Coolness and social vulnerability: Swedish pupils’ reflections on participant roles in school bullying

ABSTRACT

The aim of the study was to examine Swedish school pupils’ perspectives on why some pupils engage in bullying, support bullying or avoid standing up for the one(s) being bullied, despite a shared understanding that bullying is wrong. Through the use of focus group interviews combined with two bullying vignettes, a total of 74 pupils from grades 5 and 6 (i.e. 11–12 years of age) from two public primary schools in socioeconomically diverse areas were asked for their perspectives on various participant roles in bullying. In interpreting the vignette scenario, the participants emphasised the importance of perceived coolness, as well as the risk of being bullied. In seeking to avoid becoming a ‘victim’ of bullying, the situational roles of ‘bully’, ‘assistant’, ‘reinforcer’ and ‘outsider’ were understood as potential means for promoting, maintaining or protecting one’s own social position. The findings of the study challenge previous understandings of bullying as an act of harmful or aggressive intentionality and rather highlight the relational and situational aspects of bullying.

KEYWORDS:

• Bullying
• bystanders
• coolness
• school
• social positioning

School bullying is a widespread problem (Chester et al. 2015) that has serious consequences for those directly involved (Evans-Lacko et al. 2017; Klomek, Sourander, and Elonheimo 2015). School bullying is commonly understood as a subset or specific type of aggression (Salmivalli 2010) and has been defined as ‘repeated negative behaviour intended to harm a person in an interpersonal relationship where there is an imbalance of power’ (Slee and Skrzypiec 2016, 109), although the necessity of intention of harm in bullying has been disputed (e.g. Carrera, DePalma, and Lameiras 2011; Horton 2011; Volk, Dane, and Marini 2014). In trying to understand school bullying, researchers have conventionally tended to focus on the individuals directly involved (i.e. ‘bullies’ and ‘victims’), their specific personality traits, and the direct or indirect actions that constitute the bullying (Horton 2016a; Volk, Dane, and Marini 2014). More recently, researchers have stressed that school bullying is rarely an isolated phenomenon between two parties, but rather something which unfolds within a group setting, wherein the ‘bully’ is often supported by other members of the peer group (Burns et al. 2008; Hong and Espelage 2012; Saarento and Salmivalli 2015).

The peer group is thus seen to play a central role in how individuals react to the aggressive behaviour of others. Peers who witness a bullying incident but are not directly involved as ‘bullies’ or ‘victims’ have been categorised as ‘bystanders’, whose reactions to the bullying may influence the situation in different ways (Hawkins, Pepler, and Craig 2001; Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott 2012; Saarento and Salmivalli 2015). According to the participant role model (Salmivalli 2010; Salmivalli et al. 1996), bullying behaviour in schools can be understood through six different participant roles, including four bystander roles: (a) bully, (b) victim, (c) assistant, (d) reinforcer, (e) outsider and (f) defender. ‘Assistants’ are children who assist the ‘bully’ in their bullying behaviour, ‘reinforcers’ provide positive feedback to those doing the bullying (e.g. by laughing or cheering on the bullying), ‘outsiders’ are those who remain passive and/or are not engaged in the bullying situations, and ‘defenders’ side with the victims, comforting and/or supporting them.

Researchers have highlighted that different participant roles tend to be associated with different levels of social status (Garandeau, Lee, and Salmivalli 2013). Social status is here defined in terms of visibility, prestige and social dominance in the peer group (Hymel et al. 2011). Findings suggest that those who intervene as ‘defenders’ tend to be well-liked and display high social status (Pöyhönen, Juvonen, and Salmivalli 2010; Sainio et al. 2011) or at least average social status (Pouwels, Lansu, and Cillessen 2016), while those who initiate bullying tend to enjoy high social status but low likeability (Caravita and Cillessen 2012; de Bruyn, Cillessen, and Wissink 2010; Juvonen and Graham 2014; Reijntjes et al. 2013). ‘Assistants’ and ‘reinforcers’, in turn, tend to display high social status and low likeability, but not as high social status and low likeability as the ‘bullies’, who tend to be at the top of the social hierarchy (Pouwels, Lansu, and Cillessen 2016). In contrast, those who are bullied tend to be at the bottom of the social hierarchy, low in both likeability and social status (Babarro et al. 2017; de Bruyn, Cillessen, and Wissink 2010; Pouwels, Lansu, and Cillessen 2016; Thunfors and Cornell 2008).

Although pupils generally consider bullying to be morally wrong (Thornberg 2010a; Thornberg et al. 2016), it still takes place in schools (Chester et al. 2015), and in social contexts wherein peers are often present as bystanders, and often seem less inclined to act as ‘defenders’ (Craig, Pepler, and Atlas 2000; Hawkins, Pepler, and Craig 2001; O’Connell, Pepler, and Craig 1999). Pupils who engage in bullying or act as non-defending bystanders may justify or rationalise their behaviour (Bjärehed et al. 2019; Gini, Pozzoli, and Hymel 2014; Thornberg and Jungert 2013), for instance, by referring to the bullied individual’s perceived difference, deviance or oddness (Frisén, Jonsson, and Persson 2007; Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008; Teräsahjo and Salmivalli 2003; Thornberg 2010b, 2015a, 2015b). In order to better understand this apparent discrepancy between the pupils’ rationales and justifications and their general views on bullying, it is necessary to explore the ‘bully’, ‘assistant’, ‘reinforcer’ and ‘outsider’ roles in bullying from the pupils’ own perspectives.

