儿童欺凌网络的结构特征与变化特点：基于社会网络分析视角

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2026.02.09

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 欺凌不仅仅是个体感知的一种行为,也是个体之间通过欺凌关系(bullying ties)与被欺凌关系(victimization ties)的复杂变化形成的动态过程。本研究采用动态社会网络分析方法,通过山东两所小学的两次追踪数据,考察儿童欺凌网络的静态和动态结构特征以及性别、年级差异。样本包括1680名三、四、五年级小学生的横断面数据,以及22个班级965名小学生的随访数据(男生占52.1%,在时间1的平均年龄为9.91岁)。结果发现:在静态结构上,半数左右的儿童存在欺凌关系或者被欺凌关系;男生的欺凌关系数显著高于女生,但两者的被欺凌关系数不存在显著差异;儿童的欺凌关系数和被欺凌关系数均随年级增长而减少;儿童班级欺凌网络稀疏、存在阶层性,但不存在性别隔离现象。欺凌网络的动态变化表现出互换效应、受欢迎效应和活动效应。本研究拓展了欺凌领域的研究视角,首次在中国文化背景下深刻而全面地刻画了儿童班级欺凌网络的结构特征和动态变化,为校园欺凌群体精准干预提供了启示。

关键词: 儿童欺凌网络, 静态特征, 动态变化, 纵向社会网络分析

Abstract: Bullying is not only a behavior perceived by individuals, but also a dynamic process that developed between individuals through complex changes in the ties between bullies and victims. In this study, the social network analysis method was used to investigate the static and dynamic structural characteristics, as well as gender and grade differences in children’s bullying network through two times follow-up datasets from two primary schools in Shandong province. The sample included cross-sectional data on 1680 primary school students in grades 3, 4, and 5, and follow-up data on 965 primary school students in 22 classes (52.1% boys, average 9.91 years old at T1). The results showed that in the static structure, about half of the children had bullying ties or victimization ties; The number of bullying ties of boys was significantly higher than that of girls, but there was no significant gender difference on victimization ties. The number of bullying ties and victimization ties decreased as the grade level increased. The children bullying network was sparse and hierarchical, but there was no gender segregation. The change in bullying networks exhibited the significant effects of “reciprocity”, “popularity” and “activity”. This study expands the research perspective in the field of bullying, and for the first time profoundly and comprehensively characterizes the structural characteristics and dynamic changes of children bullying networks in the context of Chinese culture, providing inspiration for the precise interventions targeting school bullying groups.

Key words: children bullying network, static characters, dynamic changes, longitudinal social network analysis

中图分类号:

B844

袁雯, 张旭然, 郭惠, 李燕芳. 儿童欺凌网络的结构特征与变化特点：基于社会网络分析视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(2): 234-244.

YUAN Wen, ZHANG Xuran, GUO Hui, LI Yanfang. Static and Dynamic Structural Characteristics of Children Bullying Networks: A Social Network Analysis Perspective[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(2): 234-244.

