小学生欺负与人格倾向关系的研究
摘要
欺负是小学生中普遍存在的现象，是力量相对较强的一方对
在未受激惹的情况下对力量相对弱小的另一方所进行的攻击。欺
负现象的相对稳定性表明，欺负可能与某些特定的人格倾向相应。
国外对中小学生进行的大量研究发现，欺负者、受欺负者（及欺
负/受欺负者）分别具有不同的人格特点。在本研究中，运用嵌入
式的匿名问卷法对中国小学生中欺负者、受欺负者与未卷入儿童
的人格倾向的差异进行考察，并探查欺负、受欺负的频率或可能
性与各种人格倾向的关系，以期为跨文化研究和欺负干预工作作
出贡献。
以整群抽样法从济南市育新小学3、4、5、6年级抽取872
名受测者。其中男童与女童基本相等，儿童年龄主要在7——11
岁之间。以嵌入欺负、受欺负两个题目的艾森克个性问卷（幼年
版）和自尊问卷进行施测，结果表明：
1 小学男女生中，欺负者和受欺负者情绪稳定性得分、男生中的
欺负者精神质得分均显著高于常模，受欺负者的精神质显著低于
常模。
2．多元方差分析表明，在艾森克个性问卷各维度的总体变异及精
神质、情绪稳定性、掩饰性维度上，存在极其显著的类型主效应，
而不存在显著的交互作用。欺负者的精神质得分极其显著地高于
受欺负者、未卷入儿童，而受欺负者的精神质得分也显著高于未
卷入儿童。卷入欺负者的情绪稳定性得分显著高于未卷入的一般
儿童，其情绪更不稳定，而欺负者与受欺负者之间并未发现显著
差异。同时，欺负者和受欺负者的掩饰性得分均显著低于未卷入
儿童。另一方面，在内外向维度上，各类儿章之间未发现显著的
差异。
3．小学生的自尊得分具有极其显著的类型主效应，未卷入儿童的
自尊极其显著地高于欺负者和受欺负者，但并未发现类型与年龄。
性别之间存在显著的交互作用。
斗．小学生欺负、受欺负的发生频率与精神质、情绪稳定性之问均
存在极其显著的正相关，与自尊、掩饰性均存在显著或极其显著
的负相关，而与内外向得分之间的相关未达到显著性水平。
LOgistiC回归分析进一步发现，精神质、掩饰性／性别变量对预测
欺负发生的概率，具有极为重要的作用，精神质水平越高，掩饰
性越小，欺负他人的可能性越大；同时，男童欺负他人的概率显
著高于女童。自尊、情绪稳定性和年龄对预测受欺负发生的概率
作用极为显著，几童的自尊越低，情绪越不稳定，受欺负的可能
性越大；同时，与门岁儿童相比，9岁几童更可能受欺负。
最后，本文对本研究的方法、结果及未来研究的取向进行了
讨论，并对小学生的欺负干预问题提出建议。
Bullying is prevalent among primary school students, and it is a
special type of special aggression in which the more powerful
oppresses the less powerful without being provoked. The stability of
bullying implies that it is connected with certain characteristics of
personality. Significant diffeence in persona1ity between bu11ies,
victims and those students not involved into bullying was found in
large amount of research conducted among prirnary and secondary
schOol students outside China. In the preseni study, anonymous
questionnaires were administered to primary students, and the
differences of personality' characteristics of bullies, victims, and
children not involved were examined. The re1ation between the
probabilities of bu1lying others and being bullied and personality was
also investigated.
872 students of grade 3, 4, 5, and 6, with approximately equal
number of boys and girls, from Yu Xin primary schoo1 in Jinan City
of Shandong Province participated in ti1e investigation. The age of the
students was mainly between 7 and l 1 years old. Eysenck Persona1ity
Questionnaire 0unior) (EPQ) into which two questions about bullying
others and being buIlied this term were inserted, and the Self Esteem
Questionnaire were administered to the panicipants. The results of
data analysis were as fOllows.
