolescent depressive symptoms and conduct problems.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 717-731.
Guterman, N.B., Hahm, H.C., & Cameron, M. (2002).
Adolescent victimization and subsequent use of mental health
counselling services. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 336-
345.
Hawley, P., & Vaughn, B. (2003). Aggression and adaptation:
The bright side to bad behavior. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 49, 239-244.
Hodges, E.V.E., & Perry, D.G. (1999). Personal and
interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by
peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677-
685.
Houbre, B., Tarquinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E. (2006).
Bullying among students and its consequences on health.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 183-208.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment,
psychological adjustment, and school functioning in
early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349-
359.

Khatri, P., Kupersmidt, J.B., & Patterson, C. (2000). Aggression
and peer victimization as predictors of self-reported
behavioural and emotional adjustment. Aggressive Behavior,
26, 345-358.
Kochenderfer, B.J., & Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer victimization:
Manifestations and relations to school adjustment in
kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 267-283.
Kumpulainen, K., Räsänen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric
disorders and the use of mental health services among
children involved in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 102-
110.
Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1990). Predicting
disorder from peer social problems. In S.R. Asher &
J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274-305).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd B., & Ladd, G.W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization:
Relations to children’s maladjustment. In J. Juvonen &
S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimized (pp. 25-48). New York:
Guilford Press.
Little, T.D., Henrich, C.C., Jones, S.M., & Hawley, P.H. (2003).
Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of
aggressive behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 27, 122-133.

MacDonald, J., Piquero, A., Valois, R., & Zullig, K. (2005).
The relationship betwee life satisfaction, risk-taking
behaviors, and youth violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 20, 1495-1518.
Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/Victim problema and
their association with Eysenck’s personality dimensions in
8 to 13 years-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 51-54.
481
Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the
multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive
Behavior,
26, 169-178.
Newman, R.S, Murray, B., & Lussier, C. (2001). Confrontation
with aggressive peers at school students’ reluctance to
seek help from the teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93, 398-410.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and
whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1998). Conductas de acoso y amenaza entre
escolares. Madrid: Morata.

Olweus D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and
some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.),
Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimized (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford Press.
O’Moore, A.M. (1997). What do teachers need to know? In M.
Elliot (Ed.), Bullying: A practical guide to coping for
schools (pp. 151-166). Londres: Pitman/Kidscape.
O’Moore, A.M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its
relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behaviour,
27, 283-296.
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Rigby, K. (1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of
Australian adolescent schoolchildren involved in bully/victim
problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173-187.
Rigby, K. (2001). Stop the bullying: a handbook for schools.
Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1992). Bullying among Australian school
children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward
victims. Journal of School Psychology, 131, 615-627.
Rodríguez, N. (2004). Guerra en las aulas. Madrid: Temas de
Hoy.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Russell, D.W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness scale (version 3):
Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.
Schwartz, D., Proctor L.J., & Chien, D.H. (2001). The
aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioural
dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J.
Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in
school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147-
174). New York: Guilford Press.
Slee, P.T. (1995). Peer victimization and its relationship to
depression among Australian primary school students.
Personal and Individual Differences, 18, 57-62.
Storch, E.A., & Masia-Warner, C. (2004). The relationship of
peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in
adolescent females. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 351-362.
Sun Y., & Tao, F. (2005). Correlations of school life
satisfaction, self-esteem and coping style in middle school
students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 741-744.
Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P., & Der, G. (2006). Peer
victimization and depression in early-mid adolescence: A
longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

76, 577-594.
Unnever, J.D. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims:
Are they distinct groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153-171.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R.E. (2000). Influence of
deviant friends on delinquency: Searching for
moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28,
313-325.
Cette étude examine l’ajustement psychosocial de quatre
groupes
d’étudiants: victimes, bullies, bully/victimes et un groupe
control
d’adolescents non impliqués dans de problèmes de bullying ou
victimi-
sation. Les indicateurs qu’on a utilisés pour mesurer
l’ajustement
psychosocial sont: le niveau d’estime de soi, la
symptomatologie
dépressive, le stress perçu, le sentiment de solitude, et une
mesure
générale de satisfaction avec la propre vie. Les participants
(n=1319),
âgés de 11 à 16 ans (47% sont des garçons), étaient scolarisés
dans
sept établissements publics d’éducation secondaire de la
Communauté
de Valence (Espagne). Des analyses ANOVA ont montré des
différences
significatives entre les différents groupes. C’est le groupe
d’adolescents

non impliqués qui a montré le meilleur ajustement psychosocial,
avec le
plus haut niveau d’estime de soi et de satisfaction avec la
propre vie,
ainsi que le plus bas niveau de symptomatologie dépressive, de
stress
perçu et de sentiment de solitude. Les ponctuations en estime de
soi,
symptomatologie dépressive et solitude de ce dernier groupe
sont très
proches à celles obtenues par le groupe de bullies. Pourtant, les
bullies,
et aussi les deux groupes de victimes, ont montré plus de stress
et une
satisfaction mineur avec la propre vie. Les victimes en général
ont
informé des plus grands niveaux de solitude. Finalement, les
bully/
victimes ont montré des caractéristiques partagées avec les
bullies et
les victimes, bien qu’elles ont présenté plus de similitudes avec
les
dernières et un pauvre profil psychosocial en général.
Key words: Bullying, Bully/victim, Psychosocial adjustment,
School violence, Victimization.
Received: December 2007
Revision received: April 2008
Estefanía Estévez. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas,
Departamento de Psicología de la Salud,
Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Avenida Universidad,
s/n, Edificio Altamira, 03202,

Elche (Alicante), Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
www.umh.es
Current theme of research:
Bullying and school violence. Psychosocial adjustment in
adolescence. Parent-adolescent relationships. Youth offending.
Youths’ attitude to institutional authority. Youths’ perception of
the legal system.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of
Education:
Musitu, G., Estévez, E., & Emler, N. (2007). Adjustment
problems in the family and school contexts, attitude towards
authority and violent behaviour at school in adolescence.
Estévez, E., Jiménez, T., & Musitu, G. (2008). Violence and
victimization at school in adolescence. In D. H. Molina
(Ed.), School psychology: 21st century issues and challenges
(pp. 79-115). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Estévez, E., Herrero, J., Martínez, B., & Musitu, G. (2006).
Aggressive and non-aggressive rejected students: An analysis of
their differences. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 387-400.
Estévez, E., Murgui, S., Musitu, G., & Moreno, D. (2008).
Adolescent aggression: Effects of gender and family and

school environments. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 433-450.
Sergio Murgui. Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y de la
Educación, Departamento de Psicología y
Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica San Vicente Mártir,
Guillem de Castro, 175, 46008
Valencia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
www.ucv.es
Adolescence. Immigration. Satisfaction with life.
483
Education:
Buelga, S., Musitu, G., Murgui, S., & Pons, J. (2008).
Reputation, loneliness, satisfaction with life and aggresive
behavior in adolescence. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11,
192-200.
Cava, M.J., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Individual and
social risk factors related to victimization in a sample of
Spanish adolescents. Psychological Reports, 101, 275-290.

