Adolescent Bullying, Dating, and Mating: Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis

Abstract

Traditionally believed to be the result of maladaptive development, bullying perpetration is increasingly being viewed as a potentially adaptive behavior. We were interested in determining whether adolescents who bully others enjoy a key evolutionary benefit: increased dating and mating (sexual) opportunities. This hypothesis was tested in two independent samples consisting of 334 adolescents and 144 university students. The data partly supported our prediction that bullying, but not victimization, would predict dating behavior. The data for sexual behavior more clearly supported our hypothesis that bullying behavior predicts an increase in sexual opportunities even when accounting for age, sex, and self-reports of attractiveness, likeability, and peer victimization. These results are generally congruent with the hypothesis that bullying perpetration is, at least in part, an evolutionary adaptive behavior.

Full text

Article
Adolescent Bullying, Dating, and Mating:
Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis
Anthony A. Volk
1
, Andrew V. Dane
2
, Zopito A. Marini
1
,
and Tracy Vaillancourt
3
Abstract
Traditionally believed to be the result of maladaptive development, bullying perpetration is increasingly being viewed as a
potentially adaptive behavior. We were interested in determining whether adolescents who bully others enjoy a key evolutionary
benefit: increased dating and mating (sexual) opportunities. This hypothesis was tested in two independent samples consisting of
334 adolescents and 144 university students. The data partly supported our prediction that bullying, but not victimization, would
predict dating behavior. The data for sexual behavior more clearly supported our hypothesis that bullying behavior predicts an
increase in sexual opportunities even when accounting for age, sex, and self-reports of attractiveness, likeability, and peer vic-
timization. These results are generally congruent with the hypothesis that bullying perpetration is, at least in part, an evolutionary
adaptive behavior.
Keywords
bullying, evolution, dating, sex, sexual behavior
Date received: June 5, 2015; Accepted: August 23, 2015
Introduction
Bullying is a behavior that appears to peak in adolescence,
estimated to directly affect hundreds of millions of adolescents
each year, worldwide (Volk, Craig, Boyce, & King, 2006).
Examples of adolescent bullying are found in historical texts
(Hsiung, 2005), among hunter-gatherers (Briggs, 1970),
hunter-horticulturalists (Chagnon, 1983), and appears in every
modern society in which it has been measured (Craig et al.,
2009). In fact, the pervasiveness of bullying has led to sugges-
tions that bullying (as opposed to victimization or bully victi-
mization) is, at least in part, influenced by evolutionary mental
adaptations (Kolbert & Crothers, 2003; Volk, Camilleri, Dane,
& Marini, 2012). Indeed, Volk, Dane, and Marini (2014) out-
line further evidence for the adaptive nature of bullying beha-
vior and propose that bullying be defined as a goal-oriented
behavior that has theoretically evolutionarily adaptive roots.
One such goal may be to increase one’s dating and mating (sex)
opportunities. Unfortunately, relatively little is known about
the link between bullying and dating and sexual behavior
among adolescents. We therefore sought to review the evi-
dence for bullying as a potentially adaptive behavior prior to
turning our attention to dating and sexual behavior. We then
present two studies that explore the potentially adaptive link
between bullying perpetration (i.e., bullying) adolescent dating
and sexual behavior.
Bullying as an Adaptive Behavior
A behavioral genetics study calculated that 61%of the varia-
bility in bullying perpetration was due to genetic rather than
environmental factors (Ball et al., 2008). Bullying is also
significantly correlated with behavior traits known to have a
significant genetic component, such as personality and tem-
perament (Book, Volk, & Hosker, 2012; Farrell, Della
1
Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines,
Canada
2
Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada
3
Faculty of Education and School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Canada
Corresponding Author:
Anthony A. Volk, Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, St
Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.
Email: tvolk@brocku.ca
Evolutionary Psychology
2015: 1–11
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1474704915613909
evp.sagepub.com
Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Cioppa, Volk, & Book, 2014; Lewis & Bates, 2014; Marini,
Dane, & Kennedy, 2010; Saudino & Micalizzi, 2015). These
data do not suggest that an adaptive behavior (such as bully-
ing) is purely genetically determined or that the most impor-
tant factor in predicting bullying is genetics (Tooby &
Cosmides, 1990). Rather, these data offer support the idea
that there exist sufficient genetic linkages and individual var-
iation to have allowed for naturaland/orsexualselectionto
evolve facultative mental predispositions that, in combination
with the right environmental cues, can result in behavior such
as bullying (Ellis et al., 2012). That is, the presumably con-
ditional nature of bullying relies on the right confluence of
internal and external ecological factors (Hong & Espelage,
2012). We have predicted that bullying is associated with at
least three benefits, reputation, resources, and reproduction,
all of which are likely to be associated with passing on one’s
genes to future generations (Volk et al., 2014).
To begin with, bullies are perceived as being more popular
than adolescents who do not bully others (Caravita, Di Blasio,
& Salmivalli, 2010; de Bruyn, Cillessen, & Wissinck, 2010;
Estell, Farmer, & Cairns, 2007; Salmivalli, 2010; Vaillancourt,
Hymel, & McDougall, 2003; Veenstra, Lindenberg, Mun-
niksma, & Dijkstra, 2010). They are also ranked as being more
socially dominant (Vaillancourt et al., 2003). Moreover, a
recent longitudinal study found that, over time, high levels of
bullying were highly positively related to high social status as
indexed by perceived popularity (Reijntjes et al., 2013). This
study also demonstrated that bullies appeared to maintain mod-
est to high levels of likeability among their peers, in contrast
with previous literature (e.g., Salmivalli, 2010). Overall, effect
sizes in the above-cited literature for dominance-related mea-
sures range from medium to large, suggesting that bullying is a
potential path to gaining a powerful social reputation.
