The Erroneous Notion of the Intent to Harm in Bullying

By Ari Magnusson

Many definitions of bullying, such as the one found on stopbullying[dot]gov, state that those who bully others intend to cause harm. The idea is that the kids who are using physical intimidation, verbal aggression such as mocking and insults, and relational aggression to leave someone socially isolated are trying to inflict emotional damage on the target.

This notion, which has its roots in the bullying research of Dan Olweus and dates back to the 1960s, is wrong, and reflects a simplistic perspective on student aggression that fails to grasp its true purpose. The true purpose of aggression is not to cause harm but rather to provide the aggressor—the one using the bullying behavior—with a benefit in social status: to be more popular, to be better liked, to get respect, and to feel more included in the peer group. This goes for physical, verbal, and social/relational bullying, whether delivered in person or via social media (cyberbullying). The use of aggression to achieve social status applies to those aggressors who are also targets, sometimes referred to as “bully-victims” (a set of labels that must be avoided); these students are using aggression against others to compensate for lost status as a result of being bullied themselves.

The false notion of the intent to harm is frequently depicted in the “bullying circle” illustration created by Dan Olweus (Google it if you are unfamiliar with it). In this illustration, the aggressor and supporters, depicted with mean faces, surround the target, depicted as sad and forlorn. The illustration is intended to show that the kids surrounding the target are intentionally causing harm by directing a one-way stream of hate and invective against the target. But this interpretation of the social interaction in the circle is wrong. The primary social interaction among the students in the illustration is not between the kids in the circle and the target in the center but rather among the kids who make up the circle itself. Who the target is and what the target is feeling are actually irrelevant.

Modern research has confirmed that almost all bullying behaviors occur in front of peers. In other words, aggression is only used when there is an audience to witness it (the kids who make up the circle). The aggressor uses a target in front of an audience of peers to appear intimidating (to gain respect), to appear clever and funny, or in the case of relational bullying, to socially isolate a person perceived to be a social threat. How the target feels is not important to the aggressor. What is important to the aggressor is whether the aggression provides a personal social benefit. The audience of peers is necessary because peers are the ones who confer social status. And when peers reward an aggressor, the aggression is going to be repeated.

The social interactions of the other kids in the circle—the kids who either directly join in with the aggressor or show support and approval for the aggressor—also have nothing to do with trying to harm the target. The kids who join in or show support are also trying to gain social status by aligning themselves with the aggressor. In bullying, the aggressor is almost always more popular than the target. Kids want to publicly demonstrate to peers that they stand on the side of the person with higher status person, not with the person with the lower status. This also explains why kids do not intervene when they witness bullying. Intervention would mean taking the side of a less popular student against a more popular student. The bottom line is that the actions of the kids in the circle have nothing to do with how the target is feeling and everything to do with personal gain.

It’s also important to point out that, statistically speaking, for every instance of aggression that results in harm to a target there are dozens of instances of that same aggression that do not result in any harm. Aggression is a constant in peer groups and is usually harmless. The bullying circle illustration suggests that the aggression happens in isolation. This is not true; the kids that make up the circle itself also direct aggression against others in the peer group who are not shown in the picture because they are not suffering harm. And more to the point, the kids in the circle also face aggression by peers who are not shown. And that poor target in the center of the circle? He or she also directs aggression against others when the opportunity to benefit socially presents itself. So instead of the bullying circle, visualize a sea of kids, all trying to be more popular by directing aggression at one another, most of which does no harm.

This false notion of the intent to harm, and the inclusion of this idea in widely referenced definitions, has damaging policy implications. Schools that rely on definitions that contain this incorrect notion may punish kids who are judged to be bullying because they are “intentionally harming others.” The aggressors, however, are not intending harm and deem the punishment an injustice. So do the aggressors’ parents, which sets up the all-too-common antagonistic interactions with administrators. And this feeling of injustice is what drives aggressors to retaliate against the targets and parents to push back against administrative action, which makes the original problems even worse.

The solution is for educators to recognize that status improvement, not harm, is the true intent of aggression. Research has shown that the number one priority of most students is to improve their social status, i.e., to be more popular among peers. Students will use aggression at any opportunity to achieve this goal. And when they find a low-status target who presents an opportunity to gain popularity through the use of aggression, they are going to take advantage of it, not to hurt the target, but for their own personal benefit. In order to effectively resolve bullying problems, educators must take action that aligns with the reality of the drivers of bullying.