Researchers have found that children and youth attach great importance to being ‘cool’ and that being perceived as ‘cool’ is linked to high social status (Graham and Juvonen 2002; Rodkin et al. 2006). While ‘coolness’ may be understood in terms of adolescent development and rebelliousness, it can also be understood in terms of peer-relevant social desirability, and may be linked to characteristics such as attractiveness, toughness, confidence, hedonism and thrill-seeking (Dar-Nimrod et al. 2012). While ‘coolness’ may be associated with high social status, it may also be linked to being ‘mean’ and contrasted with ‘niceness’ and ‘goodness’ (Paechter and Clark 2016). This suggests that rather than simply engaging in bullying in order to cause harm, pupils may engage in bullying as a means through which to gain friends and increase their social status (Burns et al. 2008; Forsberg and Thornberg 2016; Frisén, Jonsson, and Persson 2007; Juvonen and Graham 2014; Juvonen, Wang, and Espinoza 2013; Thornberg 2010b; Thornberg and Knutsen 2011).

In this sense, then, through their engagement in bullying and their taking on of various participant roles, pupils position themselves in the social hierarchy and may gain or maintain a particular level of social status amongst their peers (Berger and Caravita 2016; Pouwels, Lansu, and Cillessen 2016). Bullying, assisting or reinforcing, for example, can thus be understood as strategic behaviour, used by pupils to gain or maintain social dominance within the social hierarchy (Espelage and Swearer 2003; Olthof et al. 2011; Pellegrini 2002, 2004; Pellegrini et al. 2010). However, such dominance is not necessarily an end in itself but may rather be a means through which pupils seek to advantageously position themselves and thus reduce their own social vulnerability (Jacobson 2010; Søndergaard 2012). Pupils may become socially vulnerable by being socially isolated, being previously victimised, having victimised friends, or for not being perceived as fitting in with social norms. While pupils with relatively high social standing are also at risk of being bullied, those at the very top of the social hierarchy seem to be protected (Faris and Felmlee 2014).

The present study is interested in qualitatively examining pupils’ own descriptions of how participant roles, social status and school bullying behaviours can be understood in the daily life of schools. While quantitative studies have contributed to our understandings of the links between participant roles, social status and school bullying, it is questionable to what extent they illuminate the different social processes behind engagement or passivity in bullying or how school pupils themselves understand and explain bullying (Hellström, Persson, and Hagquist 2015; Mishna 2004; Varjas et al. 2008). How pupils make sense of and explain bullying is important for better understanding their actions and interactions in bullying, and for better understanding why bullying takes place within schools. Qualitative studies like this one offer opportunities for exploring ‘insider perspectives’ (Patton et al. 2017), nuances and discourses of school bullying that cannot be captured in large quantitative surveys (Mishna 2004). A number of researchers have thus called for more child-focused research into bullying (Mishna 2004; Varjas et al. 2008), not least in order to better understand the development of bullying situations, so as to better develop appropriate interventions (Varjas et al. 2008). In line with such calls, the aim of this study was to examine school pupils’ perspectives on why some pupils engage in bullying, support bullying or avoid standing up for the one(s) being bullied, despite a shared understanding that bullying is wrong.

Method

The current study was conducted at two public primary schools in socioeconomically diverse areas in Sweden and involved 22 same-sex focus group interviews (of two to five children) with a total of 74 pupils from grades 5 and 6 (i.e. 11–12 years of age) from the two schools (26 girls and 11 boys in one school, and 24 girls and 13 boys in the other; a total of 68% girls and 32% boys). Focus groups were used to allow the pupils greater opportunity to express themselves in their own words, to pose their own questions, to push the conversation forward, and to initiate topics (Kitzinger 1994; Morgan et al. 2002; Wilkinson 1998a). In order to facilitate focus groups where the pupils would feel safe and comfortable (Wilkinson 1998a, 1999) and to ‘explore issues relevant to the person-in-context’ (Wilkinson 1998b, 112), the pupils who consented to participate were invited to create social maps of their classrooms (Cairns et al. 1988; Salmivalli, Huttunen, and Lagerspetz 1997; Salmivalli et al. 1996). A basic premise for this method choice is that pupils are the ones who are best placed to determine the boundaries of their own social landscapes. In this way, we sought to minimise the risks associated with potentially placing a pupil who is bullied in the same group as the person(s) doing the bullying. The groups were composed based on the pupils’ social mapping, although the first author also conferred with teachers to confirm the social groupings, and this led to minor adjustments in a few cases.

