2 Peer-victimisation in preschool

Claire P. Monks

There is an extensive body of research which has examined the bullying behaviours of schoolchildren during middle childhood and adolescence (see Smith, Chapter 3). Fewer studies have focused on children during preschool/kindergarten (between the ages of three and six years in most Western countries). Preschool settings may vary considerably within and between countries and attendance at preschool is not compulsory in most countries. However, according to UNICEF (2008), in developed countries, approximately 80 per cent of children in this age range spend some time in out-of-home child-care settings. Therefore, it is clearly important to explore the development of children’s relationships with peers (including peer-victimisation) at this point.

The comparative lack of research with preschoolers is probably a reflection of the methods used to ask about bullying, which, in the main, have employed anonymous self-report questionnaires (e.g. the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire), and which are inappropriate for use with young children because of their more limited reading and writing skills. During the last decade, researchers have developed new methods of finding out about bullying and have begun to investigate these behaviours among younger children. Researching these behaviours among children during preschool/kindergarten (when their first peer-relations may develop) may provide insights into the ways in which peer-victimisation develops and provide us with methods of dealing with it early on, before it becomes an established part of a child’s social repertoire.

This chapter will describe the nature and extent of peer-victimisation in preschool. In particular, it will focus on the differences and similarities between behaviours exhibited during the preschool years and behaviours reported later on in childhood. It will then go on to examine some of the correlates of aggressive and victimised status, including peer-relations, family factors and individual differences. Implications and suggestions for interventions and future research directions will be proposed.

Nature and extent

Researchers in different continents, including Europe (e.g. Monks et al., 2005; Ortega and Monks, 2005; Perren and Alsaker, 2006; Smith and Levan, 1995), North America (e.g. Ladd and Burgess, 1999; Ostrov, 2008; Snyder et al., 2003), South America, Australasia (e.g. Russell et al., 2003) and Asia (e.g. Nelson et al., 2006; Shahim, 2008; Shin and Kim, 2008), have found that some young children behave aggressively towards their peers.

This research has shown that the aggressive behaviour exhibited by young children differs in a number of ways from that shown by children during middle childhood and adolescence. During early childhood, children are most likely to use direct forms of aggression, which occur in a face-to-face encounter and can include physically aggressive behaviours, such as hitting, kicking and pushing, and verbally aggressive behaviours, such as name-calling or threats (Monks et al., 2003). Young children may also employ relationally aggressive tactics to damage peer-relationships (e.g. Crick and Grotpeter, 1995), with the majority using direct forms of relational aggression (such as socially excluding someone by saying ‘You can’t play with us!’) as compared to indirect forms of aggression (e.g. rumour-spreading), which characteristically go on behind the victim’s back or are via a third party (Monks et al., 2003). Research in Finland has indicated that there is a developmental change in the types of aggression used by children and adolescents, with older pupils using more indirect forms of aggression (e.g. Björkqvist et al., 1992). It is thought that these are more sophisticated forms of aggression (as they may require more honed social skills on the part of the aggressor), which make it much more difficult for the aggressor to be identified (in some cases, even by the victim).

As is found among older groups, there are gender differences in the roles taken by boys and girls and the aggressive behaviours they use and experience. Boys are more likely than girls to be bully-victims (Perren and Alsaker, 2006) or aggressors (Monks et al., 2003). Crick et al. (1999) and Ostrov and Keating (2004) found that, among preschoolers, physical aggression was more commonly experienced (either as an aggressor or target) by boys and that girls were more likely to use and experience relational aggression. Perren and Alsaker (2006) used a combination of peer-and teacher-reports with a sample of Swiss five- to seven-year-olds, and noted that 8 per cent were victims, 14 per cent bully-victims and 15 per cent bullies. Using peer-reports within a UK sample of four- to six-year-olds, Monks et al. (2003) found that between 13 and 22 per cent were victims and between 22 and 25 per cent were aggressors. These findings, although providing different absolute values, suggest that more children are implicated, both as the perpetrators and targets of these behaviours, within younger groups than compared to school-aged groups (see Smith, Chapter 3). However, as a result of the differing methodologies employed, the extent of peer-aggression among preschoolers has not been directly compared with older, school-aged groups.

Smith et al. (1999) note several reasons why younger children may be more likely to be the targets of peer-aggression. First, there are more children who are older than them who could victimise them. Second, young children may not have adequate coping skills to avoid victimisation. Third, young children may ‘over-report’ bullying. Indeed, research has shown that young children have a more over-inclusive definition of bullying than older children and adults (Monks and Smith, 2006; Smith and Monks, 2008), and are more likely to consider behaviours such as fighting or where there is no intention to harm (but with a negative outcome) as bullying. This may lead to teachers/parents perceiving them as ‘over-reporting’ bullying.

There is general consensus regarding the stability of aggressive behaviour over time, with stability reported over a period of four months and one year for peer- and self-reports (Ladd and Burgess, 1999; Monks et al., 2003) and over a period of four to five months for teacher-reports and observations (Ostrov, 2008). Ladd and Burgess (1999) also report some stability of aggression over two years based on teacher-reports (from kindergarten to Grade 2; five to seven years old). In contrast, the stability of being a target of peer-victimisation is less agreed upon. Monks et al. (2003) and Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996), based on peer- and self-reports, suggest that many children are targeted briefly, but that few are repeatedly targeted over time. Further, longitudinal self-report data (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Wardrop, 2001) and observational research (Persson, 2005; Snyder et al., 2003) have found that few young children are consistently victimised by their peers. However, teacher-reports indicate some stability of the victim role over one to four or five months (Crick et al., 1997; Ostrov, 2008).

It is likely that differences in the reported stability of victimisation may be related to the different methodologies employed by researchers, with different methods contributing unique variance (Pellegrini and Bartini, 2000). Monks et al. (2003) found that four- to six-year-old children’s peer-nominations for the role of aggressor showed some agreement with teacher-reports of aggressive behaviour in their pupils, but that there was low agreement between peer- and teacher-reports for victim status. Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd (2006) found that peer- and self-reports of victimisation showed little concordance before the age of seven years. The differences in the stability reported for victim status by children and teachers may indicate differences in awareness of behaviours and/or differences in the ability to identify and report victimised behaviours. It is possible that teachers are less aware of who is victimised by peers, as it often occurs out of sight of members of staff, and it is also possible that children may be more aware of who is currently being targeted by aggressive peers and their reports may reflect the more fluid nature of peer-victimisation at this age (with few children consistently being victimised, but many experiencing transient victimisation). Alternatively, young children’s reports of victimisation may be reflecting their more limited ability to identify behaviours in their peers, in particular behaviours which may not directly impact on them personally (Ladd, 2006). Unlike an aggressive peer, a classmate who is victimised is unlikely to impact on your own experiences within preschool.