Although a dominant social reputation is the best studied
benefit of bullying, there are other benefits to bullying that
have been noted in the literature. Bullies can also gain access
to greater economic (e.g., Flanagan, 2007) or physical
resources (Turnbull, 1972). Under intense survival conditions,
bullying for food access can be a matter of life or death (e.g.,
Turnbull, 1972). When compared to adolescents not involved
with bullying, teens who bully others show as good or better
mental health (Volk et al., 2006), physical health (Juvonen,
Graham, & Schuster, 2003), and social skills (Garandeau, &
Cillessen, 2006), including leadership (Vaillancourt et al.,
2003). This in in stark contrast to victims of bullies and espe-
cially bully victims who show poorer mental and physical
health than adolescents not involved in bullying, particularly
once family and childhood risk factors have been taken into
account (Grandeau & Cillessen, 2006; Shakoor et al., 2012;
Wolke & Lereya, 2015).
Finally, as we have suggested, bullies may also benefit from
having more mating success (Volk et al., 2012, 2014). Given
that the selective regime used by evolution is whether a gene
increases or decreases in frequency, reproduction is a key evo-
lutionary variable (Dawkins, 1989). Thus, an important ques-
tion for determining whether bullying is an evolutionarily
adaptive is whether or not it is associated with increased mating
success. Prior to addressing this question, we briefly review the
literature on adolescent dating and sexual behavior.
Adolescent Dating and Sexual Behavior
Adolescence is a period of change that is greatly influenced by
the development of sexual characteristics and sexual behavior
(Baams, Dubas, Overbeek, & van Aken, 2015). It is not sur-
prising therefore that adolescence is generally the period when
most individuals begin to date and/or have sex. Dating is the
most common expression of adolescents’ newly developed
interest in romantic relationships, with the normative mean age
of onset for dyadic dating being approximately 13, and about
80%of adolescents reporting having had a date prior to grad-
uating high school (Connolly, Nguyen, Pepler, Craig, & Jiang,
2013; Zimmer-Gembeck, 2002). Across several studies, 13%to
35%of youth have had sexual intercourse by the end of eighth
grade (*13 years of age), and approximately 75%have had a
sexual experience prior to leaving high school (Alan Guttma-
cher Institute, 2002; Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008).
Furthermore, dating is likely to afford opportunities for sexual
behavior (Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfland, 2008). It is important
to note that there is a wide individual variability in sexual
behavior among adolescents in terms of both initial onset and
frequency (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 2004;
Zimmer-Gembeck, 2002).
In general, dating is a normative adolescent behavior that
has significant links to adolescent development and psycho-
social well-being (Collins, 2003). For many adolescents, dat-
ing is associated with positive outcomes for the individual and
their social standing (Kuttler & LaGreca, 2004). However,
there is also a potentially darker side to dating. It can be
associated with an increase in victimization and violence at
the hand of dating partners (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). It may
also expose individuals to increased aggression from other
adolescents who view the victim as a competitor (Leenaars,
Dane, & Marini, 2008; Vaillancourt, 2013). What’s more,
initial research has demonstrated that the early onset of dating
behavior can be associated with maladaptive psychosocial
outcomes (Zimmer-Gembeck, Siebenbruner, & Collins,
2001). However, more recent research reveals a more nuanced
picture, whereby the match between an individual’s goals and
behavior plays an important role in the strength and valence of
social outcomes (Kelly, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Boislard-P,
2012). Many adolescents express goal-oriented desires related
to dating and sexual satisfaction and report positive psycho-
social outcomes related to pursuing these goals (Kelly et al.,
2012). Interestingly, this same study found a positive link
between social status seeking and sexual (but not dating)
behavior (Kelly et al., 2012). As previously mentioned, status
and sex are two goals that are also believed to be outcomes
associated with bullying behavior (Volk et al., 2014). This
suggests that perhaps there may be common goals that link
some adolescents’ desire to bully others (i.e., gain status) and
their desire to have sex.
2Evolutionary Psychology

Bullying, Dating, and Sexual Behavior
Although the link between general aggression and dating/sex
has been relatively well explored (Archer, 2009; Basile, Espe-
lage, Rivers, McMahon, & Simon, 2009; Bjorklund & Hawley,
2014; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Lalumie`re & Quinsey, 1996;
Pellegrini, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2003; Wekerle & Wolfe,
1999; White, Gallup, & Gallup, 2010), few studies have exam-
ined the links between dating/sex and bullying specifically.
Bullying is a special case of aggression that is primarily differ-
entiated on the basis of power (Olweus, 1994; Vaillancourt
et al., 2010; Volk et al., 2014; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell,
2014). Specifically, individuals who bully are more powerful
than their victims, who in turn have difficulty defending them-
selves (Vaillancourt et al., 2003), whereas individuals who
employ general aggression are not necessarily more powerful
than those they attack (Hawley, Stump, & Ratliff, 2010). From
an evolutionary perspective, there are many potential reasons
why bullies should enjoy increased reproductive benefits. Bul-
lies generally elevated social and physical attributes may offer
a signal of good genes (Vaillancourt et al., 2003; Volk et al.,
2012). Furthermore, their social dominance and ability to con-
trol resources are also likely to be reasons why bullies appear
more attractive to partners than nonbullies as a signal that they
could provide for and protect their partner and potential off-
spring (Buss, 1988; Volk et al., 2012). In addition, the conflu-
ence of increased bullying (Volk et al., 2006) and dating
(Zimmer-Gembeck, 2002) during adolescence may help
explain why antibullying interventions often fail to work (or
are iatrogenic) among older adolescents. They fail because they
do not address the novel, sexually motivated goals of adoles-
cents that foster new forms and goals of competition that are
generally absent among younger children (Volk et al., 2014;
Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage, 2015).
In one of only a few studies to directly measure bullying and
dating, Connolly, Pepler, Craig, and Taradash (2000) found
that bullying (in both sexes) was associated with an earlier
entrance into puberty and dating at a younger age, more activity
with members of the opposite sex, greater dating opportunities,
and being more likely to be in a dating relationship. However,
Arnocky and Vaillancourt (2012) recently reported that while
peer-reported indirect aggression was associated with
increased reports of dating, self-reported bullying was not asso-
ciated with any increase in reported dating. Peer-reported bul-
lying was not examined in this study, although in most studies,
peer reports of physical and indirect aggression correlated with
peer reports of bullying at .50–.80 (e.g., Vaillancourt et al.,
2003). Nevertheless, results from Arnocky and Vaillancourt’s
study raises some doubt about the link between bullying and
reproductive success given that self-identified bullies did not
report higher dating levels.