1. Conthested with the norm, the bu1lies and victims among primary
school students scored significa-ntly higher on the Neuroticism
Subscale, and the bullies among boys scored significantly higher on
the Psychoticism Subcale, and the victims scored significanily 1ower.
IJI
2. MAVOVA indicated that significant main effect of children's
status (bu1lies, victims and not involved) on the tota1 varia-nce of
personality dimensions of EPQ, a-nd on the Psychoticism Subscale,
Neuroticism Subscale and Lie Subscale significant main effects of
chi1dren's status were also fOund, however no interaction of age,
gender and type was fOund. The scores of bullies on the Psychoticism
Subscale were significantly higher than victims and those students
who were not invo1ved, and victims' scores on the subsca1e were also
significam1y higher tha-n those uninvolved. The scores of those
uninvolved on the Neuroticism SubscaIe were signiflcant1y higher
than those u-ninvolved, and marked difference between bu11ies and
victims was not found. At the same time, Lie scores of buI1ies and
victims were significanly lower than those uninvo1ved. On the other
hand, there was no significan difference of Extraversion scores
between three types of chi1dren.
3. The variable of children' status has a significant effect on
self esteem scores of primary schoo1 studeflts, and those uninvo1ved
scored significant1y higher than those invo1ved, however significant
interaction was not found.
4. Significam positive correlation was fOund between the frequency
of bullying others and being bullied and the scores on Psychoticism
Subscale and Neuroticism Subsca1e, and significant negative
correlation existed between the frequency of bu1lying others a-nd
being bullied and SeIf esteem scores and Lie scores, however the
correlation between the frequency a-nd Extraversion Scores was not
found to be significant. Logistic Regression Analysis trier
indicated the very significant effect of the variables of psychoticism,
1V
lie and gender on predicting the probabilities of bulling others, and
the effect of selfestCem, neuroticism and age on predicting the
probabilities of being bullied. The higher children scored on the
Psychoticism Subscale, and the lower children scored on the Lie
Subscale, the more probably children would buIly others. At the same
time boys were more likely to bulIy others than girls. On the other
hand. the lower chi1dren scored on the Self eSteem QueStionnaire, and
the higher children scored on the Neuroticism Subscale, the more
probable children would be bullied. At the saxne time, comPared to
l1-year-old children, 9-year-old children were mo
在未受激惹的情况下对力量相对弱小的另一方所进行的攻击。欺
负现象的相对稳定性表明，欺负可能与某些特定的人格倾向相应。
国外对中小学生进行的大量研究发现，欺负者、受欺负者（及欺
负/受欺负者）分别具有不同的人格特点。在本研究中，运用嵌入
式的匿名问卷法对中国小学生中欺负者、受欺负者与未卷入儿童
的人格倾向的差异进行考察，并探查欺负、受欺负的频率或可能
性与各种人格倾向的关系，以期为跨文化研究和欺负干预工作作
出贡献。
以整群抽样法从济南市育新小学3、4、5、6年级抽取872
名受测者。其中男童与女童基本相等，儿童年龄主要在7——11
岁之间。以嵌入欺负、受欺负两个题目的艾森克个性问卷（幼年
版）和自尊问卷进行施测，结果表明：
1 小学男女生中，欺负者和受欺负者情绪稳定性得分、男生中的
欺负者精神质得分均显著高于常模，受欺负者的精神质显著低于
常模。
2．多元方差分析表明，在艾森克个性问卷各维度的总体变异及精
神质、情绪稳定性、掩饰性维度上，存在极其显著的类型主效应，
而不存在显著的交互作用。欺负者的精神质得分极其显著地高于
受欺负者、未卷入儿童，而受欺负者的精神质得分也显著高于未
卷入儿童。卷入欺负者的情绪稳定性得分显著高于未卷入的一般
儿童，其情绪更不稳定，而欺负者与受欺负者之间并未发现显著