Researchers have attempted to explain the apparently low stability of victim status, but relative stability of the aggressor role as reported by data from peers and observations. It has been suggested that initially on entering the peer-group some children may behave aggressively towards a variety of peers in an indiscriminate way. It may take some time before they identify the most ‘rewarding’ victims (children who may not defend themselves effectively) and limit their aggression to them (Perry et al., 1990). Additionally, Hanish and Guerra (2000) have noted that young children find it more difficult than older children to identify withdrawn behaviours in their peers, and so young aggressors may find it a challenge to identify victims who are less able to defend themselves successfully. Furthermore, Schäfer et al. (2005) noted that the dominance hierarchies within classrooms during the early years of school are less stable than those found in older groups, which could mean that younger victims may find it easier to ‘escape’ further victimisation and the label of ‘victim’.

This raises the issue of whether we can call this behaviour ‘bullying’. As mentioned in Chapter 1, ‘bullying’ is generally taken by researchers to mean an intentional aggressive behaviour, which involves an imbalance of power between the aggressor and victim and is repeated over time (e.g. Farrington, 1993). However, this repetition does not appear to be present among younger children. This has led some researchers to suggest that, although these behaviours may be indicative of behaviours which may later become ‘bullying’, we cannot call them such during preschool (Monks et al., 2003). Researchers have used terms such as ‘unjustified aggression’ (Ortega and Monks, 2005) or ‘peer-victimisation’ (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Wardrop, 2001) to describe peer-directed aggression in preschool.

Important research in Finland with adolescents (Salmivalli et al., 1996) indicated that bullying is rarely a dyadic interaction between bully and victim, and often includes other children in roles which may support (either directly or indirectly) or counter the bullying (see Smith, Chapter 3, for more on this research with school-aged pupils). Research which has examined whether peer-victimisation during the preschool period can be described as a ‘group process’ has suggested that this is unlikely. Monks et al. (2002) found that few children were identified using peer-, teacher- or self-nominations as taking the more ‘peripheral’ roles in peer-aggression (such as assisting or encouraging the aggressor). This may relate to the nature of children’s peer-relations during the period between three and six years. Children’s friendship groups are less stable at this age than is found among older groups, which suggests that these supporting roles in aggression may become more apparent as the dynamics of children’s social interactions become more established (Smith and Monks, 2005).

Risk factors

Studies with older pupils have identified some risk factors for involvement in bullying, and researchers working with preschoolers have also explored these factors in relation to involvement in peer-victimisation, either as an aggressor or victim. By examining these characteristics in early childhood, we may learn more about what might place children at risk of involvement in peer-victimisation early on. Additionally, by focusing on preschoolers we may then be able to pull apart some cause and effect variables, which will be more difficult to distinguish once these patterns of behaviour become more established. By understanding these we will be better placed to develop age-appropriate intervention and prevention programmes with young children.

The characteristics explored by researchers have included family factors, peer-relations and social-cognitive abilities. Based on the research reviewed earlier regarding the relative stability of the role of aggressor, it would be suggested that aggressive preschoolers may show some similarities to those who are aggressive at school age. However, if there is low stability of the role of victim, this implies that the majority of children who are identified as victims in preschool will experience this transiently and it would be less likely that they would exhibit similar characteristics to their older counterparts.

Family factors

The family is often the first socialisation environment a child experiences and is thought to have an influence on the ways in which children develop social skills. The research in this area has focused on the impact of attachment on involvement in peer–victimisation, parenting styles and exposure to family conflict.

Aggression and attachment

A substantial body of research has looked at the link between attachment quality and aggression with peers among older groups. Early avoidant attachment has been found to be related to later hostility and aggressive relationships (e.g. Bost et al., 1998). Attachment theory would suggest that the attachment formed with the primary caregiver (usually a parent) provides the child with a template (or ‘internal working model’) for future relationships. A child with an insecure attachment may be more at risk of responding to others insecurely, displaying hostility and aggression or withdrawal (e.g. Bowlby, 1973).

Troy and Sroufe (1987) used contrived play settings with four-and five-year-old children and found that those who were bullies in these play settings were more likely to be insecurely attached (based on assessments using the Strange Situation at 18 months). Monks et al. (2005) found, in a group of four- to six-year-olds, that more aggressors than victims or defenders were identified as being insecurely attached as assessed concurrently using the Separation Anxiety Test (although this difference did not reach significance). They found that 36.8 per cent of aggressors, 60.0 per cent of defenders and 66.7 per cent of victims were securely attached. Casas et al. (2006) also examined attachment security of the preschoolers in relation to relational and physical aggression. They found complex relationships between attachment security and aggression dependent on the gender of child and parent. Boys who were physically aggressive were less likely to be insecurely attached, whereas girls who were physically aggressive were more likely to be insecurely attached to their mother (but not their father). With regard to relational aggression, girls who were relationally aggressive were more likely to be insecurely attached to their mother, and relationally aggressive boys were more likely to have an insecure attachment to their father. Casas et al. do not provide firm conclusions to account for these findings, but do note that it is clearly important to consider gender in studies of the effects of family relationships.

A longitudinal study in Switzerland examining the relationship between children’s parental representations and their behaviour (Stadelmann et al., 2007) found that there was a relationship between parental representations and children’s conduct problems and prosocial behaviour. They found that negative representations of the parent at age five were predictive of later conduct problems (including externalising behaviour), and that positive representations of the parent were linked to later prosocial behaviour. However, they did not look directly at bully/victim status and did not examine the behaviour of the children at age five in relation to their representations of their parents.