To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no studies
that measure bullying in conjunction with reported sexual
behavior. Although dating is an important variable relating to
sexual behavior (Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfland, 2008), it rep-
resents an indirect proxy of evolutionary reproductive success.
Reports of sexual behavior may still be indirect as they do not
directly measure number of viable offspring, but they are likely
to be more strongly correlated with ultimate reproductive suc-
cess than dating variables (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
Current Study
Given the aforementioned limitations, we conducted two stud-
ies in which the relation between bullying behavior and both
dating and sexual behavior were examined in a sample of
younger adolescents and a sample of older adolescents. Con-
sistent with most of the previous literature on aggression, we
predicted that dating and sexual behavior would be signifi-
cantly related to bullying. We predicted that bullies would
report higher levels of dating and sexual activity. We were also
interested in the effects of bullying when compared to other
known correlates of dating and sexual behavior such as attrac-
tiveness (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmans, 1966) or
popularity (Hansen, 1977; Pellegrini & Long, 2003). Although
both are positively related to dating (Arnocky & Vaillancourt,
2012), we predicted that bullying would still independently
predict dating and bullying.
Given the lack of evidence for sex differences, as well as the
lack of sex differences in previous literature (Connolly, Pepler,
Craig, & Taradash, 2000), we used participants’ sex as a con-
trol variable without any specific a priori predictions.
Material and Method
Because the two studies generally relied upon similar meth-
odologies, we present them in a unified methods and results.
However, we believe that the underlying differences between
the samples are large enough for us to not combine the data into
a single analysis yet still small enough to make a single pre-
sentation more parsimonious.
Participants
Study 1. A total of 334 adolescents (174 boys and 160 girls)
between the ages of 11 and 18 (M¼13.6, SD ¼1.3) involved
in extracurricular athletic (e.g., hockey and gymnastics) or
youth clubs (e.g., church youth groups, pathfinders/guides)
from across Southern Ontario participated in the present study.
The sample was primarily Caucasian (Caucasian 86%;12%
Asian; and 2%Black) and reported as belonging to the
middle-class (63.8%middle class; 10.2%lower-class and
26%upper-class).
Study 2. A total of 143 first-year university students (39 men
and 104 women) from an Ontario university were recruited
under the condition that in the past year they had graduated
from high school (age M¼18.55, SD ¼1.21). The sample was
primarily Caucasian (Caucasian 75%;8%Asian; 6%Black;
and10%other) and middle-class (middle-class 58%;20%
lower class; and 22%upper class).
Volk et al. 3

Measures
Participants were asked to provide information on demo-
graphics, followed by questionnaires pertaining to social rela-
tionships in school and their primary organization or athletic
group (the latter were used for a study of athletes’ personal
relationships).
Bullying and victimization. Participants filled out a bullying ques-
tionnaire regarding their school-based bullying behavior
(adapted from Volk & Lagzdins, 2009). To measure victimiza-
tion and bullying, respectively, participants were asked to rate
their behavior associated with physical, verbal, social, cyber,
and sexual bullying. For example, participants were asked
‘‘How often have you been hit, kicked, or punched by someone
who was much stronger or more popular than you?’’ or ‘‘How
often have you hit, kicked, or punched someone who was much
weaker or less popular than you?’’ or ‘‘How often have you
made sexual jokes, comments, or gestures aimed at someone
much weaker or less popular last term?’’ Participants could
answer with one of the five frequencies: not at all, only a few
times this year, every month, every week, or many times a
week. The scales showed good reliability for bullying (a¼
.72) and victimization (a¼.75). These questions were phrased
in the past tense (‘‘Overall, how often did you hit, kick, or
punch ... ’’) for Study 2. The scales showed similar reliability
(bullying a¼.75 and victimization a¼.77).
Dating and sexual behavior
In both studies, participant dating behavior was assessed with
the same set of several questions. Participants were first asked
to rate how interested they were in dating on a Likert-type scale
of 1–3 corresponding to not very,somewhat,or very interested.
Participants then answered if they had started dating, and if so,
at what age, and with how many different partners. To measure
sexual behavior, participants were asked whether they had vol-
untary sexual activity of any kind since the age of 12 (see
Tolman & McClelland, 2011, for a review of adolescent sexual
behavior). If yes, they then answered at what age they first had
sex and how many sexual partners they had.
Self-reported likeability. In both studies, likeability was assessed
using an item from the Strengths and Difficulties Question-
naire (2001) that asked participants whether the following
statement was not true, somewhat true, or certainly true:
‘‘Other people my age like me.’’ Goodman’s factor analysis
(2001) suggested that the ‘‘likeability’’ item was less strongly
related to the other items in the general peer relations factor,
providing justification for our using it separately from other
peer items (that include confounding factors for our study
such as victimization).
Self-perceived attractiveness. In both studies, we measured self-
perceived physical attractiveness by asking participants how
physically attractive they felt on a scale of 1 (lowest)to10
(highest).
Procedure
Study 1. Local extracurricular organizations were contacted
through existing connections with the researchers and through
phone or e-mail solicitations. Adult extracurricular supervisors
were briefed and asked to provide written consent to approach
their adolescent participants. Researchers then visited partici-
pating clubs to brief participants about the study and its meth-
ods. To reduce participant bias, participants were told it was a
study of peer relationships. Participants were given two envel-
opes to bring home. The first envelope contained a parental
letter of information and consent. The second envelope con-
tained a participant letter of assent and the questionnaires,
which they completed in private, at a time of their choosing.
Both parental consent and participant assent were required.
Parents were asked to not discuss the study prior to its com-
pletion to avoid biasing their child’s answers and to ensure
confidentiality. Participants were protected from any personal
liability associated with their answers, and participation was
voluntary with no penalty for withdrawing.
At a predetermined date, the participants returned their
forms and received a verbal debriefing. After this debriefing,
participants were asked to complete a second assent form
because of the incomplete initial briefing. The participants then
received $15 for their participation.
Study 2. Participants were recruited through the use of posters
as well as the introductory psychology research participant
program. Participants were brought to the lab where they were
briefed, asked to give consent, and then fill out the various
materials. Upon completion, participants were debriefed and
given 1.0 credits (1%grade increase) for the participant pool or
$10. The methods of both studies were approved by a univer-
sity research ethics board.