差异。同时，欺负者和受欺负者的掩饰性得分均显著低于未卷入
儿童。另一方面，在内外向维度上，各类儿章之间未发现显著的
差异。
3．小学生的自尊得分具有极其显著的类型主效应，未卷入儿童的
自尊极其显著地高于欺负者和受欺负者，但并未发现类型与年龄。
性别之间存在显著的交互作用。
斗．小学生欺负、受欺负的发生频率与精神质、情绪稳定性之问均
存在极其显著的正相关，与自尊、掩饰性均存在显著或极其显著
的负相关，而与内外向得分之间的相关未达到显著性水平。
LOgistiC回归分析进一步发现，精神质、掩饰性／性别变量对预测
欺负发生的概率，具有极为重要的作用，精神质水平越高，掩饰
性越小，欺负他人的可能性越大；同时，男童欺负他人的概率显
著高于女童。自尊、情绪稳定性和年龄对预测受欺负发生的概率
作用极为显著，几童的自尊越低，情绪越不稳定，受欺负的可能
性越大；同时，与门岁儿童相比，9岁几童更可能受欺负。
最后，本文对本研究的方法、结果及未来研究的取向进行了
讨论，并对小学生的欺负干预问题提出建议。
Bullying is prevalent among primary school students, and it is a
special type of special aggression in which the more powerful
oppresses the less powerful without being provoked. The stability of
bullying implies that it is connected with certain characteristics of
personality. Significant diffeence in persona1ity between bu11ies,
victims and those students not involved into bullying was found in
large amount of research conducted among prirnary and secondary
schOol students outside China. In the preseni study, anonymous
questionnaires were administered to primary students, and the
differences of personality' characteristics of bullies, victims, and
children not involved were examined. The re1ation between the
probabilities of bu1lying others and being bullied and personality was
also investigated.
872 students of grade 3, 4, 5, and 6, with approximately equal
number of boys and girls, from Yu Xin primary schoo1 in Jinan City
of Shandong Province participated in ti1e investigation. The age of the
students was mainly between 7 and l 1 years old. Eysenck Persona1ity
Questionnaire 0unior) (EPQ) into which two questions about bullying
others and being buIlied this term were inserted, and the Self Esteem
Questionnaire were administered to the panicipants. The results of
data analysis were as fOllows.
1. Conthested with the norm, the bu1lies and victims among primary
school students scored significa-ntly higher on the Neuroticism
Subscale, and the bullies among boys scored significantly higher on
the Psychoticism Subcale, and the victims scored significanily 1ower.
IJI
2. MAVOVA indicated that significant main effect of children's
status (bu1lies, victims and not involved) on the tota1 varia-nce of
personality dimensions of EPQ, a-nd on the Psychoticism Subscale,
Neuroticism Subscale and Lie Subscale significant main effects of
chi1dren's status were also fOund, however no interaction of age,
gender and type was fOund. The scores of bullies on the Psychoticism
Subscale were significantly higher than victims and those students
who were not invo1ved, and victims' scores on the subsca1e were also
significam1y higher tha-n those uninvolved. The scores of those
uninvolved on the Neuroticism SubscaIe were signiflcant1y higher
than those u-ninvolved, and marked difference between bu11ies and
victims was not found. At the same time, Lie scores of buI1ies and
victims were significanly lower than those uninvo1ved. On the other
hand, there was no significan difference of Extraversion scores
between three types of chi1dren.
3. The variable of children' status has a significant effect on
self esteem scores of primary schoo1 studeflts, and those uninvo1ved
scored significant1y higher than those invo1ved, however significant
interaction was not found.