Other researchers have looked at the relationship between disorganised (D) patterns of attachment and early aggressive behaviour. Shaw et al. (1996) found that disorganised attachment at 12 months and maternal perceptions of the child as ‘difficult’ during their second year were related to disruptive behaviour at the age of five. Children with both of these risk factors showed significantly more aggressive problems as preschoolers than those with only one risk factor. Moss et al. (1996) reported that children classified as D were more likely to be perceived by teachers as having behaviour problems than their secure peers, both at the time of the assessment and two years beforehand. Moss et al. have put forward a theoretical link between this pattern of attachment and externalising behaviour problems. This association takes the form of the child focusing on controlling non-reciprocal behaviour patterns in an attempt to bring some kind of stability to their world.

Aggression and parenting styles

Parenting styles are thought to have the potential to influence children’s behaviour; that is, with the child learning from their parents’ behaviour how to act in social situations (e.g. Bandura, 1973). Parenting may also reinforce antisocial or aggressive behaviours, explicitly by rewarding the child for aggressive acts, or implicitly by ignoring aggressive behaviour by the child and thereby being seen by the child as condoning it (e.g. Baldry, 2003). Paterson and Sanson (1999) also note that a child on the receiving end of harsh and power-assertive parenting may react with anger and frustration, which could lead to aggressive behaviour with peers. They found that, among a group of five- to six-year-olds in Australia, externalising behaviour (including aggression) was related to an interaction between inflexibility in the child’s temperament and parental punitiveness. They suggest that a child who has an inflexible temperament may be more at risk from punitive parenting and may be more inclined to ‘act out’ when faced with punishment from the parent.

More recent studies have made the distinction between relational and overt aggression in relation to parenting practices. Nelson and Crick (2002) have suggested that parents’ use of psychological control techniques with their children, such as love withdrawal (‘if you don’t do what I say, I won’t love you anymore’) or erratic emotional behaviour, show similarities to relational aggression among children and adolescents – with both involving the manipulation of relationships.

Additionally, there may be sex differences in the parenting styles which are related to aggression in children. Using Baumrind’s (1967) classification of parenting styles, Casas et al. (2006) found that there were complex interactions between the sex of child, sex of parent and type of parenting predictive of aggression in the child. They found that for boys, relational aggression was predicted by maternal permissiveness and paternal authoritarianism, whereas, for girls, use of authoritarian types of parenting by both parents or maternal permissiveness were predictive of relational aggression. Further, for girls, lower levels of physical aggression were related to maternal authoritative parenting (for boys, this was less clear-cut). However, for both boys and girls, psychological control was related to each type of aggression.

Within a Chinese preschool sample of five year olds, Nelson et al. (2006) found physically coercive parenting was related to aggressive behaviour by boys and psychologically coercive parenting was related to aggressive behaviour by girls. They note that these types of parenting are related to both physical and relational aggression in the children. Although a specificity hypothesis might suggest that physically coercive parenting would be linked to physical aggression and that psychologically coercive aggression might be linked to relational aggression, this was not found to be the case. Nelson et al. suggest that boys and girls may be more sensitive to different forms of aversive parenting and that psychologically coercive parenting is similar to relational aggression between peers. Previous studies have found that relational aggression is reported as being more upsetting to girls than to boys, and Nelson et al. postulate that this may also hold true for the parent–child interaction, with this type of parenting being more likely to result in aggression of any type in girls. In contrast, they note that boys are more concerned by physical dominance within the peer-group and suggest that physical aggression would be more upsetting to boys and physically coercive parenting may be more provocative to boys and have a more negative influence on their behaviour.

Russell et al. (2003) looked at parenting practices and preschooler aggression in Australia and the USA. They confirmed previous findings that girls were more relationally aggressive and that boys were more physically aggressive and also found differences in the types of parenting received by boys and girls; boys received more authoritarian parenting and girls more authoritative parenting. They suggest that, from this type of parenting, girls might pick up a focus on relationships. This may be a positive thing, leading girls to be more prosocial (as found by this and other studies), but this focus on relationships may also lead to relational forms of aggression. For boys, the type of aversive parenting they experienced had more of a focus on physical coercion and was more punitive, which might lead to physical aggression.

Other studies have highlighted cultural differences in parenting practices (e.g. Deater-Deckard and Dodge, 1997), leading researchers to explore the links between parenting and child aggression in different cultures. Deater-Deckard and Dodge examined the relationship between the use of physical punishment by parents and the child’s level of externalising behaviours (as rated by teachers). They found that there was a consistently positive and significant correlation between the extent to which parents used physical discipline and child externalising behaviours (including aggression) within a European-American sample from kindergarten to Grade 6. However, the correlation between the two variables did not reach significance in an African-American sample. They suggest that these findings may relate to the different views of the use of physical discipline in the two cultures and propose the ‘misfit’ hypothesis in an attempt to account for this. They note that, in a culture where physical discipline is deemed as a ‘normal’ part of parenting, it is less likely to be viewed by the child as signifying hostility or rejection on the part of the parent, and, therefore, may be less likely to lead to negative child outcomes. Additionally, they suggest that, in cultures where physical discipline is an accepted form of parenting, parents within this culture who use it may be doing so in a controlled and reasoned manner. Whereas, when it is used in a culture which generally frowns upon its use, it may reflect parenting that is ‘out-of-control’.

However, some authors have suggested that what is important in affecting child behaviour is the child’s interpretation of the parenting and whether they perceive the parenting as a rejection by the parent, rather than the particular parenting style per se (Khaleque and Rohner, 2002). They argue that the association between perceived rejection and child aggression should be demonstrable across cultures. So, there may be some subtle cultural variations in parenting, but the key negative factor would be rejecting parenting. Nevertheless, Nelson et al. (2006) found that physical punishment by parents is related to aggression in children even in cultures where it is seen as a ‘good’ form of parenting (and so not rejecting). Lansford et al. (2005) examined the relationship between child aggression and parental use of physical discipline in a number of countries where the normativeness of the use of physical discipline varied. They found in all countries that there was a relationship between the use of physical discipline and aggression in children, but that this was weaker (yet still significant) in countries where its use was seen as more normative.

Aggression and family conflict

In addition to examining attachment quality and parenting styles, researchers have also looked at the impact of exposure to conflict (either parent–parent or parent–child) within the home. In a stringently controlled study (controlling for potentially confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, violence within the community and maternal life stressors), Ybarra et al. (2007) reported that preschoolers who were exposed to domestic violence did not show high levels of externalising behaviours, but rather exhibited internalising behaviours. Schwartz et al. (1997), in a study focused on adult aggression and conflict (rather than domestic violence), found links between early exposure to these behaviours during the preschool period and later aggressive behaviour. In their longitudinal study of boys, following them from the age of five years for four to five years, they reported that aggressors at age nine to ten years were more likely to have been exposed to adult aggression and conflict, but were unlikely to have been the targets of that aggression. However, this study did not examine the links between exposure to interparental aggression and aggression displayed by the child during preschool.