Results
All analyses were conducted using SPSS 22’s bootstrap anal-
ysis option, each bootstrap being performed with 1,000 itera-
tions. To begin with, we examined the zero-order correlations.
Given the ordinal or nominal nature of most of the data, we
used Spearman’s correlations to determine the relations
between the variables (see Tables 1 and 2).
In both studies, victimization was modestly, positively cor-
related with bullying and number of dating partners. In Study 1,
victimization was negatively associated with age of first dating
and positively associated with having had sex. In Study 2,
victimization was positively correlated with number of sexual
partners and negatively correlated with self-perceived
likeability.
In both studies, bullying was significantly positively corre-
lated with having dated, number of dating partners, having had
sexual activity, and number of sexual partners. In Study 1, it
was positively associated with an interest in dating, and in
Study 2, it was positively associated with self-perceived attrac-
tiveness and negatively associated with age of first sexual
4Evolutionary Psychology

experience. The only significant sex differences among the
victimization and bullying correlations were that in Study 1,
the association between bullying and dating interests was stron-
ger for girls (r
s
¼.28) than for boys (r
s
¼.03; z¼2.59, p< .05),
and in Study 2, the association between bullying and number of
dating partners was stronger for women (r
s
¼.50) than for men
(r
s
¼.13; z¼1.69, p< .05).
There were different patterns of correlations among the
remaining variables between the two studies. Attractiveness
was positively related to having dated, number of dating part-
ners, and self-perceived likeability in Study 1, while in Study 2,
attractiveness was positively associated with bullying, number
of dating partners, having had sex, and number of sexual part-
ners, as well as being negatively correlated with age of first
dating. In Study 1, likeability was only correlated with attrac-
tiveness, whereas in Study 2, it was negatively correlated with
victimization and positively correlated with number of dating
partners and having had sex.
Table 1. Study 1 Spearman Correlations for Victimization, Bullying, and Dating/Mating Variables.
234567891011
1.36* .06 .10 .16* .15* .14* .15 .12 .11 .03
2— .17* .23* .14 .28* .21* .02 .24* .03 .03
3— .45* .06 .42* .23* .23 .26* .10 .00
4—.06 .75* .32* .04 .34* .15* .05
5—.62* .11 .45* .03 .02 .02
6— .31* .17 .42* .14* .02
7—.20 .79* .09 .06
8—.32* .11 .04
9—.12 .04
10 — .21*
Note. Overall victimization frequency:
1. Overall bullying frequency
2. Interest in dating
3. Have dated or not
4. Age of first dating
5. Number of dating partners
6. Have sexual experience or not
7. Age of first sexual experience
8. Number of sexual partners
9. Physical attractiveness
10. Likeability
*p< .05. Significant values are bolded.
Table 2. Study 2 Spearman Correlations for Victimization, Bullying, and Dating/Mating Variables.
234567891011
1.36* .09 .03 .08 .23* .11 .12 .18** .03 .14*
2—.06 .23* .10 .28** .27** .27** .23** .15* .05
3—.09 .04 .14* .05 .01 .03 .07 .05
4—.09 .43** .45** .02 .17* .11 .18*
5—.36** .09 .39** .20** .19** .05
6—.43** .08 .35** .21** .18*
7—.15 .51** .33** .23**
8—.37** .03 .05
9— .18** .06
10 —.04
Note. Overall victimization frequency:
1. Overall bullying frequency
2. Interest in dating
3. Have dated or not
4. Age of first dating
5. Number of dating partners
6. Have sexual experience or not
7. Age of first sexual experience
8. Number of sexual partners
9. Physical attractiveness
10. Likeability
*p< .05. **p< .01. Significant values are bolded.
Volk et al. 5

Our second analysis focused on exploring the relation
between a dimensional measure of bullying and victimization
and having dated (dating experience) or having had sexual
activity (sexual experience) while controlling for the potential
influence of participants’ sex, age, attractiveness, and like-
ability. For each of the two studies, we conducted two sepa-
rate logistic regressions for having dated and for having had
sexual activity. In the first step, we included age and sex, with
bullying perpetration and peer victimization in Step 2, and
attractiveness in Step 3. We present our results without like-
ability as the final step because likeability was not a signifi-
cant multivariate predictor of dating or sexual behavior and its
inclusion did not alter any of the patterns of our results. With
that in mind, Table 3 shows that in Study 1, being younger,
male, and attractive were related to having dated in the final
model, while in Study 2, bullying was the only significant
predictor in the second step of the model (the model was no
longer significant once attractiveness was added).
Table 3 also shows that bullying was predictive of number
of dating partners. In Study 1, it was only significant in the
second step of the model (adding attractiveness lowered the
significance of the model), whereas in Study 2, in the final step
of the model, it was significant alongside attractiveness. In both
studies, being older was a significant predictor of having had a
sexual experience.
Our third analysis focused on exploring the relation between
measures of bullying and victimization and number of dating or
sexual partners while controlling for the potential influence of
sex, age, and attractiveness (as again, likeability was not a
significant multivariate factor in any of the analyses). This
allowed us to test whether bullying predicted a quantitative
relation with dating and sex as compared to the qualitative
difference of having had dated/sexual experience or not. The
hierarchical linear regression for Study 1 revealed that being
male and being a victim were positive multivariate predictors
of number of dating partners, with the final model explaining
14%of the variance. Interestingly, despite being a larger uni-
variate predictor, bullying was not a significant multivariate
predictor of number of dating partners. We ran a follow-up
regression adding a fourth step testing for a Bullying Victim
interaction, but no significant effect was found (we repeated
this in all the other regressions with similar null results). In
Study 2, being male, a bully, a victim, or attractive were all
positive predictors of number of dating partners (combining to
explain roughly 30%of the variance in the model). The data for
number of sexual partners were more congruent between the
two studies, with both final models revealing bullying to be a
positive predictor of number of sexual partners (age was also a
positive predictor in Study 1). The overall effect sizes were
modest in both Studies 1 (19%of the variance) and 2 (10%)
of the variance.