The focus groups were combined with bullying vignettes wherein a bullying situation was portrayed involving a group of six boys or girls (depending on whether the interview was with boys or girls), taking on five different roles: one ‘bully’ (labelled A in the vignette), one ‘victim’ (labelled B), one ‘assistant’ who is joining in (labelled C), one ‘reinforcer’ who is laughing at the bullying (labelled D), one ‘outsider’ who is watching on (E), and two ‘outsiders’ who are leaving the situation (F).¹ In the focus groups, pupils were introduced to the bullying situation depicted in the appropriate vignette and then asked for their perspectives on the various non-victim roles portrayed. For example, regarding role A, pupils were told that A bullies B at least a couple of times a week and were then asked why A might bully B despite otherwise understanding that bullying is wrong. The vignettes were thus used as stimuli for eliciting extended discussions about school bullying situations (Gould 1996; Jenkins et al. 2010; Wilks 2004). By asking about hypothetical situations rather than direct experiences, the vignettes provided a means of discussing sensitive issues with the pupils without directly discussing their own bullying experiences (Barter and Renold 1999; Finch 1987; Jenkins et al. 2010; Wilks 2004). After the two vignettes had been discussed, the pupils were asked if there were situations where it was okay to tease, hit, exclude or spread negative rumours about others.

All the focus group interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using methods from Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz 2014). The coding of the data was done in three phases (Charmaz 2014). In the first, initial phase, the data were read, re-read and coded line-by-line. In the second, more focused phase, similarities and differences between the most significant codes from the first phase were explored and these focused codes were clustered together into different topics and themes. This meant that data that appeared to be conceptually similar was grouped together under conceptual labels (Corbin and Strauss 2015). In the third phase, theoretical coding was used to explore underlying relationships in the focus group data (Glaser 1978, 1998; Thornberg 2012). Theoretical sampling was used in, and between, the interviews as a way to allow for further exploration of the data (Charmaz 2014; Glaser 1978; Glaser and Strauss 1967). An example of this was the pupils’ talk about gaining coolness through engagement in bullying, which was raised by pupils in one of the early interviews and was then followed up in subsequent interviews. Throughout the work, memos were also used to provide a means for thinking further about the focus group data (Charmaz 2014).

As the participants returned to some explanations of school bullying more often than others, a couple of more significant themes could gradually be distinguished and identified as the two most significant, frequent and comprehensive-focused codes. These were ‘coolness’ and ‘social vulnerability’. The concept of ‘coolness’ was made up of codes encapsulating the importance of coolness and of coolness as a motive for bullying behaviour (e.g. ‘She might want to be a bit cool’). Coolness also contained codes indicating aspects of popularity, power, friendship and, being in the centre, as these aspects were repeatedly linked to the concept of coolness. The concept of ‘social vulnerability’ was made up of codes related to the fear of being bullied, the perceived consequences of defending a ‘victim’, and the perceived consequences of ending up at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The analysis of the focus group data suggested that coolness and social vulnerability could be understood as two counterpoles in pupils’ peer relations and thus helps to explain pupils’ actions in bullying situations. The participants suggested that coolness and social vulnerability are highly relevant for both the pupils portrayed in the vignettes and for pupils in general, and were thus considered to be the pupils’ main concerns (Glaser 1998).

In conducting the research, ethical guidelines were adhered to and, prior to beginning the data collection, approval was obtained from the local ethical review board. The principals of the schools were provided with information about the background and purpose of the study, and the first author presented himself to the respective classes and told the pupils and teachers about the purpose of the study. Informed consent was obtained from both the pupils and their parents. Pupils were informed that their participation was voluntary, that they were free to withdraw their consent at any time, that the information they provided was confidential and would be anonymised, and that the information would only be used for research purposes. After the interviews, the pupils were informed that there was a team at the respective school to whom they could turn in case of bullying. They were also provided with information about BRIS, an anonymous Swedish helpline for children and adolescents. All the interviews were conducted in quiet rooms, separated from the rest of the class, in order to ensure confidentiality.

Results

When pupils discussed the bullying situation portrayed in the vignettes, they repeatedly expressed that bullying was wrong and that it was never ok to tease, fight, spread negative rumours, or exclude someone from the group. Despite these assertions, the pupils stated that there could be a variety of reasons for why pupils might initiate bullying or choose to join in, laugh, or remain passive, including jealousy, problematic home relationships, lack of understanding, desensitisation to bullying behaviour, lack of empathy, or the perceived deviance of the one being bullied. In nearly half of the groups, the interviewees stated that pupils might choose to join in because they think it is fun to bully. Pupils also suggested that pupils might choose to laugh in order to be included in the group, and that they may choose to remain passive so as not to let others know that they are friends with the one being bullied. Although numerous reasons were put forward, the pupils returned to some reasons more often than others: coolness and social vulnerability. Coolness was raised in 19 of 22 focus groups, while social vulnerability was raised in all of the focus groups.