Jiménez, T.I., Lehalle, H., Murgui, S., & Musitu, G. (2007). Le
role de la communication familiale et de l’estime de soi
dans la delinquance adolescent. Revue Internationale de
Psychologie Sociale, 20, 5-26.
Gonzalo Musitu. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales: Universidad
Pablo de Olavide, Carretera de Utrera, km.
1,41013, Sevilla, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
www.upo.es
Bullying and school violence. Psychological and social
adjustment. Psychological and social resources (self-esteem,
social support...). Adolescence. Family.
Education:
Herrero, J., Estévez, E., & Musitu, G. (2006). The relationships
of adolescent school-related deviant behaviour and
victimization with psychological distress: testing a general
model of the mediational role of parents and teachers
across groups of gender and age. Journal of Adolescence, 29,
671-690.
Jiménez, T.I., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Funcionamiento
familiar, autoestima y consumo de sustancias en
adolescentes: Un modelo de mediación. Internacional Journal of
Clinical and Health Psychology, 1-10.

rôle de la communication familiale et de l’estime de soi
dans la délinquance adolescente. Revue Internationale De
Psychologie Sociale, 20(2), 5-26.
Musitu, G., Estévez, E., Martínez, B., & Jiménez, T. (2006). La
violence scolaire en Espagne: peincipaux axes de
recherche et d’intervention. In T. Estrela & L. Marmoz (Dirs.),
Indiscipline et violence à l’École: Études
européennes (pp. 189-222). Paris: L’harmattan. Collection:
“Éducations et Societés”.
Copyright of European Journal of Psychology of Education -
EJPE is the property of Instituto Superior de
Psicologia Aplicada and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in the
following four groups of students: victims, bullies,
bully/victims and a
control group of adolescents not involved in bullying or
victimization
problems. Psychosocial adjustment was measured considering as
indicators: level of self-esteem, depressive symptomatology,
perceived
stress, feeling of loneliness, and a general measure of
satisfaction with
life. Participants (N=1319) were aged from 11 to 16 (47% male)
and
drawn from seven state secondary schools in Valencia (Spain).
ANOVAs revealed significant differences among groups,
reporting
adolescents not involved a general better psychosocial
adjustment; they
had higher levels of self-esteem and satisfaction with life, and
lower
levels of depressive symptomatology, perceived stress and
feeling of
loneliness. The scores for this group were equivalent to those of
bullies
with respect to self-esteem, depressive symptomatology and
loneliness.
However, bullies perceived more stress and expressed less
satisfaction
with life, as did the other two groups, namely victims and
bully/victims.
Victims reported the strongest feelings of loneliness.
Bully/victims
seemed to share characteristics with both bullies and victims,
though
showing more similarities with the latter and a general poor
psychosocial profile.

Within the last few decades, violent behaviours among
adolescents at school have
become an important concern for both educators and researches,
due probably to the negative
consequences this kind of behaviour exerts on students involved
(Estévez, Musitu, & Herrero,
2005; Houbre, Tarquinio, Thuillier, & Hergott, 2006). The first
studies on this topic were
European Journal of Psychology of Education
2009, Vol. XXIV, nº 4, 473-483
© 2009, I.S.P.A.
Psychological adjustment in bullies and victims of
school violence
Estefanía Estévez
Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Spain
Sergio Murgui
Universidad Católica San Vicente Mártir de Valencia, Spain
Gonzalo Musitu
Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla, Spain
This investigation was supported by the Ministry of Education
and Science of Spain Research Grant SEJ2004-
01742 and co-financed by the European Founds FEDER and the
Area of Investigation and Technological Transference
of the Valencian Government. The authors also would like to

thank the school principals, teachers and students for their
participation in this study, as well as Professor Nick Emler for
his invaluable assistance in preparing this paper for
publication.
carried out in Norway by Olweus at the end of the seventies,
and since then numerous
investigations have been developed on what has been named
bullying. According to Olweus
(1978) “a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she
is exposed, repeatedly and
over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more
students”, and considers as a negative
action a type of violence in which someone intentionally inflicts
or attempts to inflict injury or
discomfort to another. Therefore, bullying has four main
characteristics: (1) is a violent (2)
intentional behavior, (3) which occurs over time, and (4)
involves a power imbalance.
This kind of aggression is hostile and proactive and involves
both direct and indirect
behaviours (Elinoff, Chafouleas, & Sassu, 2004). Bullying may
imply, therefore, physical
attacks (hitting, pushing, kicking, shoving), verbal aggressions
(threatening, teasing, name
calling) and relational aggressions or behaviours that try to
harm social relations of the victim
(gossiping or spreading rumors, telling others to stop liking
someone, ignoring or stopping
talking to someone) (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000; Ladd
& Ladd, 2001; Newman,
Murray, & Lussier, 2001). Despite the fact that some researches
have been developed to

analyze the impact of these behaviours on psychosocial
adjustment of aggressors and victims,
there are still unresolved questions that need further
investigation. For instance, it is well
established that the fact of being victimized generates a great
deal of distress in the child;
however, findings on the psychosocial well-being of bullies are
not so clear-cut.
Thus, most of the research focused on bullying at school has
repeatedly shown how
victimized students exhibit serious psychosomatic symptoms
and poor psychological
adjustment (Alsaker & Olweus, 1992; Juvonen, Nishina, &
Graham, 2000; Kupersmidt, Coie,
& Dodge, 1990). Recent studies have documented that
depressive symptomatology and
psychological distress are common in adolescents experiencing
victimization (Estévez et al.,
2005; Guterman, Hahm, & Cameron, 2002; Kumpulainen,
Räsänen, & Puura, 2001);
moreover, it seems that the association between internalizing
symptoms and peer victimization
is bidirectional (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Sweeting, Young, West,
& Der, 2006). Likewise,
victimized students normally see themselves as socially
incompetent, are generally unpopular
among peers and display little self-confidence (Khatri,
Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 2000; Slee,
1995), as well as lower levels of self-esteem (Austin & Joseph,
1996; Estévez, Martínez, &
Musitu, 2006; Olweus, 1998) and greater feelings of loneliness
(Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996;
Storch & Masia-Warner, 2004).
Previous research analysing psychosocial adjustment in bullies,