参考文献

Azagba, S., Mensah, N. A., Shan, L., & Latham, K. (2020). Bullying victimization and e-cigarette use among middle and high school students.The Journal of School Health, 90(7), 545-553.
Barlett, C. P., & Coyne, S. M. (2023). Learning to cyberbully: Longitudinal relations between cyberbullying attitudes and perpetration and the moderating influence of participant sex: A brief report. Aggressive Behavior, 49(5), 547-553.
Block, P. (2015). Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle.Social Networks, 40, 163-173.
Butts, C. T. (2007). Network: A package for managing relational data in R. Journal of Statal Software, 24(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v024.i02
Butts, C. T. (2019). Package 'sna’. Available online at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sna (Accessed November 29, 2022)
Fang, X., Liu, S., & Wang, M. (2023). Teacher-student relationships and peer victimization among Chinese children: The roles of peer status and gender. Psychology in the Schools, 60, 4159-4176.
Goldbach, J. T., Sterzing, P. R., & Stuart, M.J. (2017). Challenging conventions of bullying thresholds: Exploring differences between low and high levels of bully-only, victim-only, and bully-victim roles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(3), 586-600.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Goldweber, A., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining associations between race, urbanicity, and patterns of bullying involvement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(2), 206-219.
Huitsing, G., Snijders, T. A. B., van Duijn, M. A. J., & Veenstra, R. (2014). Victims, bullies, and their defenders: A longitudinal study of the coevolution of positive and negative networks. Development and Psychopathology, 26(3), 645-659.
Lazega, E., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1995). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.Revue Française de Sociologie, 36(4), 781. https://doi.org/10.2307/3322457
Levy, A. (2023). Bullying in academia: why it happens and how to stop it. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02172-w
Ma, T. L., Meter, D. J., Chen, W. T., & Lee, Y. (2019). Defending behavior of peer victimization in school and cyber context during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of individual and peer-relational characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 145(9), 891-928.
Mark, L., Värnik, A., & Sisask, M. (2019).Who suffers most from being involved in bullying: Bully, victim, or bully-victim? The Journal of School Health, 89(2), 136-144.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement of cyberbullying: Dimensional structure and relative item severity and discrimination.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 267-274.
O'Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2009). Examining developmental differences in the social-emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Psychology in Schools, 46, 100-115.
OECD.(2017). "How much of a problem is bullying at school?".PISA in Focus, No. 74, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vermande, M. M., Aleva, E. A., & van der Meulen, M. (2011). Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations with desired and acquired dominance in the peer group. Journal of School Psychology, 49(3), 339-359.
Quintana-Orts, C., Rey, L., Mérida-López, S.,& Extremera, N. (2023). Suicide risk assessment and depressive symptoms among Spanish adolescent bully-victims: Evidence for the importance of emotional intelligence and sex. Journal of Health Psychology, 28(1), 94-100.
Rambaran, J. A., Dijkstra, J. K., Munniksma, A., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2015). The development of adolescents’ friendships and antipathies: A longitudinal multivariate network test of balance theory.Social Networks, 43, 162-176.
Rambaran, J.A., Dijkstra, J. K., & Veenstra, R. (2020). Bullying as a group process in childhood: A longitudinal social network analysis.Child Development, 91(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13298
Rambaran, J. A., Pozzoli,T., & Gini, G. (2022). Socio-cognitive processes and peer-network influences in defending and bystanding. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(11), 2077-2091.
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vörös,A., & Preciado, P. (2015). Manual for SIENA version 4.0 (version May 22, 2015). Oxford: University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
Sangalang, C. C, Tran, A. G. T., Ayers, S. L., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2016). Bullying among urban Mexican-heritage youth: Exploring risk for substance use by status as a bully, victim, and bully-victim. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 216-221.
Shaw,T., Dooley, J. J., Cross, D., Zubrick, S. R., & Waters, S. (2013). The Forms of Bullying Scale (FBS): Validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying victimization and perpetration in adolescence. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1045-1057.
