Unraveling the Bidirectional Relationship Between Bullying Victimization and Perpetration: A Test of Mechanisms From Opportunity and General Strain Theories

• DOI: 10.1177/1541204020922874
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Unraveling the Bidirectional

Relationship Between Bullying

Victimization and Perpetration:

A Test of Mechanisms From

Opportunity and General

Strain Theories

Glenn D. Walters

1

Abstract

This study tested two theories designed to explain the bullying perpetration–victimization rela-

tionship. Peer delinquency was hypothesized to mediate the pathway from bullying perpetration to

victimization, in line with opportunity, lifestyle, and routine activities theories, and anger was held to

mediate the pathway from bullying victimization to perpetration as set forth in general strain theory.

These pathways were tested in a sample of 3,411 youth (1,728 boys, 1,683 girls) from the Long-

itudinal Study of Australian Children. A causal mediation analysis performed on three non-

overlapping waves of data, in which prior levels of each predicted variable were controlled,

uncovered support for peer delinquency as a mediator of the perpetration–victimization pathway

but failed to identify anger as a mediator of the victimization–perpetration pathway. Additional

research is required to identify a mediator for the victimization–perpetration pathway and deter-

mine whether variables other than peer delinquency mediate the perpetration–victimization

pathway.

Keywords

bullying perpetration and victimization, opportunity theory, general strain theory, person proximity,

peer delinquency, anger

There is growing evidence from multiple studies (see Walters, 2020b) that the relationship between

bullying perpetration and bullying victimization, like the relationship between violent offending and

violent victimization (Jenn ings et al., 2012), is bidirection al. What this means is that bullying

perpetration is just as capable of predicting bullying victimization as bullying victimization is of

predicting bullying perpetration. The mechanisms responsible for these effects, however, may differ

1

Department of Criminal Justice, Kutztown University, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Glenn D. Walters, Department of Criminal Justice, Kutztown University, 361 Old Main Kutztown, PA 19530, USA.

Email: walters@kutztown.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2020, Vol. 18(4) 395-411

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1541204020922874

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

by pattern. In a recent study employing a group of delinquent youth from the United States, Walters

(2020a) noted that violent offending had an indirect effect on violent victimization via delinquent

peer associations, whereas delinquent peer associations played no role in the relationship between

prior violent victimization and subsequent violent offending. The results of a crime survey admi-

nistered to youth in England and Wales revealed that anger was the most common emotional

response experienced by those who had suffered criminal victimization (Ignatans & Pease, 2019).

This, then, opens up the possibility that anger may mediate the past victimization–future perpetra-

tion relationship. Whereas these associations have yet to be fully explored with respect to their

ability to curb and clarify school bullying, they nonetheless imply that separate mechanisms may

link prior perpetration to future victimization and prior victimization to future perpetration, at least

where violent crime is concerned. In light of the possibility that aspects of bullying may mirror

aspects of violent crime, from the interpersonally intrusive nature of the behavior to the utter

disregard many offenders demonstrate toward their victims, more research is required to determine

whether and how bullying parallels violent crime and vice versa. The current study takes one small

step in this direction.

Opportunity Theory

Opportunity theory combines the microlevel contributions of lifestyle victimization theory (Garo-

falo, 1987) with the macro-level perspective adopted by routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson,

1979) to explain how people’s involvement in crime can lead to them becoming a victim of crime. A

core postulate of this model is that being in close proximity to crime-prone individuals and situa-

tions, particularly in the absence of capable guardians against crime, increases the likelihood of

future victimization. People, it would seem, not only acquire the attitudes and techniques for crime

from those already involved in criminal activity (Akers, 1998), they also are at increased risk of

becoming the victims of crime by way of their associations wi th these very same individu als.

Therefore, hanging out with peers, in what has become known as unsupervised routine activities,

can increase a person’s propensity for criminal activity (Haynie & Osgood, 2005), although the

degree of criminality displayed by these peers is also important (Thomas & McGloin, 2013).

Research clearly supports the notion that individuals in close proximity to crime, criminals, and

peer delinquency are at increased risk for victimization (Fishman et al., 2002; Frias & Finkelhor,

2017). We might call this the person pro ximity principle of opportunity theo ries of crime and

criminal victimization.

Although very few studies have examined opportunity theory and person proximity in relation to

the temporal nexus between bullying perpetration and victimization, there is at last one study that

has directly addressed this issue . In that study, Popp (2012) used data from the School Crime

Supplement to the (U.S.) National Crime Victimization Survey to evaluate the prospective associ-

ation between bullying perpetration and victimization as a function of person proximity and

exposure. Results showed that students with the highest levels of exposure and proximity to such

school-related activities and events as school clubs, school sports, skipping class, fighting in or after

school, drugs in school, guns in school, and gangs in school also reported the highest levels

of school-based bullying victimization. By contrast, students exposed to capable guardians against

bullying (emotional support from teachers and students, school rule enforcement, school security)

experienced lower levels of bullying victimization in school. This indicates that students with the

most exposure and proximity to bully-prone individuals and situations and the least exposure and

proximity to capable guardians against bullying reported the highest levels of bullying victimization.

One aspect of the Popp (2012) study, proximity to bullying-prone individuals, in the form of peer

delinquency, was tested as a mediator of the perpetration–victimization relationship in the current

investigation.

396 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 18(4)