however, indicates that
there is scarcely any correspondence between violent behaviour
and psychological problems in
the adolescent period (Angold & Costello, 1993). For example,
depressive symptoms and
violent behaviour have only been found to co-occur in about 5%
to 8% of adolescents
(Garnefski & Diekstra, 1997; Ge, Best, Conger, & Simons,
1996). Results regarding self-esteem
in bullies are even more controversial: some authors suggest
that these adolescents show lower
levels of self-esteem in comparison with those not involved in
such behavioural problems
(Mynard & Joseph, 1997; O’Moore, 1997), while others report
that violent adolescents often
obtain high scores on measures of this construct (Olweus, 1998;
Rigby & Slee, 1992).
According to O’Moore and Kirkman (2001), this apparent
contradiction seems to be
linked to two principal factors: the use of one-dimensional
versus multidimensional scales and
the criteria to classify students. On the one hand, when using
multidimensional scales, bullies
tend to present lower or higher levels of self-esteem depending
on the dimensions analysed:
recent studies have revealed that bullies normally get low scores
in school self-esteem but
high ones in the social and emotional domains (Andreou, 2000;
Estévez et al., 2006; O’Moore
& Kirkman, 2001). On the other hand, most of the research on
bullying has focused on “pure
bullies” and “pure victims”, overlooking those adolescents who
are at the same time
aggressors and victims. Along this line and following Austin
and Joseph (1996) classification,

the present study distinguishes among four different types of
students depending on their role
in bullying, namely victims, bullies, bully/victims, and “not
involved”.
Pure victims are generally characterized as being submissive
and passive, while
bully/victims are, in contrast, prone to hostile behaviour
(Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001).
However, although researchers have argued that bully/victims
are a theoretically distinct
475
subgroup of students, relatively little is known about their
emotional adjustment and about
whether they present a different psychosocial profile in
comparison to pure victims and pure
bullies. Even though this group of students seems to be smaller
in number, as Schwartz and
colleagues (2001) and Olweus (2001) remark, they represent an
important target for empirical
study. Taking this assumption into consideration, as well as
contradictory findings in the
available scientific literature on this topic, the main objective of
the present study was to
examine psychosocial adjustment in the four groups considered
by Austin and Joseph (1996):
victims, bullies, bully/victims and adolescents not involved in
bullying at school. Psychosocial
adjustment was defined here by the following indicators: level

of self-esteem, depressive
symptomatology, perceived stress, feeling of loneliness, and a
general measure of satisfaction
with life.
Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 1319 adolescents attending
secondary education in seven
state schools in Valencia, a metropolitan area with a population
of one million in Spain. Ages
ranged from 11 to 16 (mean age 13.7; s.d. 1.6); 47% were boys
and 53% were girls. For the
research purposes, the sample was split into four categories:
bully (n=223), victim (n=212),
bully/victim (n=104), and not involved (n=780; adolescents who
displayed neither bullying
nor victimization problems at school). The category “bully” was
established on the basis of
scores above the 75th percentile on the School Violence Scale;
the category “victim” on the
basis of scores above the 75th percentile on the Peer
Victimization Scale; the category
“bully/victim” was defined in terms of the combination of these
scores.
Procedure
After pre-contacts were made with several state schools selected
at random in the city of
Valencia, seven schools finally participated in the study based
primarily on their availability and
the willingness of staff to collaborate in the investigation.
Following initial contact with head

teachers, all teaching staff were informed of the objectives of
the study during a two-hour
presentation. In parallel, a letter describing the study was sent
to the parents requesting that
they indicate in writing if they did not wish their child to
participate (1% of parents exercised
this option). The questionnaires were administered collectively
under the supervision of a single
researcher. Participants voluntarily and anonymously filled out
the scales during a regular class
period, lasting approximately one hour. All measures were
translated using English-Spanish
bidirectional translation and were administered within each
classroom on the same day.
Instruments
Participants filled out the following questionnaires:
School Violence Scale (adapted from Little, Henrich, Jones, &
Hawley, 2003). On this
scale, adolescents indicated the frequency with which they had
engaged in 24 aggressive acts
at school over the last 12 months, on a five-point scale (0=I
don’t want to share this
information, 1=never, 4=many times). All items were referred to
aggression towards other
peers in the school context. Approximately 7% of respondents
chose the “0” response for
some items; these were excluded from the analyses. Principal
component analysis indicated a
three factor structure underlying responses on this scale: the
first factor (31.72% of variance)
was defined by ten items referring to overt aggression (e.g., “I
hit, kick, or punch others”), the

referring to relational
aggression (e.g., “If other have hurt me, I try to keep them from
being in my group of
friends”), and the third factor (19,64% variance) was defined by
seven items referring to
instrumental aggression (e.g., “I start fights to get what I
want”). Cronbach alphas for these
subscales in the current sample were .82, .73, and .78
respectively. A general measure of
aggressiveness at school was used in the present study.
Peer Victimization Scale (adapted from Mynard and Joseph,
2000). This scale consisted
of 20 items, each rated on four-point scales (1=never, 4=many
times). Principal component
analysis revealed a three-factor structure: the first factor
(35.74% of variance) was defined by
seven items referring to physical victimization (e.g., “Some
classmates have hit me”), the
referring to verbal
victimization (e.g., “Some classmates have insulted me”), and
the third factor (18,54%
variance) was defined by six items referring to relational
victimization (e.g., “Some
classmates have spread rumours about me so that nobody
associates with me”). Cronbach
alphas for these subscales in the current sample were .89, .71,
and .70 respectively. A global
measure of victimization was calculated and used in the current
study.
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965, 1989). This

scale is composed of 10
items answered on a four point scale (1=I strongly agree, 4=I
strongly disagree) that provides
a general measure of global self-esteem (e.g., “I feel that I’m a
person of worth, at least on an
equal basis with others”, “I take a positive attitude towards
myself”). Internal consistency for
this scale in the present study was .78.
Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985). This instrument
consists of 5 items rated in a seven-point scale (1=I strongly
disagree, 7=I strongly agree) that
provide a global measure of subjective well-being and life
satisfaction (e.g., “I am satisfied
with life”, “If I could live my life over, I would change almost
nothing”). Cronbach alpha for
this scale in the current sample was .81.
Center of Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff,
1977). The CESD is a
20-item scale which evaluates the presence of depressive
symptomatology including the
following dimensions: depressed mood, positive affect, somatic
and retarded activity, and
interpersonal distress. It also provides a general measure of
depressive mood, which was used
in this study (e.g., “I felt depressed”, “I was bothered by things
that usually don’t bother me”).
Responses are rated on a four-point scale (1=never, 4=always).
Cronbach’s reliability for this
scale in the present study was .90.
Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein,
1983). The PSS is a 10-item
scale which measures the degree to which respondents appraise