Discussion
We predicted that as an evolutionarily adaptive behavior, bul-
lying would be positively associated with dating and sexual
behavior. Our results offer mixed support for our hypothesized
positive link between bullying and dating behavior but more
clearly supported our hypothesized positive link between bul-
lying and sexual behavior.
Bullying and Dating Behavior
There were several significant univariate relations between
bullying and dating, suggesting that bullying is related to an
increased interest in dating (Study 1), an increased likelihood
of having dated, and a greater number of dating partners.
Although dating is a more distal indicator of reproductive suc-
cess than sexual behavior, our univariate data nonetheless offer
some supporting evidence regarding the potential role of bully-
ing from an adaptive context. Our multivariate data are more
mixed, as bullying was a significant predictor of having dated
and number of dating partners in Study 2, but not Study 1.
We are therefore somewhat cautious regarding the data on
dating and bullying, as the data are not entirely consistent
across studies, particularly at the multivariate level. There were
some interesting differences between the two studies that may
lend some context to our results. The links we observed
between age and dating/sexual activity in Study 1 were not
surprising given that only a minority of our sample had actually
engaged in dating (46%), a prevalence rate that is consistent
with previous developmental research on adolescent dating
(Connolly et al., 2013). Therefore, the young age of the parti-
cipants in Study 1 made a positive correlation between age and
sexualactivityverylikelyandthe strength of this relation
likely accounted for most of the variance in the multivariate
analyses. In contrast, the majority of participants in Study 2 had
begun dating (82%), making age a less salient variable for this
sample. Age may also have played a role in the link between
victimization and number of dating partners as research has
shown that early dating is in fact a risk factor for psychosocial
well-being (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2001). It may be that
during early adolescence, when dating is less normative, dating
multiple partners triggers retaliatory same-sex aggression from
peers who view the high dating individual as a sexual compe-
titor worth targeting (Leenaars et al., 2008; Vaillancourt,
2013). In their experimental study of undergraduate women,
Vaillancourt and Sharma (2011) found strong support for
women’s intolerance of female peers who were perceived to
be sexually available. Another possibility is that individuals
who have numerous dating partners at a young age are placing
themselves in low-quality relationships that open themselves
up to victimization from their partner and/or hinder their own
psychological development to a point where they become tar-
gets for their peers (Connolly et al., 2000; Wekerle & Wolfe,
1999). These views promotes a hypothesis of increased dating
as the cause of victimization that is in contrast to, but can
coexist with, a hypothesis that bullying causes increased dat-
ing. The difference between these two outcomes may rest on
individual factors such as social dominance. For example, a
dominant bully may be able to safely date frequently without
being harassed while a subordinate peer might be victimized
6Evolutionary Psychology

for their attempts to date frequently. However, given the incon-
sistency of the findings across the studies, we are cautious in
further interpretations of these data.
Attractiveness and likeability were more prominent predic-
tors of dating and sexual behavior in Study 2, perhaps because
of the importance of age as a predictor in our younger sample.
Likeability was a significant univariate predictor in Study 2
only, and it was a significant multivariate predictor in neither.
This suggests that likeability’s associative variance is
accounted for by other factors. The results for attractiveness
suggest that it predicts having dated at a young age, but when
dating may be more normative (i.e., at older ages in Study 2), it
instead predicts number of dating partners. Being male was
sometimes related to dating, as it significantly predicted having
starteddatinginStudy1(butnotStudy2)andnumberof
partners in Study 2 (but not Study 1).
Thus, with regard to dating, our results somewhat agree with
past theoretical predictions (Volk et al., 2012), as well as with
the data from Connolly et al. (2000), historical data (Volk et al.,
2012), and accounts of general aggression and dating (Pelle-
grini & Long, 2003). Interestingly, our data also partly agree
with the data reported by Arnocky and Vaillancourt (2012) who
reported no link between self-reported bullying and whether
one was currently dating or not. Our data suggest, at least at
the multivariate level, bullying may be a relatively good pre-
dictor in some samples (older) but not others (younger). We
believe this may be explained, in part, by the increased expe-
rience with dating in our older sample, as well as the somewhat
variable potential definitions of dating. For example, dating
could be interpreted to mean holding hands between classes,
or going for coffee, or other similarly low-intensity behavior.
Conversely, it could also mean living together, being in a long-
term relationship, or being engaged to marry. The range of
potential interpretations of dating, combined with our mixed
findings and the mixed findings in the literature, suggest that
researchers need to be careful in explicitly measuring specific
interpretations of dating and that age (as a proxy for experience
with dating) needs to be considered. If our younger participants
in Study 1 interpreted dating differently than our older partici-
pants in Study 2, or differently than did the participants in
Connolly et al. (2000) or Arnocky and Vaillancourt (2012),
this could account for the variability in the published data on
bullying and dating, as might varying interpretations of bully-
ing and its effects (e.g., physical vs social bullying).
Bullying and Sexual Behavior
Across both studies, the univariate data revealed numerous
correlations between bullying and sexual behavior. In both sets
of logistic regressions, bullying was a statistically significant
predictor of sexual behavior. The effect sizes suggest that bul-
lying is a modest predictor of sexual behavior at the univariate
level in both younger and older adolescents. Our data suggest
that bullying is associated with a 1.5–2x greater likelihood of
having had sexual intercourse (see Table 3). Bullying was also
a small but statistically significant predictor of the number of
sexual partners in both linear regressions (see Table 4). These
findings, in two separate samples, offer converging support for
our prediction that bullying would be related to sexual oppor-
tunities, independent of age, sex, self-reported attractiveness,
victimization, and likeability. They suggest that the act of bul-
lying itself, or some intrinsic character of bullies beyond those
mentioned above, predispose and/or facilitate bullies’ access to
sexual opportunities. In particular, it is noteworthy that victi-
mization had few univariate links with sexual behavior and was
not a multivariate predictor in any of our regressions.
The link we observed between age and sexual activity in the
logistic regression for Study 1 was not surprising, given the
similar age-experience trends as was witnessed by our dating
data. In Study 1, only 15%of the sample had experienced
Table 3. Study 1 and Study 2 Hierarchical Logistical Regressions Between Having Dated (N¼301; 141) or Being Sexual Experienced (N¼292;
141) and Bullying, Victimization, and Attractiveness.