Coolness and school bullying

In explaining the ‘bully’ role in the vignettes, the majority of focus groups referred to the importance of perceived coolness. For example, in explaining why the ‘bully’ (A) in the vignette engages in bullying, one boy stated that it is because he ‘wants to have someone to blame and wants to seem cooler’. Some of the boys in another group suggested that he ‘maybe tries to be cool, show off, and become popular among the other boys’. Likewise, two girls stated that the ‘bully’ ‘wants to seem cool in front of her other friends’ and ‘not only in front of girls but for boys too’, while another girl in the same group suggested that ‘she maybe thinks that it’s cool to bully’. Similar suggestions were also made by some of the girls in other groups.

As highlighted above, then, bullying may allow pupils to increase their perceived coolness in the eyes of their peers, and hence their popularity or social status. In increasing their perceived coolness, bullying may also allow those initiating the bullying to gain an increased degree of control over their daily lives at school. One girl, for example, explained that the ‘bully’ ‘might want to be a bit cool, and like, control over all the others a bit’. This linking of bullying, coolness and social control was expanded on by a girl from another focus group, who explained what she thought was needed for someone to be perceived as cool: ‘I think that if she’s going to be cool, then she has to decide more, I mean take more space and stuff’. As she elaborated, ‘If you want to be cool, then I think really that it’s that which makes you cool, I mean, because you’re the one at the top … of the food chain’.

Being at the top of the social hierarchy and being able to control the behaviour of others suggests that perceived coolness is connected to the unequal power relations that are characteristic of bullying. In discussing coolness, half of the groups also linked it to other aspects such as size, strength, toughness, power and fear. One girl, for example, suggested, ‘She wants to look cool in front of others, wants others to be afraid of her, wants others to think she’s tough and so on’. A group of boys suggested that ‘when the others see A picking on B, they might think that he’s bigger, stronger, has more power and is therefore cooler’.

Discussing what it might be like to be in this powerful position (i.e. A), one boy suggested that those initiating bullying may use it as a means to gain certain privileges at school:

You think you’re better than everyone else and that you should come first all the time. [..] well, you should be the best and you should come first, be first in the queue. [..] If, for example, you’re playing a game in the break or during the PE lesson, anywhere, so maybe he says, maybe he’s bad at the game and says like this, “don’t take me”, and then maybe everybody obeys and lets him stay in the game.

In a similar vein, a boy in another group suggested that those engaging in bullying may utilise the fear they instil in others in order to make others do things for them. Interpreting the power relation between the ‘bully’ (A) and the one being bullied (B) in the vignette, he stated:

B becomes like a slave or something. He goes and gets things for him and stuff. He just grabs his top and says that he has to get him milk in the cafeteria … he takes advantage of fear so that B does everything for him, instead of him doing it himself.

These excerpts highlight the power relations inherent in bullying and illustrate how some pupils are able to control the behaviour of others through bullying behaviour. This can take the form of making someone do something (such as fetch milk) or gaining advantages (such as ensuring that others do not target them in a particular game).

While the power associated with being perceived as cool may afford certain privileges, pupils may also seek a social position as ‘cool’ as a means to gain friends and thus improve their social status. Pupils suggested that those who do not have friends may thus feel obliged to engage in bullying as a means of making friends. For example, talking about the ‘bully’ role, one girl stated, ‘she could have had difficulty finding friends and felt that she had to [engage in bullying]’. In a similar way, a boy highlighted the links between perceived coolness and friendship. As he suggested, the one doing the bullying ‘wants to show he’s a bit cool, to make friends and so on’. Speaking in the first person, he elaborated, ‘If I do this [the bullying], I get more popular, and everyone wants to be friends with me’. In a similar way, pupils may also seek a social position as ‘cool’ as a means to maintain friendships and thus their social status. The importance of maintaining friendships was discussed in more than half of the groups. For instance, speaking about the ‘bully’ role, one boy suggested that his actions could be an expression of not wanting to lose his perceived coolness among his friends. To lose coolness, he explained, could lead those friends to ‘get angry with him, not want to be close to him, not want to be with him’. As one girl stated, ‘I think everyone thinks it’s important [to be cool] at this age, you don’t want to be excluded, you want to be a part of the group’.

As highlighted above, perceived coolness is an important factor in inter-peer power relations, and relates to processes of inclusion and exclusion. In this sense, then, engagement in bullying provides a means through which pupils can improve or maintain their social standing and thus secure their inclusion within the peer group. The linking of coolness to power relations also suggests that those who join in the bullying may do so because the one initiating the bullying is perceived to be cool and thus has a high social status. Indeed, a number of pupils spoke about the importance of the perceived coolness of the ‘bully’ in explaining the ‘assistant’ role (C). As one boy put it, ‘He’s with a guy who he thinks is cool and who has a lot of power over B’. Likewise, a girl suggested that ‘she probably thinks that A is super cool when she bullies and then wants to do it too’. Yet another girl stated, ‘she wants to be part of A’s group, or she wants A to think that she is also cool’.