situations as stressful within
the last month (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you
found that you could not cope
with all the things that you have to do?”, “how often have you
been upset because of
something that happened unexpectedly?”) on a five-point scale
(1=never, 5=very often).
Coefficient alpha a in the current sample for this scale was .82.
UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996). The UCLA is a 20-item
scale that was developed to
assess subjective feelings of loneliness and social isolation
(e.g., “How often do you feel
completely alone?”, “How often do you feel as if nobody really
understands you?”). Items are
rated on a four-point scale (1=never, 4=often). Alpha
coefficient for this scale was .90.
Results
Prior to comparisons between groups, several analyses were
carried out to obtain a better
understanding of the distribution by gender and age of the
victims and bullies in the sample.
477
There were more bullies boys than girls (χ2=44.70; d.f.=1; p<
.001), but the percentage of
victimized boys and girls was not statistically different
(χ2=2.72; d.f.=1; p=.125). Regarding

age groups, the percentage of bullies (χ2=1.77; d.f.=1; p=.183)
and victims (χ2=3.22; d.f.=1;
p=.071) were equally distributed in the two age groups studied
(11-13, early adolescence; and
14-16 years old, middle adolescence). For the sample as a
whole, 41% of the students were
involved in bullying, of whom 17% were bullies, 16% were
victims and 8% were bully/victims.
Following this preliminary analyses, an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to
examine differences among bullies, victims, bully/victims, and
adolescents not involved, with
respect to the dependent variables: level of self-esteem,
satisfaction with life, depressive
symptomatology, perceived stress, and feeling of loneliness.
Due to the existence of sharply
unequal cell sizes, the Brown and Forsythe (1974) robust
estimator to account for the violation
of homogeneity of variances was used for the calculation of the
F in the ANOVAs. When
significant differences among groups were observed, the post
hoc Tamhane test was applied to
differences between particular groups with respect to the
dependent variables considered. This
test is suitable for pairwise contrasts when unequal variances
are assumed, which was the case

in the present study. Table 1 shows the means, standard
deviations, ANOVA results and
Tamhane test for the four groups analysed.
Table 1
Means, standard deviations (in parenthesis), ANOVA results
and Tamhane Test
Bullies Victims Bully/ Victims Not involved F3,1319
Global Self-esteem 29.81 (4.50)a 28.00 (5.21)b0 28.11 (5.19)b0
30.46 (4.55)a 16.81***
Satisfaction with Life 39.20 (8.33)b 38.73 (7.89)b0 38.41
(8.07)b0 43.13 (6.89)a 18.80***
Depressive Symptoms 38.03 (7.87)b 43.18 (10.60)a 42.17
(10.15)a 38.18 (7.05)b 16.76***
Perceived Stress 24.02 (4.02)a 24.06 (4.45)a0 24.18 (4.14)a0
21.33 (4.22)b 11.38***
Loneliness 37.82 (7.96)c 42.56 (10.39)a 40.68 (8.18)b0 37.11
(7.93)c 22.04***
Note. Tamhane Test: α=0.05; a>b>c; ***p<.001.
Results obtained confirmed the existence of significant
differences among groups with
regard to the five variables examined. Regarding global self-
esteem (F3,1319=16.81, p<.001)
bullies and those not involved in bullying or victimization
problems showed higher levels in

this measure when compared to the groups of victims and
bully/victims. With reference to
satisfaction with life (F3,1319=18.80, p<.001) adolescents not
involved scored significantly
higher than any other group: there were no significant
differences among bullies, victims, and
bully/victims, all reporting being less satisfied with their lives
in general.
As far as depressive symptomatology is concerned
(F3,1319=16.76, p<.001), the highest
scores were observed in the groups of victims and bully/victims,
compared to bullies and
adolescents not involved; the difference between the latter two
groups was not significant. As
regards perceived stress (F3,1319=11.38, p<.001) the three
groups of adolescents involved in
bullying and victimization problems reported higher levels;
those not involved perceived less
stress in their daily life. Finally, the group of victims expressed,
overall, the greatest feeling of
loneliness (F3,1319=22.04, p<.001), followed by the group of
bully/victims. Bullies and
adolescents not involved had similarly lower levels with respect
to this variable.
To sum up, our results indicated that the group of not involved
adolescents had better
psychosocial adjustment: higher self-esteem and greater

satisfaction with life, together with
lower levels of depressive symptomatology, perceived stress
and feeling of loneliness. The
scores for self-esteem, depressive symptomatology and
loneliness of these adolescents were
similar to those of bullies. However, bullies expressed less
satisfaction with life and more
perceived stress, as did the other two groups, namely victims
and bully/victims. Pure victims
reported the greatest feelings of loneliness.
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate psychosocial adjustment
in bullies, victims,
bully/victims, and students who do not participate in violent
acts at school and who are not
victimized by their peers. Findings showed significant
differences among these groups with
regard to the five indicators considered. Firstly, our results
suggested that not involved
adolescents have a better general psychological adjustment; in
this study they had the highest
scores for global self-esteem and satisfaction with life, and the
lowest scores on the negative
indicators of adjustment. Considering the other three groups of
students in conjunction, both
groups of victims – pure and bully/victims – displayed more
serious psychological adjustment

problems than bullies. Although all three groups perceived a
higher level of stress in their
daily life than students not involved, bullies had a more positive
attitude towards themselves,
fewer symptoms of depression and lower scores for loneliness
in comparison to both groups of
victims of bullying. The findings obtained in the present
research with Spanish adolescents are
in line with those found in other countries documenting that
bullies are normally characterised
by medium or even high self-esteem (Olweus, 1998; Rigby &
Slee, 1992), and that depression
is not common among such adolescents (Ge et al., 1996).
Involvement in aggressive behaviours in adolescence can on
many occasions be the
expression of a strong desire to be socially recognize as
popular, powerful and rebellious
(Rodríguez, 2004). These adolescents are more likely to develop
friendships with others that
are similar to them in values, attitudes and behaviours, in their
search for this social
recognition (Vitaro, Brengen, & Tremblay, 2000). Bullies
usually have, therefore, a set of
friends who admire and support them, and are even often the
central figures in their peer
group, thereby enjoying benefits of social inclusion with the
consequent positive influence on
their self-perception and emotional adjustment (Hawley &
Vaugin, 2003). As our results also
indicated in this sense, being a bully was not correlated with
depression or feelings of
loneliness; on the contrary, with respect to these variables,
these adolescents did not
consistently differ from students not involved. The case of both
groups of victims was