Dated or Not Sexual Experience or Not
Predictor Model Chi-Square Odds Ratio Model Chi-Square Odds Ratio
Step 1 45.46**; 4.86* 57.73**;2.56
Age 1.62**; 1.96*2.94**;.93
Sex .37**;.72 .75; .47
Step 2 16.10**;7.17* 8.38*; 9.56**
Age 1.62**;1.88 2.90**;.86
Sex .35**;.94 .73; .52
Bullying 1.33*;1.93* 1.27*; 1.77**
Victimization 1.11; .95 1.08; 1.06
Step 3 6.28*; 1.49 3.00; 9.18**
Age 1.68**;1.91 3.04**;.90
Sex .40**;1.10 .81; .63
Bullying 1.32*;1.85* 1.25*; 1.59*
Victimization 1.12; .94 1.12; 1.10
Attractiveness 1.21*;1.22 1.22; 1.61**
*p< .05. **p< .01. Significant values are bolded and Study 2 values are italicized.
Volk et al. 7

sexual activity, while 74%of the participants in Study 2 had at
least one sexual experience. The absence of age as a significant
predictor in Study 2 suggests that the only stable predictor of
sexual behavior in our two studies was bullying. There were
patterns related to age and attractiveness, but they did not hold
constant across both studies and/or regressions. This lends
fairly reliable support to the unique importance of bullying as
a positive predictor of sexual behavior and for the hypothesis
that bullying may be (at least in part) a behavior designed to
meet evolutionarily adaptive goals. In light of previous
research illustrating a common link between motives for status
seeking and sexual behavior (Kelly et al., 2012), bullying beha-
vior may be a means to achieve both of these goals. Given that
adolescence is a period in which dating and sexual behavior
emerge, bullying and victimization peak in frequency, and
social status has a heightened importance, adolescence may
be a critical developmental context for studying and under-
standing bullying and victimization.
Limitations
Although we view our results as making an important contri-
bution to the bullying and evolutionary literature, there are
several potential limitations to our study. One limitation
of this study is that self-report data were used, particularly
for bullying, which can be difficult to adequately define
(e.g., Vaillancourt et al., 2008). However, previous studies
have shown that self-report adolescent data on bullying
can be valid (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000) as can self-report
adolescent data on sexual activity (Brener, Billy, & Grady,
2003) and likeability (Lease, Musgrove, & Axelrod, 2002).
Furthermore, the bullying measure used in this study has
demonstrated good construct validity (Book et al., 2012).
Thus, while we cannot eliminate the possibility that our
results are due to biased self-reports,wedohaveasignificant
degree of confidence in their external validity. One exception
may be for attractiveness, as self-reports of attractiveness are
somewhat less reliable, particularly for males (Kos´cin´ski,
2011). Certainly there are numerous instances of construct
validity among the variables in our two studies that supports
the more general validity of our self-report measures (see
Tables 1 and 2), with the possible exception of our dating
measures (as noted earlier). In particular, the fact that sexual
behavior remained correlated across the two samples, despite
wide differences in age and sexual experience, lends confi-
dence to our findings.
Along with our good construct validity, and in accordance
with suggestions by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsak-
off (2003), our use of different response formats for different
questionnaires, counterbalancing questionnaire orders, and
protecting participant confidentiality reduce the likelihood of
shared-method variation problems. Thus, while we cannot
completely eliminate the possibilities of bias, social desirabil-
ity, or common method variance due to the cross-sectional,
self-report nature of the data (Lindell & Whitney, 2001), we
are reasonably confident in the reliability and validity of our
methods and measures.
A further limitation is that we did not assess the quality of
the dating or sexual experiences. Thus we are unable to deter-
mine whether the more frequent dating and/or sexual opportu-
nities result in an overall increase in fitness either through
productive procreation or choosing quality mating partners.
We also lack data on how individual pubertal status relates to
our results.
Table 4. Study 1 and Study 2 Hierarchical Linear Regressions for Number of Dating Partners (N¼220; 133) or Sexual Partners (N¼174; 129)
and Bullying, Victimization, and Attractiveness.
Number of Dating Partners Number of Sexual Partners
Predictor Study 1; Study 2 b* Study 1; Study 2 b*
Step 1 ANOVA 8.21**; 3.76* 14.20**;.18
Dr
2
.07*; .06* .14**; .00
Age .13; .08 .36**;.00
Sex .21**; .21*.03; .15
Step 2 ANOVA 7.93**; 10.53** 8.73**; 2.67*
Dr
2
.06*; .19** .03*; .08**
Age .11; .08 .33**;.01
Sex .23**; .20* .02; .05
Bullying .11; .24** .19*; .26**
Victimization .17*;.27** n/a; .04
Step 3 ANOVA 6.68**; 10.21** 7.78**; 2.60*
Dr
2
.01; .04** .02; .02
Age .11; .10 .33**;.01
Sex *.22**;.17* .08; .00
Bullying .11; .21* .17*; .25*
Victimization .19*;.27** .02; .03
Attractiveness .08; .20** .14; .13
Total r
2
.03; .29** .19**; .10*
*p< .05. **p< .01. Significant values are bolded. Study 2 values are italicized.
8Evolutionary Psychology

Conclusion
Bullying is an important social phenomenon that is estimated to
affect hundreds of millions of adolescents worldwide.
Researchers have recently proposed that bullying is in fact
associated with, at least in part, evolutionary mental adapta-
tions (Ellis et al., 2012; Volk et al., 2012, 2014). A critical
prediction of that hypothesis is that bullying should be posi-
tively associated with reproductive opportunities and success.
We present data illustrating that bullying, but not victimization,
is associated with increased sexual behavior in young adoles-
cents. The effects of bullying on sexual behavior appear to be
generally independent of individual perceptions of attractive-
ness, likeability, age, and sex. We found several univariate and
multivariate links between bullying and dating as well (espe-
cially among an older, more experienced sample), but the over-
all picture for our dating data is less clear (as it is in the general
literature’s data).