4. Significam positive correlation was fOund between the frequency
of bullying others and being bullied and the scores on Psychoticism
Subscale and Neuroticism Subsca1e, and significant negative
correlation existed between the frequency of bu1lying others a-nd
being bullied and SeIf esteem scores and Lie scores, however the
correlation between the frequency a-nd Extraversion Scores was not
found to be significant. Logistic Regression Analysis trier
indicated the very significant effect of the variables of psychoticism,
1V
lie and gender on predicting the probabilities of bulling others, and
the effect of selfestCem, neuroticism and age on predicting the
probabilities of being bullied. The higher children scored on the
Psychoticism Subscale, and the lower children scored on the Lie
Subscale, the more probably children would buIly others. At the same
time boys were more likely to bulIy others than girls. On the other
hand. the lower chi1dren scored on the Self eSteem QueStionnaire, and
the higher children scored on the Neuroticism Subscale, the more
probable children would be bullied. At the saxne time, comPared to
l1-year-old children, 9-year-old children were mo
引文
[1] Allan J. 'Scapegoating: help for the whole class' Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1983; 18: 147-151
[2] Austin S, Joseph S. Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1996; 66: 447-456
[3] Bender B. 'self-chosen victims: scapegoating behavior sequential to battering'. Child Welfare, 1976; 55: 417-422
[4] Bennett JC. Nonintervention into siblings' fighting as a catalyst for learned helplessness. Psychological Reports, 1990; 66: 139--145
[5] Bjorkqvist K, Ekman K, Lagerspetz K. Bullies and victims their ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1982, 23: 307--313
[6] Boulton MJ. Concurrent and longitudmal relations between children's playground behavior and social preference, victimization, and bullying. Child Development, 1999; 70: 944--954
[7] Boulton MJ, Underwood K. 'Bully/victim Problems among middle school children'. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1992; 62: 73-87
[8] Byrne BJ. Bullies and victims in a school setting with reference to some Dublin schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 1994; 15: 574--586
[9] Chlopan BE, McCain ML, Carbonell JL, Hagen RL. Empathy: Review of available measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985; 48: 635-653
[10] Coie JD, Dodge KA. Aggression and antisocial behavior In N Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3． Social, emotional, and personality development, New York: Wiley, 1998
[11] Dodge KA, Frame CL. Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 1982; 53; 620--635
[12] Eron LD, Huesmann LR. The relation of prosocial behavior to the development of aggression and psychopathology'. Aggressive Behavior,
1984; 10:201-211
[13] Genta ML, Menesini E, Fonzi A, Costabile A, Smith PK. Bullies and victims in schools in central and southern Italy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1996; 11: 97--110
[14] Hogan R. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969; 33: 307-316
[15] Kaukiainen A, Bjorkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, Osterman K, Salmivalli KC, Rothberg S & Ahlbom A. The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 1999; 25: 81-89
[16] Kawash GF, Keer EN, Clewes JL. Self-esteem in Children as a Function of Perceived Parental Behavior, Journal of Psychology, 1985; 113(3) : 225-242
[17] Lagerspetz KMJ, Bjorkqvist K, Berts M, King E. Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1982; 23: 45--52
[18] Lowenstein LF. 'Who is the bully?'. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1978; 31: 147-149
[19] Maaike A, Berge T, Raad BD. Texonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective: A review. European Journal of Personality, 1999; 13(5) : 337-360
[20] Mehrabian A, Epstein N: A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 1972; 40: 525-543
[21] Menesini E, Eslea M, Smith PK, Genta ML, Gianetti E, Fonzi, AA. Cross-national comparison of children's attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school. Aggressive Behavior, 1997
[22] Miller PA, Eisenberg N The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin 1988; 103: 324-344
[23] Mynard H, Joseph S. Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysenck's personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year-olds. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1997, 67: 51--54