completely different. They reported greater feeling of
loneliness, particularly the pure victims.
Our findings are consistent with those obtained by Eslea,
Menesini, Morita, O’Moore, Mora-
Merchán, Pereira, and Smith (2003), who found that victims,
and especially pure victims,
reported having fewer friends and feeling more isolated in the
school context.
It is worth noting that the three groups of students involved in
bullying or victimization
problems expressed less satisfaction with their lives than
adolescents not involved. Some
recent studies have documented this association with respect to
victims (Flouri & Buchanan,
2002; Sun & Tao, 2005) and bullies (MacDonald, Piquero,
Valois, & Zullig, 2005). In the
present research we also confirmed this pattern for
bully/victims. In the case of victims and
bully/victims, their low satisfaction with life is consistent with
their negative self-perception,
their social isolation, and the depressive symptoms that many of
them develop. In the case of
bullies, and taking into consideration results from the current
and previous studies, the
findings suggest that others factors -apart from the individual
factors considered here: self-
esteem, depression and loneliness- may be affecting their
psychological adjustment, since they
regard their lives as unsatisfactory. Other variables related to
the main socialization contexts
in adolescence, namely family and school, should be taken into
account in future research to
shed a clearer light on this issue.
Along this line and according to authors like Rigby (1994) and

Bowers, Smith, and
Binney (1994), bullies usually inform of low parental support
and lack of warmth and
cohesiveness in their families. Also, in prior studies we found
that bullies and bully/victims
reported high levels of social and emotional self-esteem but low
levels of family and school
self-esteem (Estévez et al., 2006), and that bullies do not
necessarily display negative
emotional symptoms unless their behaviour worsens their social
interactions at home and at
school (Estévez et al., 2005). In this sense, it seems that quality
of relationships with parents
and teachers could also play a relevant role in the explanation
of low levels of satisfaction
with life in bullies obtained in the current study.
479
In conclusion, we consider that this paper contributes to our
understanding of differences
between groups of adolescents involved in bullying in
educational settings and also enhances
our knowledge about the psychosocial profile of bully/victims.
This group of adolescents
seems to share characteristics with both pure bullies and pure
victims, though presenting more
similarities with the latter and a general poor psychosocial
adjustment. Delimiting these
particular characteristics and differences among groups has
relevant and practical implications

that should be considered in the designed of policies the
purpose of which is to prevent or
reduce levels of violence within schools. We agree with Rigby’s
(2001) recommendation of
creating group-specific intervention and prevention programs.
Thus, our results, as well as
those recently reported by Houbre et al. (2006) and Unnever
(2005) suggest that both future
research and school interventions should acknowledge that there
are different groups with
different roles and different profiles involved in bullying.
On the one hand, effective programs should pay attention to
specific characteristics found
in each group. Interventions aimed at developing self-esteem
and reducing feelings of
loneliness and depressive symptoms, for example, would
probably be more effective when
working with victims than with bullies; all, however, could
profit from programs focused on
improving general satisfaction with their lives. On the other
hand, prevention programs should
take into consideration results from longitudinal studies
examining both antecedents and
consequences of peer victimization. Recent studies suggest for
instance a bidirectional
association between victimization and some internalizing
problems such as withdrawal,
anxiety and depression (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Sweeting et al.,
2006). These findings raise
thus the possibility that psychological distress may also be a
risk factor and not only a
consequence of bullying, a fact that has in turn important
implications for school-based
prevention programs and suggests that educators and
professionals should be aware that more

vulnerable children are more likely to be the targets of
victimization (Sweeting et al., 2006).
Finally, despite the contributions of this paper, we acknowledge
as a limitation of the
study that reliance on self-report data creates vulnerability to
response bias, which could have
an impact upon the validity and generalizability of the study
findings. It should additionally be
noted that the present study is somewhat limited by the
correlational nature of the data and by
the cross-sectional design, which means we must be cautious
about making categorical
conclusions on the basis of the data available. Moreover, since
some of the variables included
in the present study seem to possess considerable stability over
time in those involved in
bullying, such as depressive symptomatology (Guterman et al.,
2002), evidence from
longitudinal research would be desirable in order to examine in
more depth relationships
considered here.
References
Alsaker, F.D., & Olweus, D. (1992). Parental relationships, peer
relationships, and the development of depressive
tendencies in adolescence. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence,
Washington, DC.
Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/Victim problems and their
association with psychological constructs in 8-to 12-year old

Greek schoolchildren. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 49-56.
Angold, A., & Costello, E.J. (1993). Depressive comorbidity in
children and adolescentes: Empirical, theoretical and
methodological sigues. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150,
1779-1791.
Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim
problems in 8 to 11 years old. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456.
Bowers, L., Smith, P.K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family
relationships of bullies, victims, and bully/victims in
middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
11, 215-232.
Brown, M.B., & Forsythe, A.B. (1974). The small sample
behavior of some statistics which test the equality of several
means. Technometrics, 16, 129-132.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global
measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Craig, W.M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J.G. (2000).
Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and
victimization.
School Psychology International, 21, 5-21.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985).

The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Elinoff, M.J., Chafouleas, S.M., & Sassu, K.A. (2004).
Bullying: Considerations for defining and intervining in school
settings. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 887-897.
Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O’Moore, M., Mora-
Merchán, J., Pereira, B., & Smith, P. (2003). Friendship and
loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven
countries. Aggressive Behaviour, 30, 71-83.
Estévez, E., Martínez, B., & Musitu, G. (2006). La autoestima
en adolescentes agresores y víctimas en la escuela: La
perspectiva multidimensional. Intervención Psicosocial, 12, 32-
41.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage
boys: The moderating Role of father involvement and
bullying. Aggressive Behaviour, 28, 126-133.
Garnefski, N., & Diekstra, R.F.W. (1997). Comorbidity of
behavioral, emocional, and congnitive problems in
adolescente. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 321-338.