Taken together, results from the present study offer mixed,
but generally positive, support for our hypothesis that bullying
is an evolutionarily adaptive behavior. The links between bul-
lying and dating/sexual outcomes are (for the most part) not
simply a function of common variance with attractiveness and
age or sex, although those variables do play a role in dating and
sexual behavior. We appreciate that neither dating nor general
sexual behavior are direct indicators of increased genetic fit-
ness. But we argue that it is reasonable to assume that they are
at least correlated with ancestral, if not actual, genetic fitness
(Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). This is particularly true for
sexual behavior, which also had the clearer link to bullying.
Although our data provide support to an evolutionary
hypothesis of bullying, much work remains to be done to
fully explore the relation between bullying and dating and/
or mating behavior. Measures of quality, duration, and part-
ner characteristics need to be collected, as do data regarding
the potential costs and drawbacks that may moderate the link
between bullying and dating or mating. These data should
ideally be measured longitudinally. Bullying research may
benefit from adding sexual behavior as both a cause and
outcome of bullying, victimization, and social status. Unra-
velling the developmental and causal relations between these
three factors may be of significant aid in understanding, and
ultimately preventing, bullying.
In the meantime, bullying research and interventions should
be increasingly cognizant of the fact that bullying may indeed
be, at least in part, due to evolved mental adaptations that
predispose some individuals to harm others to obtain personal
goals (e.g., Garandeau, Lee, & Salmivalli, 2014). These goals
maygobeyondsocialdominanceandextendspecifically
toward obtaining sexual partners. Sexual goals have largely
been ignored in the bullying intervention literature (see Volk
et al., 2012 for a review). This makes their inclusion a priority
for interventions that attempt to alter the costs and/or benefits
of bullying (e.g., KiVa, Garandeau et al., 2014). If bullying
does indeed lead to an increase in sexual opportunities, it will
no doubt be difficult to shift the behavioral patterns of
adolescents who enjoy such an outcome. Nevertheless, there
may be more prosocial ways of obtaining sexual opportunities
that are as successful, if not more so, than the antisocial meth-
ods of bullying. For both short- and long-term partners, both
sexes report honesty and kindness as being highly desirable
attributes in a partner (Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000),
while Hawley (2003) reported that prosocial strategies are
more popular than mixed prosocial/aggressive strategies. It
may be that by teaching adolescents more profitable prosocial
strategies, we can shift their behavior without altering their
goals (Ellis et al., 2012).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council (833-2004-1019) and
Community-University Research Alliances (CURA) Program.
References
Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2002). Sexual and reproductive health:
Women and men. New York, NY: AGI.
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differ-
ences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,32, 249–311.
Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). A multi-informant longitudi-
nal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimiza-
tion, and dating status in adolescence. Evolutionary Psychology,
10, 253–270.
Baams, L., Dubas, J. S., Overbeek, G., & van Aken, M. A. (2015).
Transitions in body and behavior: A meta-analytic study on the
relationship between pubertal development and adolescent sexual
behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health,56, 586–598. doi:10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2014.11.019
Ball, H. A., Arsenault, L., Taylor, A., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., &
Moffitt, T. E. (2008). Genetic influences on victims, bullies, and
bully-victims in childhood. The Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry,49, 104–112.
Basile, K. C., Espelage, D. L., Rivers, I., McMahon, P. M., & Simon,
T. R. (2009). The theoretical and empirical links between bullying
behavior and sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent
Behavior,14, 336–347.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Hawley, P. H. (2014). Aggression grows up:
Looking through an evolutionary developmental lens to understand
the causes and consequences of human aggression. In T. Shack-
elford & R. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of violence (pp.
159–186). New York, NY: Springer.
Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying
and personality: An adaptive approach. Personality and Individual
Differences,52, 218–223.
Brener, N. D., Billy, J. O., & Grady, W. R. (2003). Assessment of
factors affecting the validity of self-reported health-risk behavior
among adolescents: Evidence from the scientific literature. Journal
of Adolescent Health,33, 436–457.
Volk et al. 9

Briggs, J. L. (1970). Never in anger. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition:
Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,54, 616–628.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in
evolutionary psychological perspective. Clinical Psychology
Review,17, 605–619.
Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). Early ado-
lescents’ participation in bullying: Is ToM involved? Journal of
Early Adolescence,30, 138–170.
Chagnon, N. A. (1983). Yanomamo
¨: The fierce people. Toronto,
Canada: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental signifi-
cance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of
Research on Adolescence,13, 1–24.
Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (2004). Mixed-
gender groups, dating, and romantic relationships in early adoles-
cence. Journal of Research on Adolescence,14, 185–207.
Connolly, J., Nguyen, H. N. T., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Jiang, D.
(2013). Developmental trajectories of romantic stages and associa-
tions with problem behaviours during adolescence. Journal of Ado-
lescence,36, 1013–1024.
Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Taradash, A. (2000). Dating
experiences of bullies in early adolescence. Child Maltreatment,
5,299–310.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland,
J., Simons-Morton, B. ...Pickett, W. (2009). A cross-national pro-
file of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 coun-
tries. International Journal of Public Health,54, 216–224.
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
de Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A. H., & Wissinck, I. B. (2010). Associa-
tions of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying
and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence,30, 543–566.
Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A. J., Gray, P.,
Griskevicius, V. ...Wilson, D. S. (2012). The evolutionary basis
of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and
practice. Developmental Psychology,48, 598–623.
Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2007). Bullies and
victims in rural African American youth: Behavioral characteris-
tics and social network placement. Aggressive Behavior,33,
145–159.
Farrell, A. H., Della Cioppa, V., Volk, A. A., & Book, A. S. (2014).
Predicting bullying heterogeneity with the HEXACO Model of
personality. International Journal of Advances in Psychology,2,
30–39.
Flanagan, R. (2007). Lucifer goes to law school: Towards explaining
and minimizing law student peer-to-peer harassment and intimida-
tion. Washburn Law Journal,47, 453–469.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human
mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences,23, 573–587.
Garandeau, C. F., & Cillessen, A. H. (2006). From indirect aggression
to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on bullying and peer
group manipulation. Aggression and Violent Behavior,11,
641–654.
Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Differential
effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on popular and unpop-
ular bullies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,35,
44–50.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and
difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,40, 1337–1345.