Ostrov and Bishop (2008) used a combination of observations, teacher and parent reports and found that parent–child conflict was linked to relational and not physical aggression by the child. They suggested that perhaps parent–child interactions are more focused on relationships rather than on instrumental goals, and that this gives the child more insight into relational rather than physical forms of aggression. However, as with other cross-sectional studies, it is important to note that the parent–child conflict may predate the child’s relational aggression but, equally, it could be that the relational aggression exhibited by the child may be a trigger for parent–child conflict.

Taken together, these findings suggest that there may be important effects of attachment, parenting and conflict within the family on children’s aggressive behaviour. There may be gender-specific pathways, with girls being more affected by psychological control and boys by physical coercion. Many of the studies, particularly those examining the impact of conflict, have been cross-sectional in design, making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the direction of the relations; does conflict cause child aggression or does child aggression precipitate conflict? Controlled, longitudinal studies are needed to explore this further.

Victims and family factors

There has been less focus on the families of those children who are victimised by their peers during preschool. Schwartz et al. (2000) carried out two longitudinal studies into the relationship between parenting factors and victimisation by peers. They confirmed the link between early harsh environment and later victimisation but additionally found that friendship moderated the link between parenting and victimisation. Those children who had few friends and had experienced an earlier harsh environment were at risk of victimisation by peers. In contrast, those who had experienced earlier difficulties in their home, but had friends, were less likely to be victimised. Schwartz et al. suggested that it could be that having friends helped children to develop social competencies which they may otherwise have lacked and would have left them more vulnerable to peer-victimisation. Alternatively, it could be that having friends is a ‘marker’, indicating resilience in these children to experiencing a difficult background. However, this research explored the relationship between family factors prior to entering kindergarten with behaviour during Grades 2 or 3 (ages eight or nine years). The studies did not examine the relationship between family factors and victimisation in preschool.

If victim status during preschool is not a stable experience for many children, then we would expect that most children identified as ‘victims’ at this age would not show the same vulnerabilities as older victims. Research with older children has found that children who are victimised by their peers are more likely to be insecurely attached to their caregivers. Attachment theory would suggest that insecure attachment would mean that children may respond to their peers with hostility (aggression) or by withdrawing (perhaps leaving them open to victimisation). Monks et al. (2005) found that young victims, aged four to six years, did not show this pattern of insecurity, with the majority, around two-thirds, showing secure attachments with their primary caregivers. However, Troy and Sroufe (1987) found that victims in their sample of four- to six-year-olds were more likely to be insecurely attached. This difference may be related to the different methodologies used; Troy and Sroufe (1987) used contrived play settings to identify whether children were bullies or victims, whereas Monks et al. (2005) used nominations of their behaviour by classmates. The use of contrived play settings by Troy and Sroufe may have identified those children who are particularly at risk of peer-victimisation in a very brief peer-interaction. In contrast, the use of peer-nominations in the research by Monks et al. may have identified the large and varied group of children who actually experience victimisation in the peer-group over a longer period of exposure in a more naturalistic setting.

Peer-relations

As well as examining family relationships in relation to peer-aggression, researchers have explored the role of relationships with peers. One of the most commonly used methods of assessing children’s peer-relations has been the sociometric nomination procedure developed by Coie et al. (1982). This involves each child identifying the three classmates they ‘like most’ and the three classmates they ‘like least’. Using this method, it is possible to assign most children to one of five sociometric status groups: popular, average, rejected, neglected (not nominated as like most or like least) and controversial (highly liked by some and highly disliked by others).

Aggression and peer-relations

Wood et al. (2004) highlighted that at age four to five years, externalising behaviour was positively correlated with peer-rejection, indicating that those who exhibited higher levels of externalising behaviour were more rejected by their classmates. Slaughter et al. (2002) noted that, when age and IQ were partialled out, social preference was negatively correlated with aggression and positively correlated with prosocial behaviour among four- to six-year-olds. Ladd and Burgess (1999) found that aggressive behaviour during the first years of school (ages five to seven) was related to relationship problems, including low peer-acceptance and higher levels of teacher–child conflict. Ladd and Burgess (2001) reported significant positive correlations between aggression and peer-rejection during kindergarten (ages five to six), rs = 0.33 (autumn), 0.44 (spring) and Grade 1 (ages six to seven), 0.34 (spring).

Wood et al. (2002) found that rejection by peers was related to noncompliant behaviours, hyperactivity and withdrawal among preschoolers. They propose that children’s behaviour problems may place them at risk of being rejected by classmates – as these behaviours may make them less appealing playmates. However, their study was cross-sectional in design and it is possible that rejection by peers may lead to or indeed exacerbate behaviour problems.

Monks et al. (2003) and Ortega and Monks (2006) showed that preschool aggressors in England and Spain were likely to be socially rejected by their classmates. It is perhaps not surprising that very young children view peer-aggressors negatively. At this age there is a general consensus among children that aggressive behaviour towards others is ‘wrong’ (Huesmann and Guerra, 1997). This would suggest that young aggressive children may be socially rejected by their classmates as a consequence of their behaviour or that social rejection may result in this aggressive behaviour (if no one likes me, why should I be nice to them?) or exacerbate an existing behaviour problem. However, this study was also cross-sectional and firm conclusions regarding causality could not be drawn.

In order to examine this link, Keane and Calkins (2004) obtained parental reports of children’s behaviours before they started school (at ages two and four years) and looked at these in relation to their behaviour at school and peer-status with classmates (at age five years). They found that externalising behaviours prior to school entry predicted aggressive behaviours in school. They additionally found that there was a link (for boys only) between externalising behaviours before starting school and peer-rejection at school, but that this was mediated by current aggressive behaviour. These findings suggest that it is the aggressive behaviour that leads to peer-rejection, although they do not rule out a cyclical effect of peer-rejection leading to further aggression.