Highlighting the perceived social payoffs of taking the ‘assistant’ role, one boy suggested, ‘he maybe thinks that the boy doing the bullying is cool and thinks that he will also be cool’. This was also suggested by some of the girls. One girl, for example, pointed out that being perceived as ‘cool’ can lead to the ‘cool’ pupil being respected, or looked up to, and that this in turn can lead to having more friends. Talking about the ‘assistant’ role, she stated, ‘then maybe I get more friends because people think that I’m cool, because people think I’m cool and look up to me, and then maybe I get more friends because they want to be with me’. Girls from other groups also gave similar explanations. One girl, for example, suggested that ‘she finally gets to be in the centre, as she wanted’. Likewise, another girl explained, ‘A starts to be the cool and tough one, so she’s the one to be with if you also want to be cool and popular’. These pupils highlight that coolness is a valued social marker that is linked to popularity, friendship, being in the centre (rather than the periphery), and higher social status, which can be shared or passed on to others. One girl suggested that even when pupils think that bullying is wrong, their desire to be perceived as ‘cool’ may overshadow any moral reservations they have about being involved in bullying. As she explained, talking about the ‘assistant’ role:

She thinks it‘s wrong, it‘s so obvious that it‘s wrong, but when it happens, she wants them to look up to her so that she‘ll be cool as well, something like that, so she joins A [i.e. the ‘bully’].

This may also be the case for those who do not actively engage in bullying but rather serve to reinforce it through positive feedback such as laughing and cheering. As one boy elaborated, speaking about the ‘reinforcer’ role (D), ‘the group that usually bullies people, they’re usually the cool group in schools and he kind of wants to be in, he wants to be part of the cool group .. but he doesn’t really want to bully people!’. This boy suggests that pupils may provide positive reinforcement for bullying behaviour as a means of ensuring their continued inclusion in the peer group to which they currently belong. In doing so, he also points to a certain degree of vulnerability in relation to the ‘cool group’, suggesting that the boundaries between inclusion and exclusion are not clearly marked and need to be navigated with care.

Social vulnerability and school bullying

In discussing the importance of being perceived as ‘cool’, the pupils often returned to the related importance of not being perceived as the weakest link in the peer group, as this could increase the risk of being bullied. Speaking about the ‘bully’ role (A), one girl, speaking in the first person, stated, ‘I don’t want to be the weak one, so in order to avoid being bullied, I bully others instead, so I get a different position’. Also speaking about the ‘bully’ role, a girl in another group stated, ‘[She] doesn’t want to be bullied herself, so she tries to appear like a cool and tough girl’. Likewise, one boy described how he thought the ‘bully’ might reason: ‘And he may not want to be bullied himself either, and then he thinks that if he bullies someone else, nobody will dare to bully him. So, he’ll do it to someone else, because he doesn’t want to be bullied himself’. As these pupils highlight, acting ‘cool’ through the medium of bullying behaviour can be understand as a means through which pupils seek to improve their social status by distancing themselves from the ‘victim’ role; i.e. the lowest social status. As another girl explained, ‘[She] feels like “at least you’re under me”, it’s like “if I tease her, then I’m not the weakest”’. In this sense, then, pupils perceived bullying as a possible way of managing the risk of social vulnerability.

The management of social vulnerability through bullying not only has implications for the ‘bully’, but also for those who witness the bullying, who may then not dare to challenge the one initiating the bullying. This was pointed out by a group of boys, who discussed the ways in which bullying may impact the behaviour of others through the transmission of fear. As they pointed out, ‘You’re strong, you’ve done something. You’ve shown something that others don’t want to be exposed to’. As these boys explained, this demonstration of power may mean that other pupils ‘become afraid of him, because they don’t want it to happen to them’. For this reason, the boys elaborated, ‘they want to be with him, be his friends, so that it doesn’t happen to them’. If someone starts to bully, they explained, ‘others turn to that person and join in, not because they like bullying but because they don’t want to be bullied, and then the bully gets power’.

In explaining the ‘assistant’ role (C) and how to understand why someone may join in the bullying, two boys reasoned, ‘You don’t want to end up in that situation [B’s situation]! So, you join them, in order not to… be targeted’. Highlighting how friendship could be protective, a girl in another group suggested that maybe the ‘assistant’ ‘tries to join in to get along with A so they become good friends so that she isn’t the one being bullied’. Similar suggestions were given by both boys and girls in other groups. For example, one boy explained that someone might join in bullying to avoid being targeted by a friend doing the bullying: ‘You don’t want to be harassed by your best friend, so you join in’. These descriptions suggest how engagement in bullying may be understood as a means through which pupils seek inclusion in the peer group and thereby seek to minimise their own risk of being bullied.

The links between involvement in bullying and the minimisation of risk were also raised by a boy speaking about the ‘reinforcer’ role (D), who explained, ‘If I support him [A], then he probably won’t bully me, I think that’s what he thinks’. Likewise, another boy pointed to the difficulties of seeking inclusion but not wanting to engage in bullying when he stated, ‘He wants to be in the cool group, but he doesn’t really want to bully people, but he’s afraid that he will be bullied if he leaves.’ Rather than actively taking part in the bullying, then, this boy puts forward the ‘reinforcer’ role as a kind of no-man’s land between bullying and not-bullying. More specifically, pupils in the majority of groups put forward laughing as a particular form of reinforcing behaviour that provides a means of minimising the risk of being bullied without actively engaging in bullying as either a ‘bully’ or an ‘assistant’. One girl, for example, suggested that someone may laugh or do something other than ‘just watch’ in an attempt ‘to seem cool and not be the nerd who just walks away and sits down, because then she may also be bullied and teased, and maybe you would rather just laugh at it’.