Ge, X., Best, K.M., Conger, R.M., & Simons, R.L. (1996).
Parenting behaviors and the occurrence and co-occurrence of
adolescent depressive symptoms and conduct problems.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 717-731.
Guterman, N.B., Hahm, H.C., & Cameron, M. (2002).
Adolescent victimization and subsequent use of mental health
counselling services. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 336-
345.
Hawley, P., & Vaughn, B. (2003). Aggression and adaptation:
The bright side to bad behavior. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 49, 239-244.
Hodges, E.V.E., & Perry, D.G. (1999). Personal and
interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by
peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677-
685.
Houbre, B., Tarquinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E. (2006).
Bullying among students and its consequences on health.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 183-208.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment,
psychological adjustment, and school functioning in
early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349-
359.
Khatri, P., Kupersmidt, J.B., & Patterson, C. (2000). Aggression
and peer victimization as predictors of self-reported

behavioural and emotional adjustment. Aggressive Behavior,
26, 345-358.
Kochenderfer, B.J., & Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer victimization:
Manifestations and relations to school adjustment in
kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 267-283.
Kumpulainen, K., Räsänen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric
disorders and the use of mental health services among
children involved in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 102-
110.
Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1990). Predicting
disorder from peer social problems. In S.R. Asher &
J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274-305).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd B., & Ladd, G.W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization:
Relations to children’s maladjustment. In J. Juvonen &
S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimized (pp. 25-48). New York:
Guilford Press.
Little, T.D., Henrich, C.C., Jones, S.M., & Hawley, P.H. (2003).
Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of
aggressive behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 27, 122-133.
MacDonald, J., Piquero, A., Valois, R., & Zullig, K. (2005).
The relationship betwee life satisfaction, risk-taking

behaviors, and youth violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 20, 1495-1518.
Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/Victim problema and
their association with Eysenck’s personality dimensions in
8 to 13 years-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 51-54.
481
Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the
multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive
Behavior,
26, 169-178.
Newman, R.S, Murray, B., & Lussier, C. (2001). Confrontation
with aggressive peers at school students’ reluctance to
seek help from the teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93, 398-410.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and
whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1998). Conductas de acoso y amenaza entre
escolares. Madrid: Morata.
Olweus D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and
some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.),

Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimized (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford Press.
O’Moore, A.M. (1997). What do teachers need to know? In M.
Elliot (Ed.), Bullying: A practical guide to coping for
schools (pp. 151-166). Londres: Pitman/Kidscape.
O’Moore, A.M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its
relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behaviour,
27, 283-296.
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Rigby, K. (1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of
Australian adolescent schoolchildren involved in bully/victim
problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173-187.
Rigby, K. (2001). Stop the bullying: a handbook for schools.
Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1992). Bullying among Australian school
children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward
victims. Journal of School Psychology, 131, 615-627.
Rodríguez, N. (2004). Guerra en las aulas. Madrid: Temas de
Hoy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Russell, D.W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness scale (version 3):
Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.
Schwartz, D., Proctor L.J., & Chien, D.H. (2001). The
aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioural
dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J.
Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in
school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147-
174). New York: Guilford Press.
Slee, P.T. (1995). Peer victimization and its relationship to
depression among Australian primary school students.
Personal and Individual Differences, 18, 57-62.
Storch, E.A., & Masia-Warner, C. (2004). The relationship of
peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in
adolescent females. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 351-362.
Sun Y., & Tao, F. (2005). Correlations of school life
satisfaction, self-esteem and coping style in middle school
students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 741-744.
Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P., & Der, G. (2006). Peer
victimization and depression in early-mid adolescence: A
longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 577-594.
Unnever, J.D. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims:
Are they distinct groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153-171.

Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R.E. (2000). Influence of
deviant friends on delinquency: Searching for
moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28,
313-325.
Cette étude examine l’ajustement psychosocial de quatre
groupes
d’étudiants: victimes, bullies, bully/victimes et un groupe
control
d’adolescents non impliqués dans de problèmes de bullying ou
victimi-
sation. Les indicateurs qu’on a utilisés pour mesurer
l’ajustement
psychosocial sont: le niveau d’estime de soi, la
symptomatologie
dépressive, le stress perçu, le sentiment de solitude, et une
mesure
générale de satisfaction avec la propre vie. Les participants
(n=1319),
âgés de 11 à 16 ans (47% sont des garçons), étaient scolarisés
dans
sept établissements publics d’éducation secondaire de la
Communauté
de Valence (Espagne). Des analyses ANOVA ont montré des
différences
significatives entre les différents groupes. C’est le groupe
d’adolescents
non impliqués qui a montré le meilleur ajustement psychosocial,
avec le
plus haut niveau d’estime de soi et de satisfaction avec la
propre vie,

ainsi que le plus bas niveau de symptomatologie dépressive, de
stress
perçu et de sentiment de solitude. Les ponctuations en estime de
soi,
symptomatologie dépressive et solitude de ce dernier groupe
sont très
proches à celles obtenues par le groupe de bullies. Pourtant, les
bullies,
et aussi les deux groupes de victimes, ont montré plus de stress
et une
satisfaction mineur avec la propre vie. Les victimes en général
ont
informé des plus grands niveaux de solitude. Finalement, les
bully/
victimes ont montré des caractéristiques partagées avec les
bullies et
les victimes, bien qu’elles ont présenté plus de similitudes avec
les
dernières et un pauvre profil psychosocial en général.
Key words: Bullying, Bully/victim, Psychosocial adjustment,
School violence, Victimization.
Received: December 2007
Revision received: April 2008
Estefanía Estévez. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas,
Departamento de Psicología de la Salud,
Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Avenida Universidad,
s/n, Edificio Altamira, 03202,
Elche (Alicante), Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
www.umh.es

Bullying and school violence. Psychosocial adjustment in
adolescence. Parent-adolescent relationships. Youth offending.
Youths’ attitude to institutional authority. Youths’ perception of
the legal system.
Education:
Estévez, E., Jiménez, T., & Musitu, G. (2008). Violence and
victimization at school in adolescence. In D. H. Molina
(Ed.), School psychology: 21st century issues and challenges
(pp. 79-115). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Estévez, E., Herrero, J., Martínez, B., & Musitu, G. (2006).
Aggressive and non-aggressive rejected students: An analysis of
their differences. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 387-400.
Estévez, E., Murgui, S., Musitu, G., & Moreno, D. (2008).
Adolescent aggression: Effects of gender and family and
school environments. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 433-450.
Sergio Murgui. Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y de la
Educación, Departamento de Psicología y

Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica San Vicente Mártir,
Guillem de Castro, 175, 46008
Valencia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
www.ucv.es
Adolescence. Immigration. Satisfaction with life.
483
Education:
Buelga, S., Musitu, G., Murgui, S., & Pons, J. (2008).
Reputation, loneliness, satisfaction with life and aggresive
behavior in adolescence. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11,
192-200.
Cava, M.J., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Individual and
social risk factors related to victimization in a sample of
Spanish adolescents. Psychological Reports, 101, 275-290.
role de la communication familiale et de l’estime de soi
dans la delinquance adolescent. Revue Internationale de

Psychologie Sociale, 20, 5-26.
Gonzalo Musitu. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales: Universidad
Pablo de Olavide, Carretera de Utrera, km.
1,41013, Sevilla, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
www.upo.es
Bullying and school violence. Psychological and social
adjustment. Psychological and social resources (self-esteem,
social support...). Adolescence. Family.
Education:
Herrero, J., Estévez, E., & Musitu, G. (2006). The relationships
of adolescent school-related deviant behaviour and
victimization with psychological distress: testing a general
model of the mediational role of parents and teachers
across groups of gender and age. Journal of Adolescence, 29,
671-690.
Jiménez, T.I., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Funcionamiento
familiar, autoestima y consumo de sustancias en
adolescentes: Un modelo de mediación. Internacional Journal of
Clinical and Health Psychology, 1-10.
rôle de la communication familiale et de l’estime de soi
dans la délinquance adolescente. Revue Internationale De
Psychologie Sociale, 20(2), 5-26.

Musitu, G., Estévez, E., Martínez, B., & Jiménez, T. (2006). La
violence scolaire en Espagne: peincipaux axes de
recherche et d’intervention. In T. Estrela & L. Marmoz (Dirs.),
Indiscipline et violence à l’École: Études
européennes (pp. 189-222). Paris: L’harmattan. Collection:
“Éducations et Societés”.
Copyright of European Journal of Psychology of Education -
EJPE is the property of Instituto Superior de
Psicologia Aplicada and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
– January 2011, volume 10 Issue 1

Technology 183
THE EFFECTS OF THE COMPUTER-BASED INSTRUCTION
ON THE
ACHIEVEMENT AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS OF THE
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS
Oğuz SERİN
Cyprus International University, Faculty of Education,
Nicosia-North Cyprus
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study aims to investigate the effects of the computer-based
instruction on the achievements and problem
solving skills of the science and technology students. This is a
study based on the pre-test/post-test control group
design. The participants of the study consist of 52 students; 26
in the experimental group, 26 in the control
group. The achievements test on “the world, the sun and the
moon” and the Problem Solving Inventory for
children were used to collect data. The experimental group
received the computer-based science and technology
instruction three hours a week during three weeks. In the
analyses of data, the independent groups t-test was used
at the outset of the study to find out the whether the levels of
the two groups were equivalent in terms of their
achievements and problem solving skills and the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov single sample test to find out whether the
data follow a normal distribution and finally, the covariance

analysis (ANCOVA) to evaluate the efficacy of the
experimental process. The result of the study reveals that there
is a statistically significant increase in the
achievements and problem solving skills of the students in the
experimental group that received the computer-
based science and technology instruction.
Keywords: Computer-based instruction (CBI), the Science and
Technology Course, learning packet,
achievement, problem solving skills, primary education
INTRODUCTION
Great emphasis is placed on the computer-based science and
technology laboratories as well as ordinary science
laboratories in the educational curricula of the developed
countries. One of the aims of the science and
technology course is to train individuals capable of keeping up
the fast developing and changing science world
and capable of utilizing the recent technological discoveries in
every field. Researchers have been interested in
revealing the effects of the computer-based instruction, which
began to be used with the invention of the
computer, which is one of the most important technological
devices of the time.
As a result of the rapid development of the information and
communication technology, the use of computers in
education has become inevitable. The use of technology in
education provides the students with a more suitable
environment to learn, serves to create interest and a learning
centred-atmosphere, and helps increase the
students’ motivation. The use of technology in this way plays an
important role in the teaching and learning
process (İşman, Baytekin, Balkan, Horzum, & Kıyıcı, 2002). In
parallel with the technological advances;
technological devices, particularly computers began to be used
in educational environments to develop audio-

visual materials such as animation and simulation, which
resulted in the development of the computer-based
instruction techniques.
The best example of the integration of science and technology is
the Computer-Based Instruction technique. The
use of computers in the teaching and learning activities is
defined as Computer-Based Instruction (CBI). CBI is
the use of computers in the teaching and learning activities
(Brophy, 1999). CBI enables the students to learn by
self-evaluating and reflecting on their learning process. CBI
motivates children to learn better by providing them
with the immediate feedback and reinforcement and by creating
an exciting and interesting game-like
atmosphere. The studies in the field reveal that the students’
achievements increase when the CBI technique is
provided as a supplement to the classroom education. CBI is
more effective on less successful children. The
reason for this is that the computer-based instruction enables
the children to progress at their own pace and
provides them with appropriate alternative ways of learning by
individualizing the learning process (Senemoğlu,
2003). The most familiar function of the science education is to
teach the children the science concepts in a
meaningful way and enable them to lean how they can make use
of these concepts in their daily lives (Çepni,
Taş, & Köse, 2006).
The computer based teaching has had an impact on the
development of the educational technology to a great
extent in the 21. Century and this has resulted in the production
of the software for the computer-based
instruction. The primary purpose of the educational software is
to solve the learning problems in the science
courses encountered by the primary school students, to increase
their motivation and achievements and to protect

them against the negative effects of the rote-memory based
educational system.
ish Online Journal of Educational
Technology 184
There are software-supported educational products designed to
be used in the computer-based and computer-
supported teaching practices. These are the products that the
teachers use as complementary materials for taking
notes about their students and observations; making tables;
developing materials; doing calculations, and
preparing simple educational software. The educational
software is used as a teaching material in the teaching of
a part of a subject or the whole subject (Alkan, Deryakulu, &
Şimşek, 1995; İşman, 2005).
According to Alessi & Trollip (2005), it is possible to divide
educational software into five different types such
as tutorial, drill and practice, simulation, educational games and
hypermedia type. For effective and productive
teaching, these techniques should be used with some classroom
activities. These are: presentation,
demonstration, practice and evaluation of learning (Özmen,
2004). The use of computer technology enables
learners be active in the learning process, to construct
knowledge, to develop problem solving skills and to
discover alternative solutions (Özmen, 2008).