The existence of a cyclical relationship between peer-rejection and aggression was supported by Dodge et al. (2003). They examined the relationship between aggression and social rejection between the ages of five and eight years. As later confirmed by Keane and Calkins (2004), they found that aggression was related significantly to social rejection. In addition, they report that peer-rejection led to an increase in aggressive behaviour among children who were already aggressive. In contrast, it did not have that effect for children who were not initially aggressive. Taken together, these results suggest that peer-rejection is a particular risk for aggressive children, which may result in them displaying increased levels of aggressive behaviour during the early years of school.

Braza et al. (2007) looked at the relation between sociometric status and behaviour from the opposite direction. They made observations of preschool children who had been identified as having different sociometric statuses within the peer-group, examining their social behaviours with others, in particular, their aggression, sociability and involvement in hierarchical play. They found that popular children showed high levels of sociability with peers, but lower levels of aggression in their interactions, and spent more time engaged in hierarchical play. In contrast, rejected children were less sociable, and displayed higher levels of aggression in their interactions with peers and were less likely to be involved in hierarchical play. They suggest that this may reflect children’s standing within the dominance hierarchy of the class and proposed that popular children are already at a high level within the dominance hierarchy and do not need to use aggressive strategies to promote their social standing. These popular children instead settle any dominance struggles through the use of hierarchical play. In contrast, rejected children may be trying to better their social standing within the peer-group through the use of aggressive strategies.

Research has also explored the link between relational aggression and peer-status in preschoolers (Crick et al., 1997). They found that girls who were relationally aggressive were more likely to be socially rejected by peers. Ostrov et al. (2006) confirmed the relationship between relational aggression and peer-rejection in an observational study, but noted that relational assertion (manipulating relationships for gain, without harm, hostility or anger), e.g. ‘Because I said so!’, was related to later popularity. Although generally it has been found that young aggressors tend to be socially rejected, Hawley (2002, 2003) has noted that, in situations of resource competition, a strategy which involves both prosocial and coercive patterns (children Hawley calls ‘bistrategic controllers’) can enhance a child’s social dominance within preschool groups. She found that children who used this strategy were liked by other children. However, those children who used solely coercive patterns did not show this peer-popularity.

Roseth et al. (2007) examined the relationships of aggressive preschoolers using observational methods. They found that, across the school year, the use of aggression decreased. They suggest that this is because children, when they first join a new class, are jostling for social position, and use aggressive means in some cases. The use of aggression was related to social dominance, and children who are socially dominant do not just use aggression more frequently than others, but also use it more effectively, switching between aggressive and affiliative strategies (much like Hawley’s ‘bistrategic controllers’ (Hawley 2002, 2003)).

In this way, we can see that some children who make use of aggressive strategies in their interactions with peers are still popular. What is important, and highlighted by both Roseth et al. (2007) and Hawley (2003), is that these children are using aggressive tactics selectively and in a socially skilled way. Those who rely solely on aggressive strategies, rather than balancing them with prosocial behaviours, were found to be more disliked than others (Hawley, 2003).

Beyond the influence of sociometric status, other researchers have looked at loneliness and the friendships of children in relation to their behaviour with peers. Coplan et al. (2007) examined the correlates of loneliness among preschoolers and note that this is related to, but not identical to, social rejection. Loneliness was related to more anxiety, more aggression and increased peer exclusion. They suggest that lonely preschoolers may be a heterogeneous group, with some being anxious and lonely and others aggressive and lonely. Sebanc (2003) noted that preschool children (aged between three and five years) who had friends were more prosocial, more socially accepted and less socially rejected than those children who were friendless. In addition, when she examined the quality of these friendships, she found that these were related to children’s social behaviour with peers more generally. Support within the friendship was positively correlated with prosocial behaviour and exclusivity/intimacy within the friendship was positively related to relational aggression and negatively related to social acceptance. Conflict within the friendship was related to both overt aggression and relational aggression, as well as higher levels of social rejection.

Overall, these findings indicate that the majority of preschool aggressors tend to be socially rejected by their classmates, but that some who use aggression selectively and in a socially skilled way may be socially dominant children who are popular with other children.

Victims and peer-relations

In relation to peer-victimisation, it would be expected that social isolation may place a child at risk of peer-victimisation (as Hodges et al. (1997) have found among older groups that friends can have a protective function against victimisation) and that the experience of victimisation may lead to a child becoming further isolated. However, the low stability of victimisation at this age may mean that we might not be able to see any differences between victims and non-victims as most children may experience victimisation fleetingly. This was confirmed by the findings of Monks et al. (2002, 2005) with preschoolers in England and Spain, who found that peer-identified young victims tended to be of average sociometric status. However, Perren and Alsaker (2006) showed that teacher-nominated victims were of lower sociometric status. This difference in findings may highlight the differences between peer- and teacher-reports, as discussed earlier.

Social cognition

Much of the research exploring individual difference factors in relation to social behaviour, including aggressive and withdrawn behaviours, has focused on social-cognitive abilities, including theory of mind, understanding emotions and empathy. The preschool period (between three and six years) is an interesting age on which to focus as children are developing many of these skills rapidly during the preschool period.

Aggressors and social-cognitive abilities

Hughes and Leekam (2004) note that theory of mind ability, often assessed by false belief (FB) tasks, may influence, and be influenced by, social relations. They note that theory of mind can have a positive, neutral or negative relationship to socially desirable behaviour. Hay et al. (2004) suggest that problems in social understanding, executive function and regulating emotion can lead to aggression and a lack of prosocial skills, which in turn lead to problems in peer-acceptance. Among older children, ringleader bullies have been shown to exhibit superior theory of mind abilities (e.g. Sutton et al., 1999). It has been suggested that these skills may enable them to manipulate others, supported by the finding that social intelligence is positive correlated with indirect aggression (Kaukianen et al., 1999).

Monks et al. (2005) examined the relationship between preschool aggressive behaviour towards peers and FB performance. They found that aggression was not related to superior performance on theory of mind and that, in fact, aggressive children tended to score slightly lower (although not significantly) than other children. They suggest that the disparity with the findings of Sutton et al. (1999) may reflect the developing nature of peer-victimisation during early childhood. Types of aggression used by young children tend to be direct in nature, and these forms of aggression are only weakly related to social cognition (e.g. Kaukiainen et al., 1999). Additionally, the group nature of peer-victimisation appears to differ in preschool classes, with few children taking on the more peripheral roles of assistant to the bully and reinforcer. This may mean that peer-victimisation at this age is less reliant on good social-cognitive abilities, as it is not as important to be able to organise a gang of ‘followers’. Monks et al. (2005) suggest a developmental change theory whereby children who are aggressive may develop their social skills through their aggressive interactions with peers, which could account for the advantage seen by older bullies. It is proposed that young aggressors may not be socially skilled initially, but, through their conflicts with other children, may develop skills in manipulating and deceiving others. Other researchers have found that exposure to social interactions (including conflict) is related to superior performance on tasks assessing social cognition (e.g. Foote and Holmes-Lonergan, 2003).