The above excerpts highlight the tensions involved in navigating the social boundaries between inclusion and exclusion and provide insights into why some pupils may engage in bullying, despite moral reservations about such behaviour. This suggests that bullying may not necessarily be intended to cause harm, but may rather be understood as an expression of situational and relational factors, such as minimising social vulnerability. In this sense, then, the excerpts also illuminate the perceived importance of not becoming B (i.e. the ‘victim’). As one girl put it, the ‘other pupils in the picture don’t want to be bullied either, so they join in’. The excerpts also allude to the perceived importance of not being associated with B, and thus why pupils may opt not to take on a ‘defender’ role.

Elaborating about how a ‘reinforcer’ might feel about bullying and why they might laugh instead of intervening, one girl stated:

Deep down, I think she feels, “Why don’t I do anything?” and “why do we even bully B?” but she laughs because she still doesn’t want to be the one who … she may be bullied if she does anything, tells a teacher, or whatever, or challenges the bullying, so maybe she just laughs to “play it cool” there.

In a similar vein, another girl explained the reasoning of the pupils standing passively in the background (the ‘outsider’ role): ‘They don’t want to be targeted themselves, maybe they’re afraid that they will also be targeted if they defend B, and that’s a risk that they don’t want to take’. Likewise, a girl in another group elaborated:

Nobody wants to end up there! [referring to B‘s vulnerable position] but they don’t dare to say anything, just because, as the others said, you don’t want to be B .. I don’t know how to explain more but .. they feel like this: “I feel sorry for that person, but I feel sorrier for myself, and I don’t want to end up there”.

In discussing the role of the ‘outsider’ (E), pupils in the majority of groups suggested that it was a means through which pupils could reduce the risk of being subjected to bullying. In doing so, some pupils raised the point that those who might otherwise intervene, refrain from doing so because of uncertainty about whether they will be supported by other ‘outsiders’. As one girl explained, ‘She doesn’t know if all the others who don’t say anything, if they will support, “Will they support me? Or will they instead join those that bully B?”’ To remain outside the bullying situation, then, was perceived as a means of dealing with such uncertainty and reducing the chances of being negatively positioned as a ‘snitch’ (i.e. someone who tells the teacher). As one boy explained, ‘He doesn’t want to be a snitch, or whatever. For sometimes if someone snitches, people get angry with him, “why did you snitch?” and then he gets bullied, so he just stands there, watching’. Taken together, then, these pupils’ explanations highlight the perceived risks associated with intervening in bullying (e.g. by telling a teacher) and suggest that not intervening can be understood in relation to the risk of social vulnerability.

Discussion

The present study examines the gap between pupils’ moral reasonings about bullying behaviour and engagement in bullying by exploring how pupils, in their own words and in their natural peer groups, reflect over why some pupils initiate bullying, assist or reinforce bullying, or seek to remain outside the bullying situation, despite a shared understanding that bullying is wrong. Quantitative studies have found that moral disengagement reasoning (i.e., justifying or rationalising bullying in order to avoid considering one’s own actions as immoral or wrong) is associated with bullying (for a meta-analysis, see Gini, Pozzoli, and Hymel 2014), assisting/reinforcing (Bjärehed et al. 2019; Thornberg and Jungert 2013) and passive bystanding (Gini, Pozzoli, and Bussey 2015; Thornberg et al. 2017). By asking pupils to reflect over the actions of imaginary pupils depicted in bullying vignettes, the present study not only emphasised that pupils may seek to justify or rationalise bullying, but also how pupils’ rationalising is connected to their perceptions of the importance of the promotion, maintenance and protection of social position and status within the peer landscape.

That pupils may engage in bullying to gain or maintain a higher social status within a group of friends has been noted elsewhere (e.g. Faris and Felmlee 2011; Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008; Pouwels, Lansu, and Cillessen 2016; Varjas et al. 2008). The relationship between school bullying and pupils’ pursuit of social status has also been noted in several ethnographic studies, focusing on how pupils socially construct their lives together in school (Adler and Adler 1995, 1998; Eder 1985; Holm 2008). In discussing why pupils may take on the roles of ‘bullies’, ‘assistants’, ‘reinforcers’ or ‘outsiders’ in bullying situations, the participating pupils returned to aspects of coolness. According to the pupils’ perspectives in the current study, those who bully seem to be recognised as being ‘cool’ and as having the highest social status. Such status, in turn, attracts other students to act as ‘assistants’ and ‘reinforcers’ in order to be accepted by and associated with the ‘bullies’ and their coolness and high status, and hence reduce the chances of being socially excluded and bullied themselves.