Solberg, M. E., Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (2007).Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 441-464.
Sterzing, P. R., Auslander, W. F., Ratliff, G. A., Gerke, D. R., Edmond, T., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2020). Exploring bullying perpetration and victimization among adolescent girls in the child welfare system: Bully-only, Victim-only, Bully-victim, and noninvolved Roles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5-6), 1311-1333.
Tippet, N., & Wolke, D. (2014). Socioeconomic status and bullying: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 104, e48-e59.
Unnever, J. D. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are they distinct groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31(2), 153-171.
van der Ploeg, R., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2020).The way bullying works: How new ties facilitate the mutual reinforcement of status and bullying in elementary schools. Social Networks, 60, 71-82.
van Rijsewijk, Snijders, T. A., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2020). The interplay between adolescents’ friendships and the exchange of help: A longitudinal multiplex social network study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 63-77.
Wang, L. F., Liang, L., Liu,Z., Yuan, K., Ju, J., & Bian, Y. (2021). The developmental process of peer support networks: The role of friendship. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 615148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.615148
Wang, H., Tang, J., Dill, S.-E., Xiao, J., Boswell, M., Cousineau, C., & Rozelle, S. (2022). Bullying Victims in Rural Primary Schools: Prevalence, Correlates, and Consequences.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020765
Wiertsema, M., Vrijen, C., van der Ploeg, R., Sentse, M., & Kretschmer, T. (2023).Bullying perpetration and social status in the peer group: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 95(1), 34-55.
Yang, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Different forms of bullying and victimization: Bully-victims versus bullies and victims. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 723-738.
Zhang, L. M., Ellis, R. J., Ma, M., Cheung, E. O., Hoyt, D. B., Bilimoria, K. Y., & Hu, Y. Y. (2020). Prevalence, types, and sources of bullying reported by US general surgery residents in 2019. JAMA, 323(20), 2093-2095.
Zych, I., Ttofi, M. M., Llorent, V. J., Farrington, D. P., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. P. (2020). A longitudinal study on stability and transitions among bullying roles. Child Development, 91(2), 527-545.
洪德帆, 徐逸杰, 胡茜, 张嘉瑛, 黄莹莹, 毛然, 蒋索. (2024). 青少年校园受欺凌与自杀意念的关系:基于潜调节的结构方程模型. 心理发展与教育. 14(5), 706-719.
纪林芹, 张蒙, 董美慧, 潘斌, 张文新. (2021). 童年晚期至青少年早期攻击和同伴侵害的关系:交叉滞后研究. 心理发展与教育. 37(5), 701-709.
刘军. (2004). 社会网络分析导论. 北京:社会科学文献出版社.
王美芳, 张文新. (2002). 中小学中欺负者、受欺负者与欺负-受欺负者的同伴关系. 心理发展与教育, 18(2), 1-5.
张厚粲, 徐建平. (2009). [QX(Y10]现代心理与教育统计学 (第3版).北京师范大学出版社.
张文新. (2002).中小学生欺负/受欺负的普遍性与基本特点.心理学报, 34(4), 387-394.
张文新, 武建芬, Kevin Jones. (1999). Olweus儿童欺负问卷中文版的修订. 心理发展与教育, 15(2), 7-11.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	金星, 刘景弘, 马跃, 于战宇. 聋童和正常儿童身体表情注意瞬脱的比较研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 305-312.
[2]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴. 语言范畴影响面部表情知觉的电生理学证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 313-322.
[3]	赵纤, 王志航, 王东方, 袁言云, 尹霞云, 黎志华. 贫困家庭儿童在青少年早期的亲社会行为发展轨迹:性别及父母教养方式异质性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 323-332.
[4]	郑显亮, 陈慧萍, 王雪, 鲍振宙. 青少年网络利他行为的发展趋势及社会阶层的影响:一项追踪研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 333-341.
[5]	杜秀芳, 武玉玺, 徐政, 袁晓倩, 陈功香. 金钱启动与道德认同对大学生道德伪善的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 342-349.
[6]	李越, 辛自强, 兰艺华. 亲关系动机对家庭消费决策及婚姻满意度的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 350-359.
[7]	李强强, 胡佳. 时间定价启动与主观社会阶层对亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 360-368.
[8]	张鹏程, 李喜, 韩午阳, 沈永江. 睡眠不足对中小学生负性情绪的影响:一个链式中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 402-409.
[9]	汪悦, 熊昱可, 任萍, 杨柳, 苗薇. 受欺负对初中生主动性和反应性攻击的影响:道德推脱和性别的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 410-418.
[10]	冯全升, 周宗奎, 孙晓军, 张艳红, 连帅磊. 负性生活事件与初中生内化问题:反刍思维的中介作用与同伴依恋的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 419-428.
[11]	李金文, 白荣, 王雨萌, 刘霞. 青少年抑郁与自伤行为的发展轨迹及其关系:基于两年的追踪研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 429-438.
[12]	高玲, 孟文慧, 刘介地, 杨继平, 王兴超. 父母低头行为与青少年网络欺负行为:自尊和基本共情的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 439-448.
[13]	彭海云, 盛靓, 王金睿, 周姿言, 辛素飞. 2001~2019年我国青少年孤独感的变迁:横断历史研究的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 449-456.
[14]	关文军, 胡梦娟, 刘晨. 自闭症儿童父母歧视知觉对群际关系的影响:一个有调节的中介作用模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 854-863.
[15]	王海旭, 刘明慧, 叶宇坤, 隋洁. “我的”最重要:儿童自我源判断能力的发展早于他人[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(6): 641-648.