Diesendruck and Ben-Eliyahu (2006) looked at emotion understanding and theory of mind in relation to Israeli preschoolers’ (aged four to six years) aggressive and prosocial behaviour. Here, aggressive children did not have poor FB understanding, but did perform poorly on tasks assessing emotion understanding in others. In contrast, prosocial children were found to perform highly on tasks assessing false belief and emotion understanding.

Strayer (2004) placed five-year-old children in small groups with peers they did not know and examined the link between children’s aggressive and prosocial behaviour with their empathy. Strayer examined affective empathy, which involves feeling for the other individual and experiencing the same or a similar emotion in response. She found that empathy showed a negative relationship with aggressive behaviour and anger within the peer-settings, but it had a positive relation with prosocial behaviour. However, it is possible that this low level of empathy may enable children to behave aggressively without the negative feelings this may entail in others, or their limited social interactions may affect the development of empathy in aggressive children.

Victims and social cognition

Research with older children has indicated that the victims of bullying have poorer theory of mind abilities (e.g. Sutton et al., 1999), which may place children at risk of misreading others’ intentions and therefore being more vulnerable to victimisation by aggressive peers. Research examining the characteristics of children victimised during preschool has found that, as a group, young victims do not fit this profile (Monks et al., 2005). This, again, may be a reflection of the finding that few children are repeatedly victimised at this age and it may not be until children are older that aggressive children repeatedly target others who may be less capable of defending themselves.

Summary of chapter

The research reviewed in this chapter, based on work in a variety of developed countries worldwide, has indicated that some young preschool or kindergarten children behave aggressively towards their peers. However, it appears that peer-victimisation during early childhood differs from ‘bullying’ seen in later childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Although some children appear to behave aggressively towards their peers at this age, they do not appear to target the same few individuals repeatedly, but rather focus their aggression on a wide variety of classmates. Additionally, unlike research with older children, it appears that peer-victimisation during preschool is less of a group process and more likely a dyadic interaction between aggressor and victim. Few children tend to be identified as ‘supporting’ (either actively or passively) the aggressive behaviour of others. Furthermore, the aggressive behaviours exhibited by young children tie in with previous research on developmental trends in aggression among older children. Overall, young children use a variety of different types of aggressive behaviour towards peers, including verbal, physical and relational, yet their aggression tends to take place in face-to-face encounters, rather than indirectly.

These findings indicate that a traditional definition of ‘bullying’ from a school or working context is not seen among preschool-aged children. However, the aggressive behaviour we see at this age may be the early development of this behaviour for some children. It may well be the case that, with age, these behaviours become more focused on those peers who are perceived as being more ‘vulnerable’, and that, with time, other children take on these roles which are more ‘supportive’ of aggression.

The finding that aggressive individuals exhibit similar characteristics to older bullies (in terms of attachment, parenting styles and exposure to conflict) suggests that this group of aggressive children may contain some of those who go on to bully others later in school. Their harsher backgrounds may place them at risk for behaving aggressively as a result of social learning, implicit or explicit rewards from parents for aggressive behaviour or as a frustrated response to a difficult home-background. That aggressive preschoolers have poor emotion understanding and do not show any superiority of theory of mind, whereas older bullies show superior theory of mind abilities, suggests a developmental shift. Children may develop superior theory of mind and social understanding through these acts of aggression, so by middle childhood their higher levels of exposure to peer-related conflicts may have promoted the development of their social understanding (Monks et al., 2005).

In general, preschool victims do not, as a group, appear to exhibit similar characteristics to older victims, such as insecure attachments, peer-rejection and poor social-cognitive abilities. However, this does appear to be related to the methodology employed to find out about this role (e.g. Monks et al., 2010), with teacher-identified victims being more similar to older victims and peer- or self-identified victims tending to be indistinguishable from others. This ties in with the finding from peer- and self-reports and observations that the role of victim during this period is less stable than among older groups.

Much research in this area has focused on the relationship between family factors and peer-aggression, indicating that the family environment may have an important impact on children’s subsequent behaviour with peers. This has been postulated as working through a number of processes, such as attachment theory, coercion theory and social learning theory.

However, it is important to keep in mind the mainly correlational nature of the research reviewed above. It is possible that the characteristics highlighted in the literature place children at risk of becoming involved in peer-victimisation during the preschool period. However, it is also feasible in many of the cases that involvement in peer-victimisation may have an impact on these characteristics. For example, parenting and peer relations may influence and may be influenced by a child’s behaviour. Furthermore, the development of social-cognitive abilities may influence children’s behaviours but, additionally, children’s behaviour may affect their opportunities to develop social-cognitive skills.

Implications for interventions and future research

Based on the findings reviewed within this chapter it is clear that intervention and prevention work to limit peer-victimisation needs to begin in preschool. Smith et al. (2004) concluded that intervention is required early, before these negative patterns of interaction are established. Additionally, the finding that family factors are implicated suggests that we need to involve families in this intervention and prevention work. There is a growing body of research on preschool peer-victimisation, but our knowledge in this area is still limited. In particular, carefully controlled longitudinal studies are needed to attempt to identify the risk factors for becoming a stable victim in order to inform the development of programmes to help children to avoid repeated victimisation. In addition, the finding that peer-victimisation does not appear to be a group process among younger children has implications for intervention work. Young children may be more amenable to intervention work and may have less invested in supporting peer-victimisation. Further research is required into this, in order to examine how, and at what point, the ‘supporting’ roles appear within peer-victimisation.

References

Baldry, A.C. (2003). ‘Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence’. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27: 713–32.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baumrind, D. (1967). ‘Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior’. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75: 43–88.

Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M. and Kaukiainen, A. (1992). ‘Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression’. Aggressive Behavior, 18: 117–27.