[24] Olweus D. Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere, 1978
[25] Olweus D Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993
[26] Olweus D. Bullying/victim problems among school children: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D Pepler & K Rubin (Eds), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991: 411--448．
[27] Olweus D. Annotation: bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1994; 35: 1171-1190
[28] Parker JG, Asher SR. Peer relations and later personal adjustment: are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 1987; 102: 357--389
[29] Pellegrini AD, Bartim M, Brooks F. School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1999; 91: 216--224
[30] Pellegrini AD, Smith PK. Physical activity play: the nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 1999; 69: 577--598
[31] Perry DG, Kusel SJ, Perry LC Victims of peer aggression Developmental Psychology, 1988; 24: 807-814
[32] Rogers CR. Client-centered therapy. London: con-stable, 1973
[33] Rutter M. Pathways from childhood to adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1989; 30: 23--51
[34] Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Petit GS, Bates JE. The early socialization and adjustment of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 1997; 68: 665--675
[35] Slee PT, Rigby K. The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and self-esteem to bully/victim behavior in Australian school boys.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1993; 14:371—373
[36] Smith PK, Boulton, MJ. Roughand tumble play, aggression and dominance: perception and behavior in children's encounters. Human Development, 1990; 33: 271-282
[37] Smith PK. Bullying for you: coping with the abuse of power—an inaugural lecture. London: Goldsmith College, 1997
[38] Smith PK. The silent nightmare: bullying and victimization in school peer groups. The Psychologist, 1991; 4:243—248
[39] Stephens RD. 'The risk and the response'. School Leader 1988; Jan/Feb:22-25
[40] Stephenson P, Smith D. Bullying in the Junior School. In DP. Tattum and DA Lane (eds), Bullying in Schools, 1989:45—57
[41] Whitney I, Smith PK. A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 1993; 35(1):3-25
[42] Widom CS. The cycle of violence. Science, 1989; 244:160—166
[43] Wilczenski FL, Steegmann R, Braun M, Feeley F, Griffin J, Horowitz T,Olson S. Children as victims and victimizers: interventions to promote 'fair play'. School Psychology International, 1997; 18:81—89
[44] Woofson R. 'Bullying at school: the bully and victim'. Health at school,1989; 4:174-175
[45] 张文新，武建芬，程学超．儿童欺负问题研究综述．心理学动态，1999，1
[46] 张文新，王益文，鞠玉翠，林崇德．欺负行为的类型及其相关因素．心理发展与教育，2001；1：7-11
[47] 张文新．初中学生自尊特点的初步研究．心理科学，1997；20(6)：504-508
[48] 张文新．儿童社会性发展．北京师范大学出版社，1999：378-411
[49] 张文新，谷传华，王美萍，王益文，Jones K．中小学生欺负问题中的性别差异的研究．心理科学，2000；23(4)：435-439
[2] Austin S, Joseph S. Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1996; 66: 447-456
[3] Bender B. 'self-chosen victims: scapegoating behavior sequential to battering'. Child Welfare, 1976; 55: 417-422
[4] Bennett JC. Nonintervention into siblings' fighting as a catalyst for learned helplessness. Psychological Reports, 1990; 66: 139--145
[5] Bjorkqvist K, Ekman K, Lagerspetz K. Bullies and victims their ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1982, 23: 307--313
[6] Boulton MJ. Concurrent and longitudmal relations between children's playground behavior and social preference, victimization, and bullying. Child Development, 1999; 70: 944--954
[7] Boulton MJ, Underwood K. 'Bully/victim Problems among middle school children'. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1992; 62: 73-87
[8] Byrne BJ. Bullies and victims in a school setting with reference to some Dublin schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 1994; 15: 574--586
[9] Chlopan BE, McCain ML, Carbonell JL, Hagen RL. Empathy: Review of available measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985; 48: 635-653
[10] Coie JD, Dodge KA. Aggression and antisocial behavior In N Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3． Social, emotional, and personality development, New York: Wiley, 1998
[11] Dodge KA, Frame CL. Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 1982; 53; 620--635
[12] Eron LD, Huesmann LR. The relation of prosocial behavior to the development of aggression and psychopathology'. Aggressive Behavior,
1984; 10:201-211