Hansen, S. L. (1977). Dating choices of high school students. Family
Coordinator,26, 133–138.
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.
Hawley, P. H., Stump, K. N., & Ratliff, J. M. (2010). Sidestepping the
jingle fallacy: Bullying, aggression, and the importance of knowing
the difference. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in Amer-
ican schools (2nd ed, pp. 101–115). New York, NY: Rutledge Press.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bully-
ing and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analy-
sis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,17, 311–322.
Hsiung, P. C. (2005) A Tender Voyage: Children and childhood in late
Imperial China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among
young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pedia-
trics,112, 1231–1237.
Kelly, M., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Boislard-P, M. A. (2012).
Identity, intimacy, status and sex dating goals as correlates of
goal-consistent behavior and satisfaction in Australian youth. Jour-
nal of Adolescence,35, 1441–1454.
Kolbert, J. B., & Crothers, L. (2003). Bullying and evolutionary
psychology: The dominance hierarchy among students and
implications for school personnel. Journal of School Violence,
2,73–91.
Kos´cin´ ski, K. (2011). How do pairs matched in physical attractiveness
form if people are unaware of their own attractiveness?. Anthro-
pological review,74, 69–85.
Kuttler, A. F., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Linkages among adolescent
girls’ romantic relationships, best friendships, and peer networks.
Journal of Adolescence,27, 395–414.
Lalumie`re, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1996). Sexual deviance, antiso-
ciality, mating effort, and the use of sexually coercive behaviors.
Personality and Individual Differences,21, 33–48.
Lease, A. M., Musgrove, K. T., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of
social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likability, perceived
popularity, and social dominance. Social Development,11, 508–533.
Leenaars, L. S., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2008). Evolutionary
perspective on indirect victimization in adolescence: The role of
attractiveness, dating and sexual behavior. Aggressive Behavior,
34, 404–415.
Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. (2014). How genes influence personality:
Evidence from multi-facet twin analyses of the HEXACO dimen-
sions. Journal of Research in Personality,51, 9–17.
Lindell, M. K., & Whtiney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common
method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of
Applied Psychology,86, 114–121.
10 Evolutionary Psychology

Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., & Kennedy, R. E. (2010). Multiple path-
ways to bullying: Tailoring educational practices to variations in
students’ temperament and brain function. In M. Ferrari & L.
Vuletic (Eds.), Developmental relations among mind, brain and
education (pp. 257–291). Netherlands: Springer.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a
school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry,35, 1171–1190.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). A longitudinal study of heterosexual relation-
ships, aggression, and sexual harassment during the transition from
primary school through middle school. Journal of Applied Devel-
opmental Psychology,22, 119–133.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). An empirical comparison of
methods of sample aggression and victimization in school settings.
Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 360–366.
Pellegrini,A.D.,&Long,J.D.(2003).Asexualselectiontheory
longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in
early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
85, 257–278.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology,88, 879–903.
Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens,F. A., van de Schoot,
R., Aleva, L., & van der Meulen, M. (2013). Costs and benefits of
bullying in the context of the peer group: A three wave longitudinal
analysis. Journal of abnormal child psychology,41,1–13.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior,15, 112–120.
Saudino, K. J., & Micalizzi, L. (2015). Emerging trends in behavioral
genetic studies of child temperament. Child Development Perspec-
tives,9, 144–148. doi:10.1111/cdep.12123
Shakoor, S., Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Andreou, P.,
Happ´e, F., ...Arseneault, L. (2012). A prospective longitudinal
study of children’s theory of mind and adolescent involvement in
bullying. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,53,
254–261.
Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in
desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship
partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,17,
843–853.
Tolman, D. L., & McClelland, S. I. (2011). Normative sexuality devel-
opment in adolescence: A decade in review, 2000–2009. Journal of
Research on Adolescence,21, 242–255.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature
and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and
adaptation. Journal of Personality,58, 17–67.
Turnbull, C. M. (1972). The mountain people. New York, NY:
Touchstone.
Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as
an intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B,368, 20130080.
Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P.,
Hymel, S., ...Cunningham, L. (2010). Places to avoid: Population-
based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at
school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,25,40–54.
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is
power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies.
Journal of Applied School Psychology,19, 157–176.
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A., Hymel, S., Miller, J.,
Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and chil-
dren/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of
Behavioral Development,32, 486–495.
Vaillancourt, T., & Sharma, A. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers:
Intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behavior,37,
569–577.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010).
The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance,
and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex
differences. Child Development,81, 480–486.
Volk, A., Camilleri, J., Dane, A., & Marini, Z. (2012). Is adolescent
bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior,38,
222–238.
Volk, A., Craig, W., Boyce, W., & King, M. (2006). Adolescent risk
correlates of bullying and different types of victimization. Inter-
national Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health,18, 375–386.
Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A
theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review,34, 327–343.
Volk, A. A., & Lagzdins, L. (2009). Bullying and victimization among
adolescent girl athletes. Athletic Insight,11, 12–25.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966).
Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,4, 508.
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-
adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initia-
tives. Clinical Psychology Review,19, 435–456.
White, D. D., Gallup, A. C., & Gallup, G. G. (2010). Indirect peer
aggression in adolescence and reproductive behavior. Evolutionary
Psychology,8, 49–56.
Wolke, D., & Lereya, S. T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying.
Archives of Disease in Childhood,100, 879–885. doi:10.1136/
archdischild-2014-306667
Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). Differentiat-
ing youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression:
The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of
Adolescent Health,55, 293–300.
Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. L. (2015).
Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programmes among older
adolescents: A developmental theory and a three level meta-anal-
ysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2002). The development of romantic rela-
tionships and adaptations in the system of peer relationships. Jour-
nal of Adolescent Health,31(6), 216–225.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Helfland, M. (2008). Ten years of long-
itudinal research on U.S.adolescent sexual behavior: Developmental
correlates of sexual intercourse, and the importance of age, gender
and ethnic background. Developmental Review,28, 153–224.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2001).
Diverse aspects of dating: Associations with psychosocial func-
tioning from early to middle adolescence. Journal of Adolescence,
24, 313–336.
Volk et al. 11