Bost, K.K., Vaughn, B.E., Newell-Washington, W., Ciclinski, K.L. and Bradbard, M.R. (1998). ‘Social competence, social support, and attachment: demarcation of construct domains, measurement, and paths of influence for preschool children attending head start’. Child Development, 69: 192–218.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss, vol. II, Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books.

Braza, F., Braza, P., Carreras, M.R., Muñoz, J.M., Sánchez-Marín, J.R., Azurmendi, A., Sorozabal, A., García, A. and Cardas, J. (2007). ‘Behavioral profiles of different types of social status in preschool children: an observational approach’. Social Behavior and Personality, 35: 195–212.

Casas, J.F., Weigel, S.M., Crick, N.R., Ostrov, J.M., Woods, K.E., Jansen Yeh, E.A. and Huddleston-Casas, C.A. (2006). ‘Early parenting and children’s relational and physical aggression in the preschool and home contexts’. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27: 209–27.

Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. and Coppotelli, H. (1982). ‘Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective’. Developmental Psychology, 18: 557–70.

Coplan, R.J., Closson, L.M. and Arbeau, K.A. (2007). ‘Gender differences in the behavioural associates of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in kindergarten’. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48: 988–95.

Crick, N.R. and Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). ‘Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological adjustment’. Child Development, 66: 710–22.

Crick, N.R., Casas, J.F. and Ku, H. (1999). ‘Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool’. Developmental Psychology, 35: 376–85.

Crick, N.R., Casas, J.F. and Mosher, M. (1997). ‘Relational and overt aggression in preschool’. Developmental Psychology, 33: 579–88.

Deater-Deckard, K. and Dodge, K.A. (1997). ‘Externalising behaviour problems and discipline revisited: nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context and gender’. Psychological Inquiry, 8: 161–75.

Diesendruck, G. and Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2006). ‘The relationships among social cognition, peer acceptance, and social behavior in Israeli kindergartners’. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30: 137–47.

Dodge, K.A., Lansford, J.E., Salzer Burks, V., Bates, J.E., Pettit, G.S., Fontaine, R. and Price, J.M. (2003). ‘Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children’. Child Development, 74: 374–93.

Farrington, D.P. (1993). ‘Understanding and preventing bullying’. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foote, R.C. and Holmes-Lonergan, H.A. (2003). ‘Sibling conflict and theory of mind’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21: 45–58.

Hanish L.D. and Guerra N.G. (2000). ‘Predictors of peer-victimisation among urban youth’. Social Development, 9: 521–43.

Hawley, P.H. (2002). ‘Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of resource control in preschoolers’. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26: 167–76.

Hawley, P.H. (2003). ‘Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: a case for the well-adapted Machiavellian’. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49: 279–309.

Hay, D.F., Payne, A. and Chadwick, A. (2004). ‘Peer relations in childhood’. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45: 84–108.

Hodges, E.V.E., Malone, M.J. and Perry, D.G. (1997). ‘Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimisation in the peer group’. Developmental Psychology, 33: 1032–39.

Huesmann, L.R. and Guerra, N.G. (1997). ‘Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behaviour’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 408–19.

Hughes, C. and Leekam, S. (2004). ‘What are the links between theory of mind and social relations? Review, reflections and new directions of studies of typical and atypical development’. Social Development, 13: 590–619.

Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Österman, K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S. and Ahlbom, A. (1999). ‘The relationship between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression’. Aggressive Behavior, 25: 81–89.

Keane, S.P. and Calkins, S.D. (2004). ‘Predicting kindergarten peer social status from toddler and preschool problem behaviour’. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32: 409–23.

Khaleque, A. and Rohner, R.P. (2002). ‘Perceived parental acceptance–rejection and psychological adjustment: a meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies’. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64: 54–64.

Kochenderfer, B.J. and Ladd, G.W. (1996). ‘Peer victimization: cause or consequence of school maladjustment?’ Child Development, 67: 1305–17.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B.J. and Wardrop, J.L. (2001). ‘Chronicity and instability of children’s peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories’. Child Development, 72: 134–51.

Ladd, G.W. (2006). ‘Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behaviour, and psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: an examination of four predictive models’. Child Development, 77: 822–46.

Ladd, G.W. and Burgess, K.B. (1999). ‘Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school’. Child Development, 70: 910–29.

Ladd, G.W. and Burgess, K.B. (1998). ‘Parenting behaviours and parent–child relationship: correlates of peer victimization in kindergarten?’ Developmental Psychology, 34: 1450–58.

Ladd, G.W. and Burgess, K.B. (2001). ‘Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment?’ Child Development, 72: 1579–601.

Ladd, G.W. and Kochenderfer-Ladd, B.J. (2006). ‘Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims’. Psychological Assessment, 14: 74–96.

Lansford, J.E., Chang, L., Dodge, K.A., Malone, P.S., Oburu, P., Palmérus, K., Bacchini, D., Pastorelli, C., Bombi, A.S., Zelli, A., Tapanya, S., Chaudhary, N., Deater-Deckard, K., Manke, B. and Quinn, N. (2005). ‘Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: cultural normativeness as a moderator’. Child Development, 76: 1234–46.

Monks, C.P. and Smith, P.K. (2006). ‘Definitions of “bullying”: age differences in understanding of the term, and the role of experience’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24: 801–21.

Monks, C.P., Ortega, R. and Torrado, E. (2002). ‘Unjustified aggression in a Spanish pre-school’. Aggressive Behavior, 28: 458–76.

Monks, C.P., Smith, P.K. and Swettenham, J. (2003). ‘Aggressors, victims and defenders in preschool: peer, self and teacher reports’. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49: 453–69.

Monks, C.P., Smith, P.K. and Swettenham, J. (2005). ‘The psychological correlates of peer victimisation in preschool: social cognitive skills, executive function and attachment profiles’. Aggressive Behavior, 31: 571–88.

Monks, C.P., Palermiti, A., Ortega, R. and Costabile, A. (2010). ‘Peer-victimisation in preschools: a cross-national comparison of England, Spain and Italy’. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13 (2):

Moss, E., Parent, S., Gosselin, C., Rosseau, D. and St-Laurent, D. (1996). ‘Attachment and teacher-reported behaviour problems during the preschool and early school-age period’. Development and Psychopathology, 8: 511–25.