These qualitative findings, based on pupil insider-perspectives, shed light on previous findings that ‘assistants’ and ‘reinforcers’ tend to have high social status, but not as high as the ‘bullies’ who are at the top of the social hierarchy (Pouwels, Lansu, and Cillessen 2016), as well as provide insight into the links between social vulnerability and being bullied, and the constant risk of being bullied as long as one is not at the very top of the social hierarchy (Faris and Felmlee 2014). In line with what has been found in previous school bullying research (e.g. Faris and Felmlee 2011; Pouwels, Lansu, and Cillessen 2016, 2018; Thornberg 2010b), the interviewed pupils in this study tied engagement in bullying to opportunities for being perceived as ‘cool’, or being associated with someone who is perceived as ‘cool’, and thus gaining or maintaining a higher social status.

Pupils suggested that a ’cool’ student has an increased influence over their daily life at school, and thus a degree of control over others. Being in a powerful position may entail, for example, pupils being able to gain certain privileges and to get other pupils to do things for them. This has also been noted in earlier studies (e.g. Horton 2012; Horton, Kvist Lindholm, and Nguyen 2015). The pupils in the current study explained that when somebody bullies, others become afraid and want to be friends with them. Hence, the one doing the bullying is able to exercise more power and to gain a reputation among their peers. In this sense, the pupils’ interpretations of coolness and the ‘bully’ role (A) suggest that bullying may not necessarily be about causing harm, but may be reflective of social and relational motives (Horton 2011, 2018). In this way, the pupils’ perspectives in the current findings support Volk, Dane, and Marini’s (2014) definition of bullying as goal-directed behaviour (to obtain resources, social reputation and social dominance) rather than being occupied with an intention to inflict harm. Indeed, pupils also suggested that bullying could be about not losing one’s own social status, wherein being perceived as ‘uncool’ could lead to a degree of social vulnerability in terms of that pupils’ continued inclusion in the peer group.

In this sense, coolness and bullying were related to processes of inclusion and exclusion, with other pupils (e.g. ‘assistants’ and ‘reinforcers’) seeking to position themselves favourably in relation to the ‘cool’ ‘bully’. In this way, pupils may also be able to become ‘cool’ and thus gain friends and a higher social status. Even in those cases where pupils think the bullying behaviour is wrong, the desire to be perceived as ‘cool’ may overshadow any potential moral qualms and lead to them being involved to varying degrees. Involvement in bullying, even through reinforcing acts such as laughing, can thus be understood as a means through which pupils are able to position themselves and others within the peer group (Dixon, Smith, and Jenks 2008; Gini 2006; Thornberg 2015b) and thus as a way of defining their own social selves (Jacobson 2010). In this sense, then, the pupils can be understood to be engaging in positioning work (Adler and Adler 1995; Currie, Kelly, and Pomerantz 2007; Duncan 2004; Eder 1985; Forsberg and Thornberg 2016; Owens, Shute, and Slee 2000; Paechter and Clark 2016), whereby their efforts are focused on positioning themselves favourably among their peers, rather than simply seeking to cause harm to those being bullied.

That pupils who witness bullying rarely intervene has been noted in earlier studies (Craig, Pepler, and Atlas 2000; Hawkins, Pepler, and Craig 2001; O’Connell, Pepler, and Craig 1999), and the actions of ‘outsiders’ have often been understood in relation to the risk of being bullied (Forsberg et al. 2016; Forsberg, Thornberg, and Samuelsson 2014; Salmivalli 2010; Thornberg, Landgren, and Wiman 2018). In this study, the pupils highlighted the importance of social vulnerability for understanding pupils’ actions in bullying situations. Indeed, the spectre of social vulnerability appeared to be a key factor in understanding not only why pupils may engage in bullying but also why they may opt not to intervene or defend the victim. In both cases, social vulnerability is associated with pupils’ attempts at distancing themselves from the ‘victim’ (B), and thus with attempts at fitting in, rather than ‘misfitting’ (Thornberg 2018), and at finding ‘a meaningful place to stand’ (Jacobson 2010, 50) in the peer landscape. Pupils’ concerns about social vulnerability can also be related to an anxiety about being socially excluded (Søndergaard 2012; Søndergaard and Hansen 2018).

Taken together, the findings from this study highlight the ways in which pupils interpret and try to anticipate the consequences of their actions, including whether they can be positioned as ‘cool’, and whether they can manage to avoid being bullied by others. In this sense, pupils weigh up various relational and situational aspects, such as their own and others’ social positions, as well as their own ability to intervene effectively. Bullying can thus be understood as a function of the interactions between pupils and the hierarchically organised context within which they find themselves (Horton 2016b). While being at the top of the social hierarchy is perceived to bring advantages, such as popularity, friendship and high social status, being at the bottom is associated with ‘misfitting’, social exclusion, and an increased risk of being a ‘victim’ of bullying. Thus, bullying, assisting, reinforcing, or remaining outside the bullying situation are symptomatic of pupils’ perceived social needs and the associated spectre of social vulnerability that comes with being positioned as ‘uncool’.