[13] Genta ML, Menesini E, Fonzi A, Costabile A, Smith PK. Bullies and victims in schools in central and southern Italy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1996; 11: 97--110
[14] Hogan R. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969; 33: 307-316
[15] Kaukiainen A, Bjorkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, Osterman K, Salmivalli KC, Rothberg S & Ahlbom A. The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 1999; 25: 81-89
[16] Kawash GF, Keer EN, Clewes JL. Self-esteem in Children as a Function of Perceived Parental Behavior, Journal of Psychology, 1985; 113(3) : 225-242
[17] Lagerspetz KMJ, Bjorkqvist K, Berts M, King E. Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1982; 23: 45--52
[18] Lowenstein LF. 'Who is the bully?'. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1978; 31: 147-149
[19] Maaike A, Berge T, Raad BD. Texonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective: A review. European Journal of Personality, 1999; 13(5) : 337-360
[20] Mehrabian A, Epstein N: A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 1972; 40: 525-543
[21] Menesini E, Eslea M, Smith PK, Genta ML, Gianetti E, Fonzi, AA. Cross-national comparison of children's attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school. Aggressive Behavior, 1997
[22] Miller PA, Eisenberg N The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin 1988; 103: 324-344
[23] Mynard H, Joseph S. Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysenck's personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year-olds. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1997, 67: 51--54
[24] Olweus D. Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere, 1978
[25] Olweus D Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993
[26] Olweus D. Bullying/victim problems among school children: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D Pepler & K Rubin (Eds), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991: 411--448．
[27] Olweus D. Annotation: bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1994; 35: 1171-1190
[28] Parker JG, Asher SR. Peer relations and later personal adjustment: are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 1987; 102: 357--389
[29] Pellegrini AD, Bartim M, Brooks F. School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1999; 91: 216--224
[30] Pellegrini AD, Smith PK. Physical activity play: the nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 1999; 69: 577--598
[31] Perry DG, Kusel SJ, Perry LC Victims of peer aggression Developmental Psychology, 1988; 24: 807-814
[32] Rogers CR. Client-centered therapy. London: con-stable, 1973
[33] Rutter M. Pathways from childhood to adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1989; 30: 23--51
[34] Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Petit GS, Bates JE. The early socialization and adjustment of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 1997; 68: 665--675
[35] Slee PT, Rigby K. The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and self-esteem to bully/victim behavior in Australian school boys.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1993; 14:371—373
[36] Smith PK, Boulton, MJ. Roughand tumble play, aggression and dominance: perception and behavior in children's encounters. Human Development, 1990; 33: 271-282
[37] Smith PK. Bullying for you: coping with the abuse of power—an inaugural lecture. London: Goldsmith College, 1997
[38] Smith PK. The silent nightmare: bullying and victimization in school peer groups. The Psychologist, 1991; 4:243—248
[39] Stephens RD. 'The risk and the response'. School Leader 1988; Jan/Feb:22-25
[40] Stephenson P, Smith D. Bullying in the Junior School. In DP. Tattum and DA Lane (eds), Bullying in Schools, 1989:45—57
[41] Whitney I, Smith PK. A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 1993; 35(1):3-25
[42] Widom CS. The cycle of violence. Science, 1989; 244:160—166
[43] Wilczenski FL, Steegmann R, Braun M, Feeley F, Griffin J, Horowitz T,Olson S. Children as victims and victimizers: interventions to promote 'fair play'. School Psychology International, 1997; 18:81—89
[44] Woofson R. 'Bullying at school: the bully and victim'. Health at school,1989; 4:174-175
[45] 张文新，武建芬，程学超．儿童欺负问题研究综述．心理学动态，1999，1
[46] 张文新，王益文，鞠玉翠，林崇德．欺负行为的类型及其相关因素．心理发展与教育，2001；1：7-11
[47] 张文新．初中学生自尊特点的初步研究．心理科学，1997；20(6)：504-508
[48] 张文新．儿童社会性发展．北京师范大学出版社，1999：378-411
[49] 张文新，谷传华，王美萍，王益文，Jones K．中小学生欺负问题中的性别差异的研究．心理科学，2000；23(4)：435-439