Nelson, D.A. and Crick, N.R. (2002). ‘Parental psychological control: implications for childhood physical and relational aggression’. In B.K. Barber (ed.), Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents. (pp. 168–89). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Nelson, D.A., Hart, C.A., Yang, C., Olsen, J.A. and Jin, S. (2006). ‘Aversive parenting in China: associations with child physical and relational aggression’. Child Development, 77: 554–72.

Ortega, R. and Monks, C.P. (2005). ‘Agresividad injustificada entre preescolares: un estudio preliminary [Unjustified aggression between preschoolers: a preliminary study]’. Psicothema, 17: 453–58.

Ostrov, J.M. (2008). ‘Forms of aggression and peer victimisation during early childhood: a short-term longitudinal study’. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36: 311–22.

Ostrov, J.M. and Bishop, C.M. (2008). ‘Preschoolers’ aggression and parent–child conflict: a multiinformant and multimethod study’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99: 309–22.

Ostrov, J.M. and Keating, C.F. (2004). ‘Gender differences in preschool aggression during free play and structured interactions: an observational study’. Social Development, 13: 255–77.

Ostrov, J.M., Pilat, M.M. and Crick, N.R. (2006). ‘Assertion strategies and aggression during early childhood: a short-term longitudinal study’. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21: 403–16.

Paterson, G. and Sanson, A. (1999). ‘The association of behavioural adjustment to temperament, parenting and family characteristics among 5-year-old children’. Social Development, 8: 293–309.

Pellegrini, A.D. and Bartini, M. (2000). ‘An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92: 360–66.

Perren, S. and Alsaker, F.D. (2006). ‘Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten’. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47: 45–57.

Perry, D.G., Perry, L.C. and Boldizar, J.P. (1990). ‘Learning of aggression’. In M. Lewis and S. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology (pp. 135–46). New York: Plenum Press.

Persson, G.E.B. (2005). ‘Young children’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors and their experiences of being targeted for similar behaviors by peers’. Social Development, 14: 206–28.

Roseth, C.J., Pellegrini, A.D., Bohn, C.M., Van Ryzin, M. and Vance, N. (2007). ‘Preschoolers’ aggression, affiliation, and social dominance relationships: an observational, longitudinal study’. Journal of School Psychology, 45: 479–97.

Russell, A., Hart, C.H., Robinson, C.C. and Olsen, S.F. (2003). ‘Children’s sociable and aggressive behavior with peers: a comparison of the U.S. and Australia and contribution of temperament and parenting styles’. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27: 74–86.

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K. and Kaukiainen, A. (1996). ‘Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group’. Aggressive Behavior, 22: 1–15.

Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Brodbeck, F., Wolke, D. and Schulz, H. (2005). ‘Bullying roles in changing contexts: the stability of victim and bully roles from primary to secondary school’. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29: 323–35.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S. and Bates, J.E. (1997). ‘The early socialization of aggressive victims’. Child Development, 68: 665–75.

Schwartz, D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A. and Bates, J.E. (2000). ‘Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group’. Developmental Psychology, 36: 646–62.

Sebanc, A.M. (2003). ‘The friendship features of preschool children: links with prosocial behavior and aggression’. Social Development, 12: 249–68.

Shahim, S. (2008). ‘Sex differences in relational aggression in preschool children in Iran’. Psychological Reports, 102: 235–38.

Shaw, D.S., Owens, E.B., Vondra, J.I., Keenan, K. and Winslow, E.B. (1996). ‘Early risk factors and pathways in the development of early disruptive behaviour problems’. Development and Psychopathology, 8: 679–99.

Shin, Y. and Kim, H.Y. (2008). ‘Peer victimization in Korean preschool children: the effects of child characteristics, parenting behaviours and teacher–child relationships’. School Psychology International, 29: 590–605.

Slaughter, V., Dennis, M.J. and Pritchard, M. (2002). ‘Theory of mind and peer acceptance in preschool children’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20: 545–64.

Smith, P.K. and Levan, S. (1995). ‘Perceptions and experiences of bullying in younger pupils’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65: 489–500.

Smith, P.K. and Monks, C.P. (2005). ‘L’amicizia e il gioco tra coetanei in età prescolare’. In L. Genta (ed.), La Socializzazione in Età Prescolare [Friendship and Play between Preschool Peers] (pp. 57–77). Rome: Carocci.

Smith, P.K. and Monks, C.P. (2008). ‘Concepts of bullying: developmental and cultural aspects’. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20: 101–12.

Smith, P.K., Madsen, K.C. and Moody, J.C. (1999). ‘What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied’. Educational Research, 41: 267–85.

Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. and Rigby, K. (eds.) (2004). Bullying in Schools: How Effective Can Interventions Be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Snyder, J., Brooker, M., Patrick, R., Snyder, A., Schrepferman, L. and Stoolmiller, M. (2003). ‘Observed peer victimization during early elementary school: continuity, growth, and relation to risk for child antisocial and depressive behavior’. Child Development, 74: 1881–98.

Stadelmann, S., Perren, S., von Wyl, A. and von Klitzing, K. (2007). ‘Associations between family relationships and symptoms/strengths at kindergarten age: what is the role of children’s parental representations?’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48: 996–1004.

Strayer, J. (2004). ‘Empathy and observed anger and aggression in five-year-olds’. Social Development, 13: 1–13.

Sutton, J., Smith, P.K. and Swettenham, J. (1999). ‘Bullying and “theory of mind”: a critique of the “social skills deficit” view of anti-social behaviour’. Social Development, 8: 117–27.

Troy, M. and Sroufe, A.L. (1987). ‘Victimisation among preschoolers: role of attachment relationships history’. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26: 166–72.

UNICEF (2008). The Childcare Transition: A League Table on Early Childhood Education and Care in Advanced Countries. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc8_eng.pdf (accessed 20 January 2009).

Wood, J.J., Cowan, P.A. and Baker, B.L. (2002). ‘Behavior problems and peer rejection in preschool boys and girls’. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163: 72–88.

Wood, J.J., Emmerson, N.A. and Cowan, P.A. (2004). ‘Is early attachment security carried forward into relationships with preschool peers?’ British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22: 245–53.

Ybarra, G.J., Wilkens, S.L. and Lieberman, A.F. (2007). ‘The influence of domestic violence on preschooler behavior and functioning’. Journal of Family Violence, 22: 33–42.