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. Firstly, it should be noted that the results of the study are based on a relatively small sample of pupils, which necessarily limits the possibility of generalisation of the results and conclusions drawn in this study. Secondly, the results in the study could potentially be biased due to the use of focus group interviews. However, while we did not control for possible peer influence, we did interview pupils in friendship groups and were particularly interested in exploring their understandings of bullying as shared peer group perspectives rather than an individual perspective. In contrast to individual interviews, our focus group design allowed us to explore the perspectives of the pupils in their natural peer context in school, and in which peer influence and other group processes are natural and constantly present characteristics. Thus, the analysis of the focus group data was at the group level rather than at the individual level. Thirdly, the use of Constructivist Grounded Theory means that not all reasons provided by the pupils are discussed in the article. In line with Constructivist Grounded Theory, we were particularly interested in the pupils’ main concerns: coolness and social vulnerability.

Fourthly, it is important to note that the vignette used in the focus group interviews only reflects one particular kind of bullying situation. The design of the vignette is important for understanding how the interviewed pupils interpreted, understood and discussed the bullying scenario and the portrayed pupils’ actions and ways of reasoning. However, the vignette was used as a means to enable in-depth discussions about a sensitive subject, and such enabling was deemed to outweigh any potential limitations associated with using the vignette. Fifthly, the vignette did not include a ‘defender’ role, which could have provided an opportunity to analytically compare similarities and differences between these different roles and the rationales connected to them. The decision not to include a ‘defender’ role was taken in light of the main aim of the study, which was to examine how pupils explain why pupils may join in bullying or opt not to intervene, despite understanding that bullying is wrong. Finally, it is important to note that asking pupils to reflect on behaviour depicted in a hypothetical vignette does not necessarily reflect how they would respond to a real-life bullying situation or how they would assess the behaviour of actual peers. It does, nonetheless, provide the opportunity for pupils to reflect over why they or their peers may engage in bullying, or refrain from intervening, without the need to morally justify or rationalise why they themselves might have acted in a particular way. In contrast to quantitative questionnaire studies, it also allows pupils the space to reflect over the potential reasoning behind bullying behaviour, without simply assuming that it is due to the bully’s desire to do harm.

Disclosure statement

There was no potential conflict of interest associated with this research.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the Swedish Research Council under Grant [D0775301]; Vetenskapsrådet [D0775301].

Notes on contributors

Joakim Strindberg

Joakim Strindberg is a PhD student in Education at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning at Linköping University, Sweden. He is especially interested in how school bullying may be understood from sociological and social-psychological perspectives. In his PhD-research, Joakim focuses particularly on how pupils themselves reason about school bullying.

Paul Horton

Paul Horton is a senior lecturer in Education at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning at Linköping University, Sweden. His current research focuses on understanding how school bullying is related to the social, institutional, cultural and historical contexts within which it occurs.

Robert Thornberg

Robert Thornberg is a professor in Education at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning at Linköping University, Sweden. His current research is on school bullying, especially with a focus on social and moral processes involved in bullying, bystander rationales, reactions and actions, and students’ perspectives and explanations.

Notes

1. See Figures 1 and 2 in the appendix.

Image of the vignette, boys.

Image of the vignette, girls.

Appendix.

Interview guide and vignettes

At the start of the focus groups interviews, the first author told the interviewed pupils that he would like them to help him gain a better understanding of bullying. The pupils were then shown a bullying vignette (see below) and were told, ‘In the picture you can see some guys/girls who are in the same class. They are in grade…., like you. Basically, all these guys/girls really think that bullying is wrong and stupid. Nevertheless, this happens in the class …’. The pupils were asked to reflect on the portrayed pupils’ actions, and to explain what they thought each of the portrayed pupils were thinking:

• This guy/girl (A) usually bullies the guy/girl sitting down in the picture (B). He/she does it at least a couple of times every week. How can it happen, do you think, that he/she does so even though he/she basically thinks that bullying is wrong? What do you think he’s/she’s thinking?

• This guy/girl (C) joins the other guy/girl and he/she also starts to bully the guy/girl sitting down. How can it happen, do you think, that he/she does so even though he/she basically thinks that bullying is wrong? What do you think he’s/she’s thinking?

• This guy/girl (D) is standing beside, watching the bullying. He/she laughs and cheers at those who bully the guy/girl. How can it happen, do you think, that he/she does so even though he/she basically thinks that bullying is wrong? What do you think he’s/she’s thinking?

• This guy/girl (E) also sees what’s happening. He/she does nothing special, but stands in the background and remains quiet. How can it happen, do you think, that he/she does so even though he/she basically thinks that bullying is wrong? What do you think he’s/she’s thinking? (If he/she feels that he/she doesn’t care – What do you think he’s/she’s thinking then?)

• This guy/girl (F) also sees what’s happening. He/she does nothing special, but leaves the situation, without helping the guy/girl (B). How can it happen, do you think, that he/she does so even though he/she basically thinks that bullying is wrong? What do you think he’s/she’s thinking? (If he/she feels that he/she doesn’t care – What do you think he’s/she’s thinking then?)