The presentation of teaching materials by means of the
computer technology helps students to process and
develop information, to find alternative solutions, to take an
active part in the learning process and to develop
their problem solving skills. Most of the scientific and
technological advances are realized by the people whose
problem solving skills have been developed. In addition, these
advances give rise to positive changes in the lives
of people owing to the ways and techniques developed by means
of the power of the problem solving skills. The
use the problem solving skills is inevitable at every stage of our
daily lives. As a result of the advances in today’s
technology and computer devices, it’s getting indispensable to
use this new technology in the solution of
educational problems. The education and technology play an
important role in the education of humans.
Although the education and technology are different concepts,
the use of both resulted in the emergence of a new
discipline, the educational technology. Owing to the educational
technology, the teaching and learning activities
become enjoyable. Students learn willingly, by playing and
enjoying during these activities (İşman, 2005).
Among the primary and secondary school students, girls use
computer 5 hours a week for the play purpose
whereas boys spend 13 hours a week for the same purpose
(Christakis, Ebel, Rivara, & Zimmerman, 2004). The
use of computer in teaching and learning environments is very
important as the children like it very much and
can continue playing with it without ever getting bored. In our
time, it is evident that visual materials such as TV
and computer are utilized in every field. And it is also evident
that computer attract students very much. The use
of the audio-visual devices and animations with instructional
materials results in the enjoyable and productive

learning process. In this way, the learning process can become
enjoyable and interesting for students as a result
of abolishing traditional classroom learning activities.
Technological developments give rise to new teaching and
learning facilities. In our time, human beings keep on
searching to find out how to use computer in educational
activities in a more productive way rather than
searching to reveal whether the use of computer in teaching and
learning activities is effective (Kara & Yakar
2008). Educational technologies, especially computers play an
important role in concretizing abstract concepts,
which are difficult for children to learn, by means of animations
(Akpınar, 2005).
The computer-based Instruction makes teaching techniques far
more effective than those of the traditional
teaching methods as it is used for presenting information,
testing and evaluation and providing feedback. It
makes a contribution to the individualization of education. It
motivates students and gets them to take an active
part in the learning process. It helps to develop creativity and
problem solving skills, identity and self-reliance in
learners. CBI provides drawings, graphics, animation, music
and plenty materials for the students to proceed at
their own pace and in line with their individual differences. It
serves to control lots of variables having an impact
on learning, which cannot be controlled by means of traditional
educational techniques (Kaşlı, 2000; Chang,
2002).
Liao (2007) found out that CBI had a positive effect on
individuals by comparing 52 research studies carried out
in Taiwan in his meta-analysis study. Senteni (2004) also found
out that CBI enabled the students to increase
their motivation and achievements and to develop positive

attitudes. According to research studies in literature,
the use of computer-based education increases students’
attitudes and achievements significantly (Berger, Lu,
Belzer, & Voss, 1994; Geban, 1995). There is a lot of research
on CBI both in Turkey and in the world. Different
results have been arrived at in these studies. Some of these
studies reveal that CBI serves to establish more
effective learning situations than traditional teaching methods
which involve teacher presentation, question and
answer techniques, and discussions etc (Boblck, 1972; Hughes,
1974; Cavin & Lagouski, 1978; Choi &
Gennaro, 1987; Niewiec & Walberg, 1987; Huonsell & Hill,
1989; Jedege, Okebukola, & Ajevole, 1991; Geban,
Ertepınar, Yılmaz, Altın, & Şahbaz, 1994; Crook, 1994; Child,
1995; Brophy, 1999; Gance, 2002; Çekbaş,
Technology 185
Yakar, Yıldırım, & Savran 2003; Yenice, 2003; Carter, 2004;
Moodly, 2004; Preciado, 2004; Li & Edmonds,
2005; Brooks, 2005; Bryan, 2006; Çepni, Taş, & Köse, 2006;
Wilder, 2006; Başer, 2006; Chang, Sung & Lin,
2006; Liao, 2007; Ragasa, 2008; Hançer & Yalçın, 2009; Lin,
2009). It has been found out that CBI serves to
develop meta-cognitive skills in students and helps them to
learn in a meaningful way instead of rote-memory
learning as well as it enables them to increase their
achievements (Renshaw & Taylor, 2000). According to some

studies there is no significant difference between the CBI and
traditional teaching methods (Bayraktar, 2001;
Alacapınar, 2003; Çetin, 2007).
This study, which aims to test the effects of the use of the CBI
technology, is thought to be important as it will
contribute to the wide use of educational software which
triggers active participation and enables students to
make their own meaning. The research, which was carried out to
this end, is considered to make the science and
technology education more enjoyable, productive and
functional. This study is important as its results serve to
complete the other studies done on CBI in Turkey and to
provide a basis for further studies.
Theoretical Background of the Study
With the use computers in education, a lot of terms have come
into and gone out of use in education (Owusu,
Monney, Appiah, & Wilmot, 2010). The overlapping terms
related to the uses of computer and associated
technologies in science education are categorized into three by
Bybee, Poewll, & Trowbridge (2008) as follows:
learning about computers, learning with computers and learning
through computers.
1. Learning about computers involves the knowledge of
computers at various levels such as knowing the
uses of the computer and the names of the various parts,
knowing how to use the keyboard and
computer packages and so on (Owusu et al., 2010). According
to Tabassum (2004), the knowledge of
computers may be thought of as a continuum which ranges from
skills in and awareness of computers at
lower level to programming at higher level.

2. Learning with computers, students use computers as a tool in
data acquisition, analysis, communication
with other people, information retrieval and myriad other ways
(Owusu et al., 2010). Learners use
computers to get information and do their homework.
3. The term ‘learning through computers’ involves the use of
computer as an aid for the teacher to do
his/her presentations, and / or to get the learners to practise and
drill. Computers are used to enhance
interactive activities, to provide immediate feedback, to
facilitate the retention and to enable the
learners at diverse levels to work at own their pace.
This study involves mainly learning through computer as well
as learning about computer. The theoretical basis
of the study derives from the operant conditioning by Skinner as
described by Owusu et al. (2010) in their study.
Operant conditioning is a type conditioning in which a learner
achieves some outcome by producing an action,
which is called the operant. If the operant is followed by
something pleasant, the outcome is positively
reinforced but if it is followed by the removal something
unpleasant, the outcome is negatively reinforced. The
theory that was influential during the heyday of the Audio-
Lingual method which lost favour 1960s was revived
after the introduction of the use computers into education.
Skinner’s reinforcement theory is central to
computerized learning; especially drill and practice and tutorial
learning (Tabassum, 2004). In these computer
facilitated learning, students’ behaviours are reinforced by

The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in thefol.docx

The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in thefol.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in thefol.docx

Similar to The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in thefol.docx (20)

More from ssusera34210

More from ssusera34210 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The present study examined psychosocial adjustment